Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment and Unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact Environmental Assessment (EA) Number: DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA
December 2019
Responsible Agency: United States Department of Interior- Bureau of Land Management Northwest Oregon District Office, Cascades Field Office Clackamas County, Oregon T. 02 S., R. 06 E., Section 23
Responsible Official For Further Information, contact: John Huston, Field Manager Dan Davis, Outdoor Recreation Planner Northwest Oregon District Office Northwest Oregon District Office Cascades Field Office 1717 Fabry Road SE 1717 Fabry Road SE Salem, OR 97306 Salem, OR 97306 (503) 315-5935
Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) For the Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan Environmental Assessment Introduction The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has conducted an environmental analysis for the Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), which analyzed varying alternatives to create camping opportunities within the Wildwood Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). The analysis includes a Proposed Action, two alternative actions, and the No Action Alternative (EA Section 2.1). Additionally, there are serval components of the proposed project that are common to all action alternatives. Approximately 2.2 to six acres of hardened surface disturbance would occur depending on the action alternative. The project is located on BLM-administered lands in Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Section 23, Willamette Meridian in Clackamas County, Oregon. The Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA) documents the environmental analysis of the proposed alternatives. The EA is incorporated by reference in this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determination. The EA and unsigned FONSI are available for public review and comment from December 2, 2019 to January 15, 2020. The analysis in this EA is site-specific and supplements and tiers to the analyses found in the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for Western Oregon, March 2016 (PRMP/FEIS). The proposed recreation management activities have been designed to conform to the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, August 2016 (ROD/RMP) and related documents, which direct and provide the legal framework for management of BLM lands within the Northwest Oregon District (EA Section 1.5). Finding of No Significant Impact The FONSI is defined in 40 CFR 1508.13 as a document briefly presenting the reasons why an action would not have a significant effect on the human environment which includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. If the agency “finds” that the action has “no significant impact”, the agency is not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The 40 CFR 1508.27 regulations defines the factors to consider in determining whether a project is anticipated to “significantly” impact the human environment. The following FONSI documents the BLM’s evaluation of the potential impacts of the Wildwood RAMP. Based upon review of the Wildwood RAMP EA and supporting documents, I have determined that the proposed project is not a major federal action and would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively with other actions in the area. No environmental effects described in the EA meet the definition of significance in context or intensity as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 and do not exceed those effects as described in the PRMP/FEIS. Therefore, supplemental or additional information to the analysis in the PRMP/FEIS in the form of an EIS is not needed. This finding is based on the following discussion: Context [40 CFR 1508.27(a)] refers to the suitable scale for analysis. Potential effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed project have been analyzed within the context of the
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 2 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Sandy River Basin-Mt. Hood Corridor planning area that is comprised of BLM-administered public lands located in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties of western Oregon. The 2.2 to six acre project would affect less than 0.01 percent of the total SRMA area. The proposed project would occur within the Wildwood SRMA as designated by the ROD/RMP. Management direction for recreation resources within Recreation Management Areas includes managing these areas in accordance with their planning frameworks (EA Section 1.2; EA Appendix D). The Wildwood SRMA Planning Framework outlines specific outcome objectives and uses, both of which state overnight camping (EA Appendix D). Because camping is both an outcome objective as well as an allowable use, the Wildwood RAMP meets the ROD/RMP management direction and is in accordance within the activities, management actions, and allowable use restrictions included in the Planning Framework (EA Appendix D). The PRMP/FEIS considered the significant and potentially significant effects of managing SRMAs in accordance within the Planning Frameworks. The PRMP/FEIS projected effects for management activities as they correspond with Recreation Management Area Planning Frameworks (PRMP/FEIS p. 555). Although the proposed project falls within the PRMP/FEIS effects analysis, the BLM analyzed the specific effects of the action alternatives and the No Action Alternative to determine if the recreation management activities are in and of themselves significant under NEPA. The answer is no, due to the reasons detailed below in the evaluation of NEPA intensity factors. Intensity [40 CFR 1508.27(b)] refers to severity of impact. The following ten sections refer to the specific conditions/concerns addressed in §1508.27 and document the BLM’s consideration of the severity of the impacts as assessed in the Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (1)]: Any impacts, both beneficial and adverse, are not significant because, as explained above, the incremental effects of the project fall within the range and scope of Recreation Management Area activities analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS, to which the EA is tiered. Additionally, the effects of the project are unlikely to have significant (beneficial and/or adverse) impacts based on the analysis of the issues presented in EA Section 1.7. The issues discussed in EA Appendix A were considered but not analyzed in detail because it was determined that through project design, Project Design Features (PDF), or project location, there would be no significant impacts from the proposed Wildwood project (EA Appendix A). Additionally, issues were also considered but not analyzed in detail if there would be no potential for significant effects from the project outside of those analyzed and disclosed under the PRMP/FEIS (EA Appendix A). The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) of BLM resource specialists reviewed the action alternatives described in EA Section 2.1, including the Project Design Features in EA Section 2.2, so that the risk of effects to affected resources would conform to ROD/RMP Management Direction and be within the effects described in the PRMP/FEIS. There would be no significant impacts to the recreation opportunities within Wildwood because the action alternatives would be consistent with the Planning Framework objectives and the proposed designs would accommodate both the existing day-use opportunities as well as overnight camping. The PRMP/FEIS identified overnight camping as one of the recreational activities that can occur within the Wildwood SRMA, and all activities described in the action alternatives fall within the PRMP/FEIS analysis (EA pp. 40-41). Additionally, the proposed
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 3 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA recreation site design predominately separates the two types of recreation activities, day-use and overnight, reducing the impacts of overnight camping on day-use activities (EA p. 25). The action alternatives focused development in the lowest utilized areas of Wildwood and created additional picnicking opportunities within the designated day-use area close to the Salmon River (EA Section 2.1). Additionally, the Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSC) would be maintained at the current Front Country designation (EA pp. 41-43). Under all action alternatives, there would be no significant impacts to the economics of the local communities. The action alternatives would have beneficial impacts to the socio-economics of the local community by increasing tourism spending within the local area, ranging from $2,867,334 to $3,986,138, by alternative (EA pp. 50-61). Total overnight spending for the tourism market within Clackamas County, which includes the analysis area, is $408,800,000 (Dean Runyan 2018). Overnight camping development at Wildwood would account for one percent of this total spending, thus the beneficial impacts of the increased spending would not be significant. Additionally, the proposed fees for overnight camping within Wildwood would not increase day-use fees at the site and the introduction of a new annual day-use pass, which would allow visitors free day-use access to BLM recreation sites on the Northwest Oregon District by volunteering instead of purchasing the pass (EA Appendix A). The operations and maintenance costs and fee revenue for Wildwood would not be significantly impacted under the action alternatives. Operations and maintenance under the action alternatives would increase by nine to 17 percent, from $521,380 to between $568,680 and $608,585 annually (EA pp. 66-75). The cost for the new development at Wildwood would be between $1,457,804 and $3,239,109, depending on alternative (EA p. 33). Impacts from development costs would not be significant because the proposed cost is closely in-line with past spending on construction at Wildwood, with construction costs totaling $2,395,000 over the past decade (2006 to 2016) (EA p. 66). Fee revenue generated from the proposed overnight camping would range from $387,800 to $718,264 annually. Operations and maintenance costs range between $568,680 to $608,585 annually, which would be covered or offset by the proposed fees (EA pp. 66-75). There would be no significant impacts from the increase in revenue from fee collection because there would be approximately two to 18 percent, from the Proposed Action and Alternative A, of the revenue remaining after operations and maintenance costs of the new proposed infrastructure at Wildwood (EA pp. 66-75). Additionally, Alternative B would not produce enough fee revenue to cover the operations and maintenance cost (EA p. 74). These fees would be used to maintain the site and construct new infrastructure, which is currently being covered by day-use fees ($49,470) and BLM Northwest Oregon District recreation funding ($1,269,337 in fiscal year 2018). The degree to which the Proposed Action affects public health or safety [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (2)] (EA Sections 2.1 and 2.2): The project would not adversely affect public health or safety because: Public access to hazardous work areas during construction would be restricted by flaggers, warning signs, and temporary traffic control barriers or devices. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandated health and safety regulations would be applied to all project operations related to the project implementation.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 4 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
All actions of the project must meet national and State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) air and water quality standards, as provided for by the ROD/RMP and the PRMP/FEIS. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (3)] (EA Section 2.2.1): There would be no significant effects to prime farmlands, wetlands, or other ecologically sensitive areas because none are known to occur within the Wildwood SRMA. The project would not affect historical or cultural resources because the Project Design Features in EA Section 2.2.1, including known resource buffer distances, would be adhered during construction of the proposed facilities. BLM completed background cultural and historic research for the project, including review of Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database records. In order to reduce potential impacts to any unknown cultural resources, if any resource is discovered during project activities, the BLM Field Manager would be contacted and all operations in the immediate area of such discovery shall be suspended until an evaluation of the discovery can be made by a professional archaeologist (EA Section 2.2.1). An interpretive trail would be constructed under all action alternatives for the Barlow Trail to provide information on the history of the area, including information on the Oregon Trail (EA p. 22). Effects from the project to Segment 5 of the Salmon Wild and Scenic River would not be significant because the proposed project would not degrade the outstandingly remarkable values associated with the designated “Scenic” section of river (EA pp. 17-18). Additionally, the proposed project is in conformance with the Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan as well as the ROD/RMP management direction for wild and scenic rivers (EA pp. 17-18). The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (4)]: The project is not unique or unusual. The BLM has experience implementing recreation management actions similar to the Wildwood RAMP in other Recreation Management Areas, so the effects are well known and not highly controversial. CEQ guidelines relating to controversy do not refer to the amount of public opposition or support for a project, but to a substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or effect of the action. The PRMP/FEIS projected effects of implementation of recreation management actions within Recreation Management Areas. Although the Wildwood RAMP would be the first proposed RAMP developed under the ROD/RMP, the incremental effects of the project are well within the effects for recreation management actions projected by the PRMP/FEIS. As such, the size, nature, and effect of the proposed project is similar to that which was included in the ROD/RMP. The BLM acknowledges that there may be social controversy or differences of opinion regarding the Wildwood RAMP, however this did not equate to scientific controversy over the nature of effects of the proposed project. The EA contains analysis of effects on relevant elements of the human environment. All the effects of the proposed recreation management actions are described at the site-specific level in the EA. No unique, appreciable, or serious question regarding scientific controversy has been identified regarding the effects of the proposed Wildwood RAMP. Effects are expected to be consistent with those of the published literature cited in the EA and are not controversial in a scientific sense. The BLM is aware that the fundamental nature of science requires disagreement
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 5 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA and vigorous debate, and as a result, some disagreement would always be present in any scientific discussion. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (5)]: The effects of the project do not have any uncertain, unique, or unknown risks because the BLM has experience implementing similar actions in similar areas without these risks. No potential unique or unknown risks were identified by the BLM or by comments submitted in response to internal and external scoping. Recreation management within Recreation Management Areas is a common practice on lands managed by the BLM in western Oregon. None of the public comments received on the proposed project indicated unique or unknown risks to the human environment. The PDFs in EA Section 2.2 would minimize the risks associated with the project. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (6)]: The project would not establish a precedent for future actions beyond the time frames analyzed nor would they represent a decision in principle about a further consideration because the project is in the scope of proposed activities documented in the ROD/RMP and PRMP/FEIS. Additionally, the BLM has experience implementing similar actions in similar areas without setting a precedent for future actions or representing a decision about a further consideration. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (7)]: The interdisciplinary team evaluated the proposed project in context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative effects associated with the proposed project would not exceed impacts beyond those already analyzed in the ROD/RMP to which this environmental assessment is tiered. The action would have no significant impacts and in some instances would generate beneficial cumulative effects. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (8)]: The project would not affect these resources because no districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places exist within or near the proposed project vicinity. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (9)] (EA Appendix A): The project is not expected to adversely affect ESA listed species or critical habitat for the following reasons: ESA Wildlife - Northern spotted owl: The project area is not within the historic or known home range of any Northern spotted owl sites. The area is dispersal habitat and the habitat modification proposed under the action alternatives is not likely to adversely affect the species (EA Appendix A). Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife was not warranted because there is no Northern spotted owl critical habitat, known or historic sites, or any individuals within the project area. ESA Fish: The project would have no impacts on fisheries within the project area because all proposed development, including vegetation removal, would occur outside of the Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation (EA Appendix A). The design and location of the project would
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 6 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA avoid all hydrologically important areas and would result in no changes in stream shading or wood delivery to the Salmon River and other intermittent streams. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service is not warranted since the proposed project was designed to occur outside of the one-site tree potential buffer for Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (10)]: The proposed RAMP activities have been designed to follow Federal, State, and local laws (EA Section 1.5). The Wildwood RAMP is in conformance with the ROD/RMP, which addresses how the BLM will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in western Oregon including, but not limited to the: O&C Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis contained in the Wildwood RAMP EA (DOI-BLM- ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA), I have determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2) (c) of NEPA, and that an EIS is not required. I have determined that the effects of the proposed recreation management actions are within those anticipated and already analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS and would be in conformance with the ROD/RMP.
John Huston, Manager, Cascades Field Office – Unsigned, for Review and Comment
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 7 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction and Background 12 1.1 Need for Recreation Area Management Plan 14 1.2 Purpose of the Project 15 1.3 Decisions to be Made 16 1.4 Decision Factors 16 1.5 Conformance with Land Use Plan, Statutes, Regulations, and other Plans 16 1.6 Scoping 18 1.7 Issues 19 1.7.1 Issue Not Analyzed in Detail 19 Chapter 2 Alternatives 21 2.1 Alternatives Development 21 2.1.1 Actions Common to All Alternatives 21 2.1.2 Proposed Action 23 2.1.3 Alternative A – Maximum Return Development Alternative 25 2.1.4 Alternative B-Limited Development Alternative 27 2.1.5 No Action Alternative 28 2.2 Project Design Features 28 2.2.1 Cultural Resources 28 2.2.2 Water Resources 29 2.2.3 Safety 29 2.2.4 Recreation/Visual Resources/Trail Development 29 2.2.5 Wildlife 29 2.2.6 Vegetation and Invasive Non-Native Plant Species Management 30 2.3 Comparison of the Alternatives 30 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 33 2.4.1 Limited Management Alternative 33 2.4.2 Tent Camping Specific Locations 34 2.4.3 Scoping Alternative 34 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 37 3.1 Issue 1: How would the existing recreational values for day-use, overall recreational opportunities, and recreation setting characteristics be impacted from developing camping in Wildwood? 37 3.1.1 Affected Environment 37
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 8 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
3.1.2 Environmental Effects 41 All Action Alternatives 41 No Action Alternative 43 3.1.3 Cumulative Effect 43 3.2 Issue 2: How would the proposed overnight camping facilities, and associated fees, within Wildwood impact the economics and socio-economics of the local communities within the Mount Hood corridor? 44 3.2.1 Affected Environment 46 3.2.2 Environmental Effects 50 Proposed Action 52 Alternative A 55 Alternative B 59 No Action Alternative 62 3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 62 3.3 Issue 3: How would the proposed campsite fees impact the cost of maintaining Wildwood, including facilities maintenance, staff time for monitoring, and expenses for construction of new facilities? 63 3.3.1 Affected Environment 64 3.3.2 Environmental Effects 66 Proposed Action 66 Alternative A 70 Alternative B 73 No Action 75 3.3.3 Cumulative Effects 76 Chapter 4 Consultation 77 Chapter 5 Citations 77 Chapter 6 Appendices 79 Appendix A: Issues Not Analyzed in Detail 80 Appendix B: Wildwood Economic Development Feasibility Study 85 Appendix C: Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan 86 Appendix D: Planning Framework 87 Appendix E: Campsite Designs 88
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 9 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives ...... 31 Table 2: Comparison of Issues Effects ...... 32 Table 3: Criteria for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class...... 38 Table 4: Front Country RSC Descriptions...... 39 Table 5: Existing RSC Conditions at Wildwood ...... 40 Table 6: Outcome Objectives from SRMA Planning Framework ...... 41 Table 7: RSC Conditions for All Action Alternatives ...... 42 Table 8: Amenity Levels and Site Development Type ...... 49 Table 9: Proposed Action Projected Revenue Based on Regional Occupancy Rates ...... 52 Table 10: Proposed Action Economic Impact from Development using Regional Projections ...... 53 Table 11: Proposed Action Projected Revenue Based on Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Rates ...... 54 Table 12: Proposed Action Economic Impact from Development using Fishermen's Bend Projections ...... 55 Table 13: Alternative A Projected Revenue Based on Regional Occupancy Rates ...... 56 Table 14: Alternative A Economic Impact from Development using Regional Projections 57 Table 15: Alternative A Projected Revenue Based on Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Rates ...... 58 Table 16: Alternative A Economic Impact from Development using Fishermen’s Bend Projections ...... 59 Table 17: Alternative B Projected Revenue Based on Regional Occupancy Rates ...... 59 Table 18: Alternative B Economic Impact from Development using Regional Projections . 60 Table 19: Alternative B Projected Revenue Based on Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Rates ...... 61 Table 20: Alternative B Economic Impact from Development using Fishermen’s Bend Projections ...... 61 Table 21: No Action Projected Economic Impact ...... 62 Table 22: Current O&M Costs ...... 65 Table 23: Difference between Current Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs ...... 65 Table 24: New and Upgraded Development at Wildwood ...... 66 Table 25: Proposed Action Projected O&M Costs ...... 67 Table 26: Projected Annual Revenue, using both Regional Average and Fishermen's Bend Average ...... 67 Table 27: Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs...... 68 Table 28: Total Construction Cost for the Proposed Action ...... 69 Table 29: Alternative A Projected O&M Costs ...... 70 Table 30: Alternative A Projected Annual Revenue, using both Regional Average and Fishermen’s Bend Average ...... 71 Table 31: Alternative A Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs .... 71 Table 32: Total Construction Cost for Alternative A ...... 72 Table 33: Alternative B Projected O&M Costs ...... 73 Table 34: Alternative B Projected Annual Revenue, using both Regional Average and Fishermen’s Bend Average ...... 74 Table 35: Alternative B Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs .... 74
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 10 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 36: Total Construction Cost for Alternative B ...... 75 Table 37: No Action Projected O&M Costs ...... 76 Table 38: No Action Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs ...... 76
List of Figures Figure 1: Current Wildwood Special Recreation Management Area ...... 13 Figure 2: Wildwood Special Recreation Management Area Boundary ...... 14 Figure 3: Annual Visitation Since 1995 ...... 15 Figure 4: Proposed Action Map...... 25 Figure 5: Alternative A Map ...... 26 Figure 6: Alternative B Map ...... 27 Figure 7: Scoping Alternative Map...... 36 Figure 8: Remoteness Heat Scale ...... 38 Figure 9: Analysis Area for Wildwood EA Issues 2 and 3 ...... 44 Figure 10: Gross Domestic Product for Industries within the Analysis Area (Dean-Runyan Associates 2018) ...... 47 Figure 11: Change in Earning and Employment from Dean Runyan Associates 2018 Study ..... 48 Figure 12: Current Cost of Operations and Maintenance for Wildwood ...... 65
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 11 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Chapter 1 Introduction and Background
The Wildwood Recreation Site (Wildwood) is located 42.5 miles east of Portland on US-26, near the Town of Welches and at the base of Mount Hood. Wildwood is a well-maintained recreation site, which offers high quality recreation amenities in a well-developed, forested environment (EA Figure 1). The estimated drive time to Wildwood from Portland is 1 hour and 7 minutes. The area surrounding Wildwood has ample outdoor recreation opportunities ranging from mountain biking at the popular Sandy Ridge Trail System, spending the day at Timberline Lodge, skiing at the various resorts, fishing and water activities in the Sandy and Salmon Rivers, and ample hiking opportunities in the Mount Hood National Forest, including the Salmon- Huckleberry Wilderness. Wildwood provides direct access to the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness area. Wildwood is currently a day-use only site that offers reservable group shelters, outdoor kitchens, potable water, picnic tables, and full service restrooms. Wildwood also offers ball fields, open play areas, a playground, horseshoe pits, volleyball courts, basketball courts, and site hosts. The site includes several miles of assorted and accessible trails that allow visitors to explore the forest along the Salmon River, enjoying an interpretive experience that explains the natural process of the river, with the trail concluding at the underwater fish-viewing window. Visitors currently pay standard amenity (day-use fee) and expanded amenity (reservable group shelters, kitchens) fees for day-use at the site. The quality and amount of available amenities at Wildwood is uncommon for a federal recreation site. Wildwood offers unique experiences for recreation visitors that want to engage in the natural world in a very developed platform for the day. The BLM’s approach to meeting recreation demand encompasses two distinct recreation management areas (RMA): Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) and Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA). The 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) identifies Wildwood as a SRMA (EA Figure 2). Wildwood’s SRMA boundary defines the planning area, helps determine the management of recreation use, and represents a commitment from the BLM to provide a higher level of recreation-related resources when compared with BLM-administered lands outside the SRMA. The SRMA designation provides for the protection of recreation setting characteristics (physical, social, and operational), and for the SRMA to be the primary driver for the management for this portion of BLM-administered lands. This EA has been prepared to present and analyze a range of potential management strategies for BLM-administered lands within the Wildwood SRMA. The goals of this effort is to develop an all-inclusive, site-specific recreation plan that would outline and describe appropriate recreation development, allowable activities, and associated management at Wildwood to alleviate relevant issues (EA Chapter 3).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 12 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure 1: Current Wildwood Special Recreation Management Area
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 13 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure 2: Wildwood Special Recreation Management Area Boundary
1.1 Need for Recreation Area Management Plan At Wildwood there is a need to provide increased site utilization, fee collections, accessibility, safety, availability of amenities, and site environmental education and interpretation in a managed natural environment, to provide for high quality recreation experiences while enhancing or protecting resources. Wildwood SRMA is one of the most developed recreation sites in the Northwest Oregon District, but receives some of the lowest visitation rates compared to the cost of operations and maintenance (EA Figure 3). Wildwood is seeing near continual declines in both visitation and revenue for over the past decade (2006 to 2016), resulting in the need to identify possible solutions to increase revenue and site visitation. Continual declines or stagnation of bureau budgets further increases the magnitude of impact that underperforming recreation sites have on the overall health of a District recreation program. Additionally,
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 14 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Wildwood currently has aging infrastructure and declining forest stand health. The ROD/RMP designated Wildwood as a SRMA (ROD/RMP p. 17). Recreation and Visitor Services management are the predominant land use plan use focus, emphasizing recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics for protection and long-term management (ROD/RMP p. 251).
*Visitation was not recorded from 1976 to 1995 (Recreation Management Information Systems data). Figure 3: Annual Visitation Since 1995
1.2 Purpose of the Project The Recreation and Visitor Services policy recommends the local BLM officer develop Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMP) that address implementation level management, administration, information, and monitoring actions. The BLM has determined that development of a RAMP would allow for planning and implementation of recreation site development in order to increase visitation and revenue. The ROD/RMP designated Wildwood as a SRMA, and as such, the site would be managed to protect and enhance the activities, experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting characteristics included in the SRMA planning framework (ROD/RMP p. 251; EA Appendix D). The Wildwood RAMP would plan and implement recreation site management for the following purposes: Manage Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, identified in Appendix G, in accordance with their planning frameworks (ROD/RMP p. 88): The Wildwood SRMA Planning Framework outlines specific outcome objectives that include mountain biking, hiking, camping, picnicking, day-use, swimming, fishing, and environmental education (EA Appendix D). The Planning Framework also states that the site is open to overnight camping use, including permitted use for future group areas (EA Appendix D). Because camping is both an outcome objective as well as an allowable use, the proposed Wildwood
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 15 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
RAMP is in accordance within the activities, management action, and allowable use restrictions included in the Planning Framework. The proposed project meets the objectives outlined on page 1 and 2 of the Planning Framework because it would improve, not interfere with, the recreation opportunities at the site, and would maintain the recreation setting characteristics by adhering to the Project Design Features (PDFs) in EA Section 2.2. Protect recreation setting characteristics within Special Recreation Management Areas to prohibit activities that would degrade identified characteristics (ROD/RMP p. 88): The recreation setting characteristics are defined based on a combination of physical (remoteness, naturalness, etc.), social (contact, groups site, etc.), and operational components (access, visitor services, etc.) (PRMP/FEIS p. 556). The Wildwood SRMA Planning Framework determined the proposed recreation setting characteristics designation to be Front County (EA Appendix C). The Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Western Oregon (PRMP/FEIS) described portions of the physical setting for the Front Country classification as Remoteness within 0.25 miles of collector roads1, and Naturalness contains a partially modified landscape with more noticeable modification and young, high-density forest stands without structural legacies (PRMP/FEIS pp. 556-559). The remainder of the recreation setting characteristics are described in Section 3.1 of the EA.
1.3 Decisions to be Made The decision whether to adopt an alternative, or whether to modify the action based on environmental analysis and any other factors identified during public review of this EA and unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact would be made by the Field Manager of the Cascades Field Office. The decision-maker would make the decision based on the analysis of the issues and how well the alternatives respond to the project purpose and need.
1.4 Decision Factors When considering an alternative, the decision-maker would consider how the alternatives meet the purpose and need for the project. Additionally, the decision-maker would: Consider how the alternatives contribute to the economics of the regional area and the BLM Northwest Oregon District; and Decide whether the analysis reveals a likelihood of significant adverse effects from the selected alternative that cannot be mitigated or that were not already revealed in the PRMP/FEIS and if an EIS analysis would need to be conducted for this project.
1.5 Conformance with Land Use Plan, Statutes, Regulations, and other Plans The BLM signed the ROD/RMP on August 5, 2016. The Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA is in conformance with the ROD/RMP, which addresses how the BLM will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in western Oregon including, but not limited to the: O&C Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered
1 Roads that primarily provide access to large blocks of public land, accommodate multiple uses, have BLM’s highest traffic volumes, and connect with State and County road systems.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 16 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act. Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands – Mount Hood Corridor The Mount Hood Corridor was designated under Title IV of the Oregon Forest Resource Conservation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208. The legislation required that all BLM- administered lands located in Townships 2 and 3 South, Ranges 6 and 7 East, Willamette Meridian, that can be seen from U.S. Highway 26 be managed “primarily for the protection or enhancement of scenic qualities. Management prescriptions for other resource values associated with these lands shall be planned and conducted for purposes other than timber harvest, so as not to impair the scenic qualities of the area.” The Act further specifies “timber cutting may be conducted following a catastrophic event. Such cutting may only be conducted to achieve the following resource management objectives, in compliance with current land use plans to maintain safe conditions for the visiting public; to control spread of forest fire; for activities related to the administration of Mount Hood Corridor Lands and for removal of hazard trees along trails and roadways.” The proposed project is in compliance with the direction under the Mount Hood Corridor designation because it would not impair the scenic qualities of the area by adhering to the project layout and design features included in Chapter 2 to minimize impacts (EA Section 2.2). District-Designated Reserve-Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) LUA The proposed project is located within the Sandy River Outstanding Natural Area (ONA) ACEC under the ROD/RMP. The ONA is a specific type of ACEC that aims to protect unique scenic, scientific, educational, and recreational values of certain areas within the public lands. Management direction for ACECs under the ROD/RMP states, “Implement activities as necessary to maintain, enhance, or restore relevant and important values” (RMP/ROD p. 57). Relevant and important values for the Sandy River ONA include historical, scenic, fish and wildlife, and natural processes. The proposed project would maintain the relevant and important values for scenic, fish and wildlife, and natural processes by not constructing any proposed facilities or camping areas within the one site potential tree height of the Riparian Reserve and adhering to PDFs listed in EA Section 2.2. Historical values would be enhanced because there would be an emphasis placed on promoting and protecting the cultural resources that are found on the Wildwood SRMA through interpretive signage and trails (EA Section 2.1.1). Wild and Scenic River - Salmon River Segment 5 The Wildwood SRMA is located within Segment 5 of the Salmon River Designated Wild and Scenic River (WSR). The Salmon WSR was congressionally designated in October 1988. The 4.8 mile segment of the Salmon River was classified as “Scenic” under the designation (USFS and US DOI BLM 1993). This indicates the river is free of impoundments and the shorelines are largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads (PRMP/FEIS p. 1024). The outstandingly remarkable values for Segment 5 of the Salmon WSR were identified as Fisheries, Recreation, Wildlife, and other. The Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan was included as an existing decision in ROD/RMP. As such, the decisions made in the WSR plan do not conflict with the ROD/RMP ant the BLM will continue to take actions consistent with the WSR plan (ROD/RMP p. 9). The Salmon River WSR Management Plan includes objectives within the river corridor to
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 17 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA provide for a wide range of recreation opportunities, which would be managed to prevent degradation of the outstandingly remarkable values (USFS and US DOI BLM 1993 pp. 21-22, 30, 35). General management direction for BLM-administered lands within the Salmon WSR corridor, including Segment 5, allows for larger-scale public use facilities, such as moderate- sized campgrounds, as long as those facilities are screened from the river (USFS and US DOI BLM 1993 p. 31). Additionally, the ROD/RMP includes management direction for Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands, including WSR, which states to “Conduct management actions, including but not limited to fuels treatments, invasive species management, riparian or wildlife habitat improvements, forest management, and trail construction, in Wild and Scenic River corridors only if consistent with designated or tentative classifications and if any reductions in outstandingly remarkable values would be temporary and outstandingly remarkable values would be protected or enhanced over the long term” (ROD/RMP p. 56). The proposed project complies with both the WSR Plan and the ROD/RMP management direction for BLM-administered lands within Segment 5 because overnight camping is consistent with the “Scenic” designation and would protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values over the long term. Development of a campsite at Wildwood would provide for an additional recreational opportunity within the WSR corridor. Wildwood would be developed to provide vegetative screening between the WSR corridor and the proposed campsites by maintaining a 200 feet no construction buffer.
1.6 Scoping The IDT of BLM resource specialists conducted internal scoping through the project planning process, which includes record searches, the collection of statistically sound stand data, on-site field examinations of the project area by IDT members, professional observation and judgment, literature review, and IDT discussion. In the project planning process the IDT considered elements of the environment that are particular to this project.
The BLM conducted external scoping for this project by means of an email sent out to approximately 145 federal, state, and municipal government agencies, nearby landowners, tribal authorities, and interested parties on the Northwest Oregon District Recreation mailing list in April 2016. The BLM also conducted several public meetings on the project, including The Villages Chamber of Commerce meeting on June 7, 2016, and two public meetings June 8 and August 11, 2016. The BLM received 67 comment letters/emails during the scoping period from interested non-profit environmental groups, non-profit groups representing the timber industry, and individual members of the public. Generally, the comments submitted included:
● Support of the project from local governments and organizations. ● Increases in crime, which would threaten visitor security and safety. ● Discussion on the existing supply and future demand of camping in the Mount Hood area. ● Effects of camping and increased visitation on wildlife habitat and individuals. ● Additional visitation affects sewer system capacity. ● Increases in noise, light, and air pollution from camping and new facility development. ● Invasive species introduction and spread in the park from camping.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 18 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
● Increased traffic flow into the recreation site from Highway 26. ● Impacts to vegetation from new constructed facilities and increased visitation. ● Recreational opportunities, both for overnight use and day-use. ● Affects to the visual resources and character of the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the Mount Hood Corridor. ● Socio-economic affects from the addition of camping at the recreation site and how this would affect local economies in the Mount Hood Corridor. ● Questions on how the new camping facilities would affect the water quality of the Salmon River, as well as the Wild and Scenic River designation.
The comments submitted, including internal scoping completed with the IDT, have been utilized in development of the issue statements below. The scoping comment letters and emails are available for review at the Northwest Oregon District BLM Office, 1717 Fabry Rd. SE, Salem, Oregon. A detailed listing of scoping comments was prepared as a separate report and is available for review with the scoping comment letters and emails. The IDT considered scoping comments in developing the list of issues to be analyzed in this EA (EA Section 1.7).
1.7 Issues The IDT identified issues based on applicable law, management direction contained in the RMP, and information gathered during the scoping and project planning process. Issues identified point the BLM to possible environmental effects, thus helping to shape the action alternatives, including identifying possible project design features. Issues warrant detailed analysis if: 1) analysis of the issue is necessary to provide information to the decision-maker to be able to make a reasoned choice between alternatives presented (that is, the issue is related to the purpose and need for action); or 2) the analysis of the issue is necessary to determine the significance of the impacts. Analysis of these issues provides a meaningful basis for comparing the environmental effects of alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, and aids in the decision-making process. In this way, issues help the BLM focus EAs on the issues that provide meaningful evaluation of the action proposed while avoiding amassing needless detail. The following are issues identified for analysis in detail in Chapter 3 of this EA: Issue 1: How would the existing recreational values for day-use, overall recreational opportunities, and recreation setting characteristics be impacted from the proposed camping in Wildwood? Issue 2: How would the proposed overnight camping facilities, and associated fees, within Wildwood impact the economics and socio-economics of the local communities within the Mount Hood corridor? Issue 3: How would the proposed campsite fees impact the cost of maintaining Wildwood, including facilities maintenance, staff time for monitoring, and expenses for construction of new facilities?
1.7.1 Issue Not Analyzed in Detail Comments received during public scoping, and from the project IDT, brought forward the following additional concerns related to resources that had potential of being affected by the Wildwood RAMP. Some of these issues have been raised on previous projects and analysis
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 19 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA conducted for those projects has resulted in determinations of negligible impacts, which helped inform the IDT on the need for detailed analysis in this document. For other issues, the IDT conducted substantial analysis, including inventory and assessment, before concluding that no detailed presentation of the issue was warranted in this EA. Summaries of analysis conducted are provided in EA Appendix A. For reasons described in EA Appendix A, these issues were not carried forward to be presented in detail.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 20 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives
Pursuant to Section 102 (2) (E) of the NEPA of 1969, as amended, Federal agencies shall “…study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” BLM has identified three action alternatives to analyze in detail along with a No Action Alternative. The range of alternatives explores alternative means for meeting the purpose and need for the action.
2.1 Alternatives Development Three alternatives were developed in response to the purpose and need. These alternatives include the Proposed Action, Maximized Development Alternative (Alternative A), and the Limited Development (Alternative B). Each alternative described in this section and analyzed in Chapter 3 represents a different strategy for addressing the issues outlined in EA Section 1. The alternatives were developed to reflect a development theme, for example limited development or maximum development. The Proposed Action and action alternatives would develop facilities and infrastructure that cater to overnight-use and expand day-use opportunities, while avoiding environmental resource damage. All actions are subject to funds availability. Any facility, trail, and amenity development would be completed in a manner that minimizes long-term operations and maintenance costs. Increasing site utilization through alterations, modifications, or expansion would meet the needs of increasing site utilization, and correct the current underperformance of fee collection, while not interfering with the recreational values, or having impacts on the natural or cultural resources. Under the action alternatives, the BLM would transition Wildwood into an overnight campground, while still providing the unique day-use characteristics found in the lower portion of the recreation site. The BLM would construct several new camping locations, restrooms and a shower facility, trail and road linkages, a new nature themed play area, and improve visitor services facilities to meet Wildwood SRMA management objectives outlined in the RMP/ROD. Construction would occur by utilizing contractors or park staff in phases. The phases would focus on functionality of the recreation area, ease of construction, and the actions that have a higher return on investments, such as new campsites or cabins as discussed in this EA. Wildwood would be fully reservable through recreation.gov or over the phone.
2.1.1 Actions Common to All Alternatives The below actions are common to all action alternatives proposed for the Wildwood project. Vegetation Modification Trees, shrubs, and other vegetation would be removed for construction of the proposed development. To help reduce the total cost of the development, the timber would be sold to the contractor which is allowed in the SRMA Planning Framework “Allow timber harvest if compatible with meeting recreation objectives, not interfering with recreation opportunities, and maintaining setting characteristics” (EA Appendix D). All vegetation, limbs, crowns, or any other non-merchantable timber that could not be processed into firewood would be chipped or burned
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 21 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA on site when safe according to Oregon Department of Forestry burning regulations. BLM employees that are familiar with the fire program would be present if any burning was required. A minimum of 50 feet of vegetative screening would remain after construction between campsites to provide for use privacy and to maintain the visual resources within the recreation site. Native plants would be planted in locations that need additional screening. The Front Country designation for the Recreation Setting Characteristics would be followed and maintained according to the PRMP/FEIS analysis. The definition Front Country is described in Section 3.1. Administrative Facilities Currently, the Wildwood office is located in a back corner of the SRMA, which is not easily accessible by visitors. Under all action alternatives, the office would be moved to the main entrance road into the Wildwood site (EA Figures 4-6). The existing small fee booth would be removed and the main entrance road would be widened to include an additional lane to prevent park visitor traffic from backing up onto US Highway 26. Additional parking would be added to the new office location to allow visitors to stop and contact the staff for reservations or information about Wildwood. Additionally, a bus stop would be moved to the office location and a separate ingress lane for Recreational Vehicles (RVs), camper trailers, and the bus to utilize would be added behind the office. The new office location would also allow staff to be more efficient in managing Wildwood, to handle collection and normal administrative tasks. Security cameras would be installed throughout the site in locations of high visitor use, such as the entrance, administrative buildings, and information kiosks to deter crime. Additional trash receptacles would be installed in order to continue to collect and remove from trash. Trail Construction and the Barlow Trail Interpretive Site Approximately two miles of additional trails would be constructed to provide linkages between campground loops and other areas of interest. Proposed routes would include trails from the new office location towards the Upper Camping Loop, the RV Loop, the Group Overnight Shelters, trails to Lower Camping Area 1 and Lower Camping Area 2, and other trails to connect the Lower Day-Use Area to the new camping areas. Additional smaller trails to restroom facilities from camping areas would be constructed to allow for easy access. Proposed trails would be built out of a porous concrete called flexi-pave, would be natural surfaced, or similar trail hardening techniques would be used as existing. The material (Flexi-Pave™) can infiltrate 9,872 inches of water per hour (Roy and Braga 2009). This material reduces impacts to hydrology as it would maintain water infiltration into the soil. The material is also resistant to cracking from tree roots or the freeze-thaw cycle making it a superior product to cement or asphalt. The proposed trails would be located within the Wildwood SRMA and would adhere to the project design features to protect natural resources. The proposed trails would be flagged after all other new development is constructed to ensure the trails are meeting their intended purpose, and to prevent trail destruction during facility construction. An additional trail would be constructed in the northeast section of Wildwood as a community connector trail to the town of Welches, Oregon. This trail would also be used as an interpretive trail for the Barlow Trail, a portion of the historic Oregon Trail, which travels through the
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 22 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Wildwood SRMA. BLM archaeologists would help develop interpretive signage along the trail to provide information about the unique history of the area and the trail. Natural Playground and Additional Picnic Areas A new natural play area would be constructed in the existing southwestern day-use area utilizing the existing paved loop and parking. The play area would feature natural materials like logs, boulders, and wood chips for kids to play on and enjoy a more natural setting than the existing plastic and metal play structures. Four additional 15-foot diameter paved picnic spots would be built to accommodate families picnicking while utilizing the natural playground and play area. During public scoping, this type of setting is one of the preferred day-use activities. Environmental Education Program Currently, Wildwood does not have a dedicated environmental education program. Wildwood used to have a partnership with a non-profit organization that led tours, and worked with local school districts on environmental education programming. Unfortunately, the non-profit organization relocated and the BLM has not been able to establish a new partnership. The BLM would continue to work on establishing new partnerships and encourage local schools to visit Wildwood and utilize the environmental education features that exist at Wildwood. The BLM would work to develop a comprehensive educational program, with material, to allow the proposed additional site park rangers to help conduct site-specific environmental education activities. Dog Park BLM Recreation Planner professional experience indicates that off leash dog parks are a favorite amongst overnight visitors that travel with RVs or camper trailers. Off leash dog parks allow visitors companions a chance to stretch their legs. A portion of the existing ball field would be transitioned into an off-leash dog park. The off-leash dog park would be one acre in size. The dog park would be fenced and include wood chip ground cover, dog-waste cleanup stations, and shade trees. Dump Station A dump station would be built near the recreation site entrance to allow visitors or others to stop at Wildwood to dump wastewater from their RVs and camper trailers. The dump station would be constructed in a location easily accessible and outside of normal site traffic patterns in order to reduce site ingress or egress congestion. The dump station would require a fee for use. The dump station would include pull through parking, a vault tank for waste, and a water hose to flush the RV and camper trailer wastewater systems.
2.1.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would develop Wildwood into an overnight campground with the highest return on investment overnight types, including RV spaces with full hookups, cabins, overnight group shelters, and camping loops. All proposed sites would be available to reserve through the Federal campground reservation system. All new infrastructure would be constructed to comply with the Federal minimum standards for accessibility. Project design shows 97 percent of all new infrastructure would be constructed to be full accessible. The total amount of hardened surface area for this alternative would be approximately six acres.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 23 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
The Proposed Action would provide 85 full hookup camping sites in three defined overnight use loops, which would be referred to as the RV loop, Lower Camping Loop 1, and Lower Camping Loop 2. Typically, BLM full hook-up sites are limited to eight occupants and two vehicles (EA Appendix C). However, the BLM has authority to reduce or increase occupancy limitations based on site-specific conditions. The RV loop would include 23 pull through sites that include full hookups, barbeque grills, a tent pad, picnic tables, and fire rings. BLM Recreation Planner professional experience indicates that pull through sites are preferred by visitors as they are easier for large vehicles and large trailers to access, as well as providing additional vegetative screening to further enhance the privacy at each site. The RV loop would only allow for one-way traffic, with the road winding through a cedar forest and re-entering the existing road system. A large restroom, including at least two stalls, and paid shower facility, including at least six showers and six stalls, would also be developed within the RV loop located near the cabins for use by both visitor types. Cabins are the most profitable overnight development due to their high occupancy rate and the higher fee amount, making them one of the most valuable overnight developments in terms of possible fee collection (EA Appendix B). Cabins also have the highest probability of occupation during the winter season due to the protection they offer from the elements and the fact that there is no specialty equipment, beyond basic camping equipment, that is needed to stay the night, unlike full hookup sites that require a person to own or rent a RV or camper trailer. The cabin loop would feature 15 cabins, and would be located within the existing large, paved loop west of the group day-use shelters. The cabins would offer electric heat, basic furniture, barbeque grills, picnic tables, and designated parking. Additional parking would be developed for the cabins off the existing paved loop. The cabins would be located near an existing restroom and near the new proposed restroom and paid shower facility. The Pioneer group shelter currently offers hot water, electric hookups, seating for up to 300 for day-use, large fireplaces, lights, and electric cooktops. The existing Pioneer group shelter would be converted into a group overnight shelter including five full hookup RV or camper trailer sites, and five tent pads. Barbeque grills and fire rings would be installed in the group shelter area. The outdoor covered kitchens would be converted into a circular nook and would feature cabins, additional to those in the cabin loop, looking inward toward the central shared outdoor covered kitchen (EA Appendix E). Three to four cabins would be located at each of the two converted outdoor kitchen areas, depending on the available space. The unique setting would be ideal for families or individuals that require an additional cooking space and dining area that can support a large group. This development type is also appealing for outfitter and guides that want to base camp out of Wildwood as they take their clients, mountain biking, skiing, snowshoeing, river rafting, kayaking, or exploring the wilderness area. Two additional full hookup camping loops would be added between the upper camping area and the existing day-use area to the south near Salmon River (EA Figure 4; EA Appendix E). The two camping loops would add an additional 62 sites, two additional camp hosts, and an additional single seasonal ranger. The two additional camping loops would have a single entry that would allow for one-way traffic for easy site management. One camping loop would offer 34 sites, a restroom, and a camp host. The second camping loop would offer 28 sites, a flush restroom, and a camp host. For winter camping options, the two camping loops could both be opened, or a single one could be opened or they both could remain closed, dependent on the amount of
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 24 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA demand. This would reduce operational cost during the winter season, and provide flexible options for management to maximize efficiency.
Figure 4: Proposed Action Map. 2.1.3 Alternative A – Maximum Return Development Alternative Alternative A would develop Wildwood into an overnight campground similar to the Proposed Action, with the exception of including four yurts. All amenities and proposed features described in the Proposed Action are included in Alternative A (EA Section 2.1.2). The total amount of hardened surface area for this alternative would be approximately six acres. Alternative A is the only alternative that proposes the addition of group yurts. Four group yurts would be placed over existing paved picnic sites that are located near the group shelters in the upper camping area. The paved picnic sites are 30 feet in diameter and are located near utilities, making them an ideal location for the proposed group yurts. Yurts would be taken down in the winter season, and the covering would be washed and maintained twice a year, which adds additional labor and removes yurts from winter camping options.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 25 of 93
Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
2.1.4 Alternative B-Limited Development Alternative Alternative B proposes a limited development campground that would only add overnight camping to the upper portion of Wildwood and would not add any additional camping loops. This includes only the RV Loop, Pioneer group shelter, cabins, and shared outdoor covered kitchens with cabins. These facilities are similar and include the same number of sites as those included in the Proposed Action and Alternative A (EA Section 2.1.2). Alternative B does not include the Lower Camp Loops 1 and 2 proposed under the Proposed Action and Alternative A. The total amount of hardened surface area for this alternative would be approximately 2.2 acres. This alternative was developed to have the smallest footprint and to focus all development on already developed locations, while maximizing those locations for fee generation.
Figure 6: Alternative B Map
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 27 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
2.1.5 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative describes the baseline against which the effects of the action alternatives can be compared; that is, the existing conditions in the project area and the continuing trends in those conditions if the BLM does not implement the proposed project. The No Action Alternative means no changes made to the current management of the Wildwood SRMA would occur at this time. The No Action Alternative proposes there would be no new development made to Wildwood, and no alterations in the current management of the recreation site. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not constitute a decision to change the LUAs of these lands. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not set a precedent for consideration of future action proposals. Only normal administrative activities (e.g., Day-Use activities, recreation site management, and facility maintenance) would continue on BLM lands within the SRMA.
2.2 Project Design Features This section summarizes all the project design features (PDFs) that would further reduce the project’s effects on the affected resources described in Chapter 3 of this EA. The BLM or approved contractor would implement the PDFs described in this section under all action alternatives. The IDT selected or created additional PDFs to implement management actions/direction and the principles of the design features and BMPs described in the ROD/RMP (ROD/RMP Appendix C). The IDT selected this set of PDFs based on its combined experience, training, professional judgment, field analysis of this project area, and familiarity with ongoing published research. The identification of a PDF is the beginning of an iterative process that includes implementation and effectiveness monitoring to determine that the effects of the actions are within the range analyzed. The BLM would incorporate these PDFs into the project layout and construction to ensure that the project is implemented as analyzed in this EA and that the risk of effects to the resources are no greater than those described in Chapter 3 of this EA. 2.2.1 Cultural Resources ● If any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) is discovered during project activities, the BLM or BLM approved contractor would suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until an evaluation of the discovery can be made by a professional archaeologist to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. ● BLM applied a 25-meter no construction disturbance buffer around any known cultural resource found during inventories of the Wildwood SRMA. No ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the RV loop, or any other construction action, would occur within the 25-meter buffer. Any trees identified to be cut for construction purposes would be directionally felled by the BLM or BLM approved contractor away from the 25-meter buffer. However, if the 25-buffer presents a safety or operational hazard, a BLM archaeologist would complete monitoring of project construction and implementation within the buffer.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 28 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
2.2.2 Water Resources ● During project construction and implementation, the BLM or the BLM approved contractor would ensure there is no disturbance or take of trees within the one site- potential tree height stream protection zone for Riparian Reserves. ● The BLM or the BLM approved contractor would utilize practices from the ODOT Hydraulics Manual, specifically Chapter 14, Appendix A, Section 6.1 “Dispersion”, during project construction activities (ODOT 2014 p. 14-A-5).
2.2.3 Safety ● The BLM approved contractor would restrict public access to the project area during heavy construction. ● The BLM would publish notices to the public explaining the construction and project schedule both at Wildwood and on the ePlanning project website page during construction (ePlanning project website: https://go.usa.gov/xmBUH). ● A majority of construction would take place during the low-use times (Weekdays before 3:00 PM), and would be done in phased, concentrated sections to reduce the impact to visitors. ● In order to reduce human caused wildfire ignition, BLM would install educational signage, trash receptacles to reduce litter, install accessible fire rings, which provide better fire containment, and notify visitors of Oregon Department of Forestry public use restrictions.
2.2.4 Recreation/Visual Resources/Trail Development ● The BLM would design the facilities proposed under all action alternatives to blend with the natural characteristics of the recreation site by incorporating locally sourced material, using natural color palettes, and other natural-in-appearance materials. New buildings would be constructed using the same Cascadian design that is used throughout existing BLM recreation sites in the Sandy River Basin-Mount Hood Corridor. ● BLM would design facilities to comply with accessibility standards at a minimum of 20 percent of the campsites and day-use sites. The BLM would install accessible features and facilities, including restrooms, campsite pads, fire rings, and picnic tables. ● The BLM or BLM approved contractor would utilize the Guideline for Quality Trail Experience in the design and construction of proposed new trails. 2.2.5 Wildlife ● No construction or large vegetation removal activities will be completed during the migratory bird nesting and breeding season, April 15 through July 31. This seasonal restriction can be waived, once the BLM Wildlife Biologist is consulted after field surveys are completed and no breeding/nesting birds or their activity is discovered. ● BLM would continue to post and enforce the rule that requires dogs to be on leash no longer than six feet at developed locations excluding the off leash dog park area.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 29 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
● Any large trees, snags, or woody debris would remain on site in as large of chunks as manageable, as long as it does not interfere with the recreational values or public safety.
2.2.6 Vegetation and Invasive Non-Native Plant Species Management ● In order to minimize the introduction of invasive non-native species, the BLM or BLM approved contractor would ensure all equipment brought on site associated with construction is washed of all dirt, debris, and plant material before entering and prior to leaving the project area. ● The BLM or BLM approved contractor would replant disturbance areas with species native to the area as selected by the Cascades Field Office Botanist. ● The BLM would continue to monitor the site after construction for invasive and non- native plant species. Any species found would be treated by the BLM or BLM approved contractor. ● The BLM would develop signage and educational materials to inform the public about bringing in local firewood to reduce the likelihood of invasive and non-native species.
2.3 Comparison of the Alternatives EA Tables 1 and 2 below display the comparison of the actions (recreation facility alternatives and issues) and the effects analyzed under this EA.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 30 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives
Proposed Alternatives Development No Action Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B RV Loop (pull through 0 23 23 23 sites)* Cabins 0 15 15 15 Yurts 0 0 4 0 Lower Camp Loop #1* 0 34 34 0 Lower Camp Loop #2* 0 28 28 0 Playground Existing only One new One new One new Admin Offices Move No Yes Yes Yes Restrooms Existing only Two new* Two new* Existing only Restroom w/shower None One new One new One new Day-Use Amenities Existing New and existing New and existing New and existing Trails (miles) 0 2 2 1 Waste-water Treatment Existing tanks Three tanks Three tanks One tank Dog Park No Yes Yes Yes Group Overnight None Yes, 5 RV and 5 Yes, 5 RV and 5 Yes, 5 RV and 5 Shelter tent pads tent pads tent pads Outdoor Kitchen None Yes, two (7 cabins) Yes, two (7 Yes, two (7 cabins) cabins) Total Hardened 0 6 6 2.2 Surfaces (acres)** *All sites are full hook-up sites **Includes two to four stalls ***excludes trails
Table 2 shows a comparison of the issues analyzed in Chapter 3 of this EA. Descriptions of methodologies and analytical assumptions can be found for each respective issue statement under EA Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 31 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 2: Comparison of Issues Effects
Alternatives Issues Analyzed Proposed Alternative Alternative No Action Action A B Remoteness Rural Rural
Front Naturalness Front Country Country
Physical Front Visitor Facilities Front Country Country Back Contacts Front Country Country Middle Group Size Front Country Country
Social Middle Evidence of Use Front Country Country Front
Recreation Recreation Opportunities Public Access Front Country Country Front Visitor Services Front Country Country
Issue 1: and Recreation Setting Issue Characteristics
Operational Middle Management Controls Front Country Country
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 32 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Alternatives Issues Analyzed Proposed Alternative Alternative No Action Action A B Regional-Fee Revenue $49,470 $607,404 $639,788 $387,800 Collected Fishermen’s Bend-Fee $49,470 $658,924 $718,264 $414,204 Revenue Collected
Regional-Local $2,228,134 $3,578,388 $3,611,701 $2,867,334 Economic Impact
Economics andEconomics - Fishermen’s Bend-Local $2,228,134 $3,758,701 $3,804,714 $2,918,334 Economic Impact
Economics Regional-Tax Revenue $108,732 $174,624 $176,251 $139,925 Generated
Issue 2: Socio Issue Fishermen’s Bend-Tax $108,732 $183,424 $185,671 $142,414 Revenue Generated Regional-Fee Revenue $49,470 $607,404 $639,788 $387,800 Collected Operation and $521,380 $598,585 $608,585 $568,680 Maintenance
Difference -$471,910 $8,819 $31,203 -$180,880 Model-Fee Revenue $49,470 $658,924 $718,264 $414,204 Collected Operation and $521,380 $598,585 $608,585 $568,680 Maintenance
Construction Costs Difference -$471,910 $60,339 $109,679 -$154,476 Construction Cost N/A $3,139,109 $3,239,109 $1,457,804 Return on investment $15,333,630- $16,281,703- $10,271,013- N/A Issue 3: Operations Issue Maintenance and and (15 to 30 years) $16,879,230 $18,635,983 $11,063,133
2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 2.4.1 Limited Management Alternative This alternative proposes to pull the administrative infrastructure from the recreation site, such as the office, shop, all the tools, employee bunkhouse, equipment, water system, flushing restrooms, and replace it with a much smaller system that would be capable of supporting a few camp hosts. The recreation site would be remotely operated from the district office in Salem, by checking in on the park rangers occasionally and laying out their program of work a week at a time, much like how Alsea Falls Recreation Site and Nestucca Back Country Byway is operated.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 33 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Removing the administrative building and relocating the Park Manager, and Assistant Park Manager to the district office would greatly reduce the overhead at Wildwood. The Park Manager and Assistant Park Manager would be tasked with operating all the remote sites, increasing total efficiency of the recreation program. This alternative was dropped from further analysis due to its inability to meet the SRMA goals outlined by the ROD/RMP, and negatively affects visitor safety. Not only does this alternative not meet the ROD/RMP guidelines and decrease visitor safety, the cost associated with removing the infrastructure would be better spent toward developing overnight facilities, as the development would bring in more revenue in the end than spent on the development. Additionally, the large amount of investment that has already been made in the recreation site would not be recoupable by decommissioning aspects of the recreation site. Nearly $2.5 million has been spent on updating, repairing, and maintaining the infrastructure at the recreation site since 2006.
2.4.2 Tent Camping Specific Locations An alternative to construct campsite specific to tent camping only was discussed internally with the IDT. This alternative would involve construction of tent camping specific sites within Wildwood, which would exclude full hook-up amenities like power and water at these identified campsites. Other aspects of this alternative would be similar to those described in the action alternatives. This alternative was dropped from further analysis because it is substantially similar to the design proposed under the action alternatives. The full hook-up sites proposed under the action alternatives would be available for tent camping, along with the other types of camping described in EA Section 2.1. Full hook up sites would have 50 feet of vegetative screen for privacy and noise reduction, which is similar to the full hook-up and tent sites at the Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site. The only difference between the full hook up sites proposed and tent camping only site is the extension of the parking stall by 20 feet for full hook-up sites. There would be no recreation experience design changes (screening, amenities, etc.) between the proposed full hook-up sites and the design of tent camping only sites. Thus, an alternative with tent camping only sites would be substantially similar to the proposed design of the action alternatives.
2.4.3 Scoping Alternative This alternative was brought to the public and the IDT staff to initiate conversation about Wildwood and to begin to look at the possibilities that were available for camping. The new development for this alternative included an upper RV focused loop; cabins, a new restroom with showers, three new restrooms, and a new natural play area. The proposed conversions included converting one of the day-use shelters into an overnight shelter, converting the outdoor kitchens into yurt sites, and moving the office to the front while removing the fee booth (EA Figure 7). This alternative was dropped from further analysis because it would be technically infeasible to develop those campsites due to the potential for hydrological issues, which were identified by the IDT. During internal scoping, hydrologic areas were identified through field surveys within Wildwood. New designs for the proposed camping areas were developed to incorporate the feedback from the hydrological survey to avoid any issues that could have come from the
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 34 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA designs of this alternative. The changes to the design is reflected in Alternatives A, B, and C as represented by the dot pattern on the drawings.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 35 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure 7: Scoping Alternative Map
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 36 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects
This chapter describes the affected environment as it relates to the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2, and the environmental consequences of the alternatives. The BLM has combined the affected environment and environmental consequences into this single chapter to provide all of the relevant information on an issue in a single discussion. This chapter contains the analysis of the issues presented in EA Section 1.5 related to the effects from the alternatives and the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Under each issue, the BLM describes the affected environment, the methodologies, and assumptions of the analysis, and then answers the question captured in the issue statement by describing the environmental consequences of the alternatives analyzed in detail, including the No Action Alternative. Appendix B of this EA includes the economic study completed for Wildwood. Additional information and background on the economic calculations presented in the issues discussed in this chapter can be found in EA Appendix B.
3.1 Issue 1: How would the existing recreational values for day-use, overall recreational opportunities, and recreation setting characteristics be impacted from developing camping in Wildwood? 3.1.1 Affected Environment The analysis area for recreation values is within the Wildwood SRMA. Visitors seek a wide range of setting-dependent outdoor recreation opportunities. They choose different areas to recreate in based on the qualities and conditions of the setting as well as their desired experiences and benefits. The BLM identifies desired Recreation Setting characteristics (RSCs) for RMAs to complement the desired recreation opportunities and activities within a RMA. The BLM categorizes the type of recreation setting characteristic desired in an area with the Recreation Setting Classification System (BLM Handbook H-8320-1). The BLM bases each category of the Recreation Setting Classification System on a combination of Physical, Social, and Operational components. The Physical component is based on the quality of the landscape, and looks at three categories. These are Remoteness, Naturalness, and Visitor Facilities. Remoteness describes how far the RMA is from routes. Naturalness is based on the landscapes texture, form, line, color and how modified it is. Visitor Facilities is based on how many facilities and amenities there are constructed and the level of quality of them. The Social component is based on the qualities associated with use, and looks at three categories. These categories are Contacts, Group Size, and Evidence of Use. The average number of other groups that a group would encounter determines contacts. Group size is the average size of the other groups. Evidence of use is based on how much perceived use a site receives due to footprints, surface wear, trash, and vegetation is removed. The Operational component is conditions created by management and controls over recreation use, this component looks at three categories. These categories are Public Access, Visitor Services, and Management Controls. Public Access describes the types of public travel that is allowed. Visitor Services is based on how much information is provide at the site and how
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 37 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA regularly the staff is present. Management Controls is based on how many regulations are in place and needed for effective site management. The mixture of RSCs and Remoteness and Naturalness Characteristics is used to help guide management for the RMA. Both of these categories are placed in a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. The recreation opportunity spectrum framework describes the mix of outdoor recreation settings that produce recreation experiences. The recreation opportunity spectrum is broken down into six different classes ranging from urban to primitive (EA Figure 8). The classes are not exclusive to locations that exhibit characteristics that a person would normally associate with the name. For example, the primitive classification does not only pertain to wilderness areas, lands with wilderness characteristics or backcountry areas, but can be used as a management guideline for other areas.
Figure 8: Remoteness Heat Scale The PRMP/FEIS defines “Remoteness” as an area’s proximity to roads or trails. The PRMP/FEIS identified the recreation opportunity spectrum class for remoteness by using the BLM functional road classification system to assign road types by recreation opportunity spectrum class and identifying distance criteria (PRMP/FEIS p. 556). The distance criteria accounted for the project area’s topography, vegetation, and road type. Road types consist of arterial, collector, local, and resource roads (PRMP/FEIS p. 556). The below table shows the criteria that was used in the ROD/RMP to determine the recreation opportunity spectrum class for remoteness. Table 3: Criteria for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class
Recreation Opportunity Distance Criteria Spectrum Class Primitive Greater than 1 mile from any class of road, excluding those that are permanently closed or decommissioned Back Country 0.25 to 1 mile from any class of road, excluding those that are permanently closed or decommissioned Middle Country Within 0.25 mile of local* or resource† roads Front Country Within 0.25 mile of collector‡ roads Rural Within 0.25 mile of arterial roads or highways Urban Within 0.25 mile of arterial roads or highways * Local roads. Roads that normally serve smaller areas than collector roads, accommodate fewer uses, have lower traffic volumes, and connect with collector roads or State and County road systems. † Resource roads. Roads that provide point access to public lands, typically exist for a single use, carry very low traffic volumes, and connect with local or collector roads. ‡ Collector roads. Roads that primarily provide access to large blocks of public land, accommodate multiple uses, have BLM’s highest traffic volumes, and connect with State and County road systems.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 38 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
“Naturalness” as defined by the PRMP/FEIS is based on the level of influence humans have on an area other than roads and trails (PRMP/FEIS p. 557). Human modification can include areas of development, utilities, right-of-way, livestock structures, fences, habitat treatments, or landscape alterations. Naturalness considers the presence of human modifications and how these modifications may, or may not influence the visitor’s experience. Management Frameworks were created in the ROD/RMP to guide RAMP development. These frameworks cover the allowable management actions, important recreation values and the outcome objectives that the RMA is trying to meet. The Planning Framework states the RSC for Wildwood as “Front Country”, and describes Wildwood as being located in the “Rural” (EA Tables 3-4; EA Appendix D) classification for remoteness due to US Highway 26 bordering the recreation site. However, Wildwood is not described as “Urban” due to the other components of the RSC, including “Naturalness” of the recreation site from all the vegetation in the physical setting. The existing RSCs at Wildwood include “Rural”, “Back Country”, “Middle Country”, and “Front Country” (EA Table 5). Table 4: Front Country RSC Descriptions
Component RSC Description Remoteness Within 0.25 mi of collector roads Naturalness Character of the natural landscape partially modified but none overpower Physical natural landscape Visitor Facilities Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits Contacts 30 or more encounters/day on travel routes Group Size 13-25 people/group Social Evidence of Use Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with compacted soils. Sounds of people regularly heard Public Access Ordinary highway auto and truck traffic Visitor Services Info materials, plus experience and benefit descriptions. Staff regularly Operational present Management Rules, regulations, and ethics clearly posted. Use restrictions, limitations, Controls reservations and/or closures
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 39 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 5: Existing RSC Conditions at Wildwood
RSC Recreation Opportunity Description Component Spectrum Class Physical Components Remoteness Rural Within 0.25 mi of arterial roads or highways Naturalness Front Country Character of the natural landscape partially modified but none overpower natural landscape Visitor Facilities Front Country Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits Social Components Contacts Back Country 7-15 encounters/ day on travel routes Group Size Middle Country 7-12 people/group Evidence of Use Middle Country Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing wear with bare soils. Occasional sounds of people Operational Components Public Access Front Country Ordinary highway auto and truck traffic Visitor Services Front Country Info materials, plus experience and benefit descriptions. Staff regularly present Management Middle Country Some regulatory and ethics signs. Moderate use restrictions Controls
The Planning Framework outlined the “Outcome Objectives” that Wildwood needs to be managing for and trying to achieve. The below EA Table 6 was taken from the Wildwood SRMA Planning Framework. The visitor activities, experiences, and benefits is what the Wildwood SRMA is supposed to be achieving, the RAMP must take into consideration the best alternative to meet these goals.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 40 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 6: Outcome Objectives from SRMA Planning Framework
Visitor Visitor Visitor Benefits Activities Experience Personal Community/Social Environmental Economic Mountain Enjoying having Enhanced Greater community Improved More positive biking access to awareness and involvement in maintenance of contributions outdoor understanding of recreation and other physical facilities to local- Hiking amenities close nature land use decisions regional Improved respect to home economy Camping Better sense of Improved community for privately Releasing or my place within integrations owned lands Increased Picnicking my community desirability as reducing some Enlarged sense of Increased a place to live Day use built up mental Greater freedom community ecologically or retire tensions from urban living dependency on friendly tourism Swimming public lands operations Maintenance of Enjoying the Stronger ties with community's Fishing closeness of my family and distinctive family and friends Environmental friends recreation- education tourism market Reflecting on niche or setting my own character character and personal values
3.1.2 Environmental Effects All Action Alternatives All the action alternatives share similar impacts to the recreation values and characteristics. Currently, Wildwood is not fully meeting the management objectives that are lined out for the SRMA in the RMP framework (EA Table 6). The action alternatives would allow the Wildwood SRMA to realize the Outcome Objectives that are outlined in the Planning Framework (EA Appendix D). The action alternatives would not interfere with the current day-use recreation, as the proposed development for all alternatives will transform underutilized resources, or will be developed in new locations that relocate the most utilized day-use resources to a day-use specific location, that will concentrate all of the most popular day-use activities, so they will be more accessible. The resources that are to be transformed is a day-use group shelter and both of the outdoor covered kitchens, which have very low (three to 10 percent) utilization rates. The RSCs would be brought to the Front Country RSC designation through vegetation modification, and by utilizing region specific contracting requirements (EA Table 7). All of the new development would utilize the Cascadia architecture design requirements, which was created with the construction of Timberline Lodge, and has been carried through all the BLM recreation development that has been present in the region (The History of Timberline Lodge 2017).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 41 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 7: RSC Conditions for All Action Alternatives
RSC Recreation Opportunity Description Component Spectrum Class Physical Components Remoteness Rural Within 0.25 mi of arterial roads or highways Naturalness Front Country Character of the natural landscape partially modified but none overpower natural landscape Visitor Facilities Front Country Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits Social Components Contacts Front Country 30 or more encounters/day on travel routes Group Size Front Country 13-25 people/group Evidence of Use Front Country Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing wear with bare soils. Occasional sounds of people Operational Components Public Access Front Country Ordinary highway auto and truck traffic Visitor Services Front Country Info materials, plus experience and benefit descriptions. Staff regularly present Management Front Country Rules, regulations, and ethics clearly posted. Use restrictions, Controls limitations, reservations and/or closures
The Pioneer Shelter would be the outdoor group day-use shelter that would be transformed. Currently, both outdoor group day-use shelters can be reserved as a half or a whole site. The east side of the shelter was reserved 10 percent of the time, and the west side has a nine percent occupancy rate. This amount of use would be easily moved to the other identical shelter called Mountain View Shelter. This shelter currently has a 15 percent occupancy rate on the north side, a 13 percent occupancy rate on the south side. The combined occupancy rates would be 25 percent and 22 percent. Transforming the Pioneer group shelter into an overnight group shelter would make a more efficient use of the resources, without affecting the current day-use of the sites as the total occupancy rate for the day-use shelter would still be incredibly low. The reservable outdoor covered kitchens currently receive nearly five percent occupancy rate for the 225 days they are available. The two outdoor covered kitchens were used for a combined total of 22 days out of the 450 they were available. The outdoor covered kitchens would be transformed into a unique private nook that is circular in shape and features cabins looking inward toward the central shared outdoor covered kitchen. This unique setting being paired with the shared outdoor covered kitchen would increase the occupancy rate of these sites drastically, to a rate of 80 percent (EA Appendix B). The unique setting would be ideal for families, or individuals that are wanting the additional cooking space and dining area that can support a large group. This development type is also appealing for outfitter and guides. The majority of day-use recreation that occurs at Wildwood is near the Salmon River. Some of the most popular activities is walking along the Streamwatch path, looking at fish in the fish-
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 42 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA viewing window, playing along the banks of the river, swimming in the river, and crossing the river to explore the boardwalk. The distance from the closest section of the proposed new development is more than 1000 feet away from these activities. The distance from the most popular day-use area, coupled with the extremely low use of the day-use shelters, makes it highly unlikely that any day-use activities that currently exist in the SRMA would be impacted from the proposed development. No Action Alternative The RSCs for the No Action Alternative would be similar to those currently existing at Wildwood because no additional development would occur (EA Table 5). Opportunities within the site would be limited to existing day-use. Day-use activities alone make it difficult for families to develop stronger ties, and to have greater freedom from urban living. Overnight camping allows families the opportunity to escape urban living for longer times and to spend longer periods of time together in a forested environment. This allows for a more complete experience and provides greater opportunities for family and friends to bond further and escape urban living. Visitor facilities are included in the physical components of the RSC. Under the No Action Alternative, maintenance of the existing facilities would be impacted due to continued reduction in visitation, which would affect the Front Country RSC designation in relation to providing visitors with modern facilities (EA Table 7). Wildwood would continue to underperform, preventing the site from keeping up with the costs of maintenance or improving existing infrastructure. The site would likely remain stagnant in visitation, or even see a decrease in visitation as the site maintenance would continue to decline.
3.1.3 Cumulative Effect The cumulative effects study area for this issue includes recreation opportunities throughout the state of Oregon, specifically overnight camping and day-use. The 2019-2023 Oregon SCORP estimated 15 million overnight camping, including RV, trailer, tent, yurt, and cabin camping, visits (user occasions) annually (SCORP 2019 p. 121). The SCORP did not present a standalone day-use estimate, but the totals for picnicking, wildlife viewing, and visiting nature setting, which totaled approximately 70,746,000 visits annually (SCORP pp. 119-121). Oregon is currently lacking in overnight camping opportunities as these opportunities are the number two visitor demand throughout the state (SCORP 2019 p. 169). Currently there is no priority across Oregon for day-use activities, except for those types of day-use activities within urban centers close to home (SCORP 2019 p. 169). The action alternatives would provide overnight camping, which would fill the need for these types of opportunities statewide. Cumulatively, the action alternatives are projected to provide approximately 18,048 to 44,515 overnight camping visits seasonally in 2021, thus increasing the total number of visits for overnight camping statewide by less than one percent (EA Section 3.2.2). Projected day-use opportunities for Wildwood are not expected to increase across the action alternatives. Wildwood would provide approximately 49,295 day-use visits seasonally in 2021, which would add less than one percent to the statewide number of visits (EA Section 3.2.2).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 43 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
3.2 Issue 2: How would the proposed overnight camping facilities, and associated fees, within Wildwood impact the economics and socio-economics of the local communities within the Mount Hood corridor? The analysis area for potential economic and socio-economic impacts is the Sandy River Basin- Mount Hood Corridor, which includes The Villages at Mount Hood, the Sandy River Basin (which include the cities of Sandy, Brightwood, Welches, Wemme, Zigzag, and Rhododendron), and portions of the Portland-Metropolitan area (EA Figure 9). To find the economic impact of the action alternatives, the total days that all available overnight camping sites are occupied seasonally is separated into local and non-local days, using the percentages determined by White, Gooding, Stynes, 2013. The days occupied were divided into the average length of stay for Clackamas County which is 3.3 nights, to determine how many “visits” (“trips” as referred to in Dean Runyan Associates 2018) would occur (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). This number was than multiplied by the average amount that was spent in the “other” category for visits (this includes camping), which is $374 for Clackamas County (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). To find the estimated jobs created the total economic impact was divided by the amount of visitor spending that is needed to support one job (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). It is estimated that the Local and State Tax Revenues generated by visitor spending is $4.88 dollars for every $100 dollars spent (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). To find the amount of tax revenue that would be generated, the economic impact has to be divided by $100, and then multiplied by $4.88 (Dean Runyan Associates 2018).
Figure 9: Analysis Area for Wildwood EA Issues 2 and 3
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 44 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
In preparing this analysis, the BLM has made several analytical assumptions that provide the framework to the analysis of the issue below: Regional area includes population centers within a 60-minute drive time from the analysis area, the Sandy River Basin-Mount Hood Corridor. The Resource Advisory Council would approve the proposed Recreation Fee updates outlined in the Northwest Oregon District Business Plans, specifically the Sandy River Basin Business Plan (US DOI BLM 2016). The BLM utilized the Fishermen’s Bend Recreation site as a comparable site within the Northwest Oregon District for both revenue generation and occupancy rate projections for this analysis. The Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site is a 184-acre developed camping and day-use recreation facility located in Marion County about 30 miles east of Salem, Oregon on Highway 22. When comparing Wildwood to another Northwest Oregon District recreation site that is similar in development size, proximity to a major travel corridor near a recreation destination (Detroit Lake, Hoodoo Ski Resort), and its location to a major population center, Salem, Oregon. The Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site offers similar amenities to those proposed under the action alternatives, like full hook-up campsites, RV sites, paved or surfaced access and parking, day-use, potable water, playgrounds, sports fields, shower facilities, dump station, interpretive or informational kiosks, and toilet facilities. The BLM utilized regional private and public sector overnight camping facilities to develop projected occupancy rates for the action alternatives (US DOI BLM 2016). Spending differs based on the distance traveled; non-local visitors, anyone who travels over 60 miles to the destination, typically spends more than local visitors do during a recreation trip (White, Gooding, Stynes 2013). The Pacific Northwest Research Station study developed spending estimates and profiles based on large surveys taken at United States Forest Service (USFS) National Forests. The study indicated that 49 percent of all visitation to National Forests is day-use visitation, of which 83 percent comes from locals. Only five percent of overnight visitation was from locals (White, Gooding, Stynes 2013). The BLM reviewed these numbers, and compared them to a newer study, that utilized county specific spending data instead of a nationwide spending profile. The Dean Runyan Associates, 2018 study does not break out spending by local and non-local, but instead averages that spending, and is focused on Clackamas County, where the analysis area is located. Additionally, the Nash Equilibrium economic theory to determine how the proposed amenities in Wildwood would affect market competition for overnight camping facilities within the region (EA Appendix B). The Nash Equilibrium, which is an economic theory for selecting the best outcome for all parties, in this case private industry, USFS, and local government, involved in market competition. BLM used the private sector overnight camping facilities, with higher levels and types of amenities, and the public sector overnight camping facilities, with fewer amenities, as a comparison for market competition within the region for the level and type of amenities proposed under the action alternatives. The BLM assumed that the current amenity levels and types of these market competitors would not deviate from their current course. The BLM utilized USFS regional overnight camping facilities and BLM Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site occupancy data, as well as data from the Oregon Metro’s Oxbow Regional Park, to generate the regional average for overnight occupancy based on
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 45 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
overnight site type (US DOI BLM 2016). This regional average was utilized to generate projected occupancy rates for the action alternatives. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. The group size per visit by site type was determined using visitation information from other comparable BLM Northwest Oregon District overnight camping facilities that were accumulated during the 2016 recreation season, for group sites. This information was obtained throughout the recreation season by the recreation staff, and applied to Recreation Management Information Systems (RMIS) for data calculation (RMIS 2018). Each individual site, including tents, RVs, camping, cabins, and small yurts averages a group size of 3.2 visitors per visit, this information was generated by the Oregon Travel Impacts study and is specific to Clackamas County (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). Individual sites utilized the same group size amount due to them having similar demographic users, and similar size restrictions placed on the sites. Group sites average 33.5 visitors per visit while group yurts average 12 visitors per visit. Day-use group size averages 2.5 persons per visit. From BLM Recreation Planner experience, typically active outdoor recreation demands a greater level of amenities as the recreationalists generally become dirty, sweaty, or wet and value being able to come back to a basecamp, take a shower, get dry, enjoy hot food, and be warm for the night.
3.2.1 Affected Environment Wildwood sits in the shadow of Mount Hood, off US Highway 26, which provides terrific access from Portland to Mount Hood. US Highway 26 places Wildwood and the surrounding outdoor recreation sites within an hour’s time drive for visitors from the Portland-metro area. The ease of access to recreation sites along US Highway 26 increases the destination appeal for both small vehicles and the largest RVs, and is further amplified due to Wildwood’s location at the base of Mount Hood. BLM Recreation Planner professional experience indicates that recreation sites that are on major travel routes, and located near international destinations typically have increased visitation compared to those that require a visitor to traverse winding narrow, or less maintained roads, and are the only attraction in the area. The analysis area lies directly east of the Portland-Metropolitan area and includes portions of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. Due to the high percentage of federal ownership, population distribution is generally clustered along Highway 26 east of Sandy, Oregon. According to the Census Bureau, the Portland-Metropolitan area’s population in 2015 was nearly 2.4 million, with a continuing growth rate between 1.5 percent and 2 percent (US Census Bureau 2016). The demographics of Marion and Clackamas counties are comprised of a median age of 39 and a median household income of $58,772 according to the US Census Bureau, placing the average resident’s age and household income above that of the national average (US Census Bureau 2016).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 46 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure 10: Gross Domestic Product for Industries within the Analysis Area (Dean-Runyan Associates 2018) The analysis area is highly reliant on tourism and outdoor recreation development because it is a major contributor to the local economies due to the lack of other industries (EA Figures 10 and 11; Dean-Runyan Associates 2018). The analysis area has been impacted through an increase in tourism and outdoor recreation development. Past development of tourism and outdoor recreation opportunities within the analysis area have resulted in increases to socio-economic and economic benefits, by increasing tourism dollar spending (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). The travel and tourism industry is one of the most important export-oriented industries in Oregon, and it is especially socio-economically and economically important for rural communities of Oregon (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). The travel and tourism industry has had favorable employment and earnings growth when compared to other industries over the last decade (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). Travel and tourism is relatively more important to rural areas, then for urban areas, because urban areas have additional sources of revenue outside of travel and tourism, where rural communities have few other sources of revenue besides travel and tourism (Dean Runyan Associates 2018).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 47 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure 11: Change in Earning and Employment from Dean Runyan Associates 2018 Study Travel Oregon commissioned a study with Dean Runyan Associates 2018 about the economic impact that tourism has in Clackamas County. A total of $530.5 million dollars were spent on destination travel in 2017, with $78.8 million dollars being spent on arts, entertainment, and recreation (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). Socio-economic benefits generally follow economic increases as the communities have more capital to spend on community projects. Additionally, property values increase as a location becomes more economically viable, and communities that have a robust outdoor recreation market are seen as a more desirable location to live. These factors in turn increase property taxes, state taxes, and transitory room taxes, which is the major factor in paying for public services like education, emergency services, and public transportation. In 2017, $25.9 million dollars were generated in Local and State Tax Receipts within Clackamas County due to travel (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). Within the analysis area there is an existing large volume of day-use recreation opportunities, which reduces the likelihood that a visitor would choose Wildwood as their destination for the day. Generally, visitors want to travel a short distance, within 30 minutes’ drive time, for the day-use recreation activities that Wildwood currently offers (picnicking focused). The hour travel time from Portland, the highest volume of available customers for outdoor recreation in the region, further reduces the day-use appeal of Wildwood. Ideal travel times are within 30 minutes for day-use, and up to 60 minutes for unique, destination quality recreation, which Wildwood does not offer (PRMP/FEIS p. 575). An example of unique, destination quality recreation experience includes the BLM Sandy Ridge Trail System, which draw visitors with travel times greater than 60 minutes due to the unique design of the gravity flow mountain bike trail system. Wildwood’s primary day-use activities can be compared to those of a typical community park, which include approximately twenty parks within the analysis area. Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site has a noticeable difference in the revenue generation versus the cost of operations and maintenance (O&M) compared to Wildwood. For fiscal year 2016 Fishermen’s Bend generated $237,253. The O&M expense for Fishermen’s Bend is $478,133, which is near the same cost of Wildwood, but the revenue generation is six times that of Wildwood. Regional Area Market
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 48 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Recreationalists in the area between Portland and Mount Hood utilize US Highway 26 to access most of the recreation opportunities in the region. This recreation market is dominated by year round outdoor recreation opportunities, like skiing, mountain biking, fishing, hunting, and camping. In 2015, nearly 3.2 million visitors spent more than $483 million in the Mount Hood Territory on tourism activities, with 21 percent of those visits dedicated to camping or glamping (Longwoods International 2015). The occupancy average for lodging was 73 percent in 2015, and estimated to be 75 percent in 2016 (Mount Hood Territory 2017). Currently there are no overnight public camping facilities located from Sandy to Welches in the analysis area. Public sector development in the region primarily focuses on rustic campgrounds that offer little in the way of expanded amenities and day-use sites that focus on hiking, water recreation, and mountain biking. The USFS is the primary public sector campground provider, providing seven overnight camping facilities within the analysis area, with the majority of these sites located further up Mount Hood and deeper in the National Forest (US DOI BLM 2016). Of the available campgrounds, 17 total, six do not supply the higher end amenities such as power, water hookups, and sewer hookups (EA Table 8; US DOI BLM 2016). Additionally, six of the available USFS campground were not constructed to accommodate 25 feet long or larger RVs and camping trailers, but do provide family tent camping. Due to the elevation of the campgrounds and the lack of higher end amenities, the USFS campgrounds are unavailable during the recreation shoulder season (fall-winter-spring). Table 8: Amenity Levels and Site Development Type
Site Development Amenities Included Amenity Level Type (Per H-8320-1) Day-use Designated developed parking, permanent toilet facility, Standard Amenities permanent trash receptacle, interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk, picnic tables, security services Low-Level Includes standard amenities and some, but not all: Tent or Expanded Amenities trailer spaces, drinking water, access roads, fee collection by an employee or agent of BLM, reasonable visitor protection, refuse containers, toilet facilities, simple devices for containing a campfire Mid-Level Includes all standard and expanded amenities, and: Cabin Standard, Expanded, rental, group day-use or overnight sites, binoculars or and Additional other equipment, hookups for electricity, cable, sewer, Amenities sanitary dump stations, reservation services High Level Includes all previous, and: Swimming pools, restaurants, Private Amenities laundry facilities, gyms, saunas, movie theaters, cable television, wireless internet
Private sector campgrounds account for three campgrounds within the analysis area, which include higher development standards and amenities (EA Table 8). They are typically located from the middle of the Mount Hood corridor to the higher elevations of the mountain. Of these campgrounds, three provide gyms, cafes, supplies, laundry services, cable television, wireless
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 49 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA internet, power hookups, water hookups, sewer hookups, many other amenities, and a compact site layout. The private sector campgrounds includes a higher amount of development, as well as higher occupancy fees, with full hook-up sites ranging from $38 to $49 per night, while public campsites range from $24 to $29 (EA Appendix B). Approximately two of the private sector campgrounds are available during the outdoor recreation shoulder season (September to October) and/or the winter months (November to February). Significant trends in outdoor recreation include the ever-increasing demand for active outdoor recreation activities, like mountain biking, skiing, hiking with dramatic views, and off highway vehicle (OHV) use. Another significant trend in outdoor recreation is the need to accommodate RVs, fifth wheels, and camper trailers, with higher levels of overnight camping amenities, like paved areas, flushing restrooms, power hookups, cell phone reception, potable water, and shower facilities (Outdoor Foundation 2014). Clackamas County’s Mount Hood Territory commissioned a water tourism study that examined the overall outdoor recreation market within Clackamas County, primarily focusing on water based recreation. However, the study noted, “Camping is in high demand especially on the summer weekends, and additional campsites in the county are likely to be filled” (Crane Associates 2018). Additionally, the study states, “These data do show that camping is preferred over hotels by twice as much across the entire market” (Crane Associates 2018). The study called for more, higher quality, and higher amenity level infrastructure for campgrounds. The summer recreation season is generally marked by warmer weather and longer days, which usually begins May 1 and ends October 31. BLM Recreation Planner profession experience indicates, during the summer recreation season, the primary outdoor recreation activities that occur in the region is mountain biking, hiking, camping, and water based recreation. Secondary outdoor recreation activities that occur in the region is snowboarding, and skiing on Mount. Hood, as it is one of the only year round snow destinations. A major mountain biking destination in the region, the Sandy Ridge Trail System, draws in 90,000 to 120,000 visitors annually and is located a 15-minute bike ride from Wildwood (RMIS 2018). The summer is the primary camping season, and is the time of year that is likely to see the largest amount of visitation to Wildwood. During the winter recreation season the primary outdoor recreation activities revolve around the ample amount of snow that Mount Hood receives the activities included, snowboarding, skiing, snow shoeing, and sledding. Secondary outdoor recreation activities include white water rafting, steelhead and salmon fishing, and mountain biking at lower elevations, like the Sandy Ridge Trail. Wildwood does not offer many winter recreation options, but it is located 19-minutes by car to Government Camp, which is located next to several skiing, snowboarding, and snow shoeing locations, and acts as a major winter recreation hub.
3.2.2 Environmental Effects Camping development at Wildwood would allow the BLM to fill a camping gap within the analysis area. Currently there are no overnight public camping facilities located from Sandy to Welches and an appropriate level of development at Wildwood would be able to fill a unique niche in the recreation market for the region. An assessment of the current recreation market for campgrounds, including both the public and private sector, suggests supply and demand for mid- level developed recreation sites, like that proposed in the action alternatives. The BLM would be able to provide increased site utilization, additional amenities, and provide for high quality recreation experiences by taking a mid-level development approach for Wildwood when
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 50 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA compared to the rustic campgrounds of the USFS and the resort like campgrounds of the private sector. The action alternatives would allow the BLM sites to attract a larger audience by appealing to visitors that frequent both traditional camping and modern amenity types of sites. This includes visitors that want the more traditional camping experience of being in nature, but still want all the comforts of modern technology and an amount of expanded amenities that allow for a home like stay. The mix of expanded amenities and the location of the site would allow Wildwood to develop into a high-end public facility that is still comparable to lower-end, private sector facility in terms of amenities and cost (EA Table 8). Public sector facilities comparable to Wildwood offer at most an electric hookup while comparable private sector facilities offer amenities such as cafes, swimming pools, laundry services, and workout facilities (EA Table 8). Wildwood could serve as a basecamp for visitors wanting to take advantage of the incredible day-use recreation opportunities existing in the area, including the Sandy Ridge Trailhead, Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness, the Sandy River and the ample outdoor recreation on Mount Hood. The Sandy Ridge Trailhead has rapidly grown in popularity, receiving 90,000 to 120,000 visitors a year and is advertised in other nations like Canada and Germany (RMIS 2018). It is expected that Sand Ridge Trailhead will continue to see an increase in visitation in the years to come, and will continue to grow in recognition as site amenities are improved with the new Sandy Ridge Trailhead Access Improvement project. Wildwood could greatly benefit from the success of Sandy Ridge Trailhead. Wildwood is a 3.4 mile bike ride from Sandy Ridge Trail and located on the Mount Hood Express route. The Sandy River Basin-Mount Hood Corridor is a national and international outdoor recreation destination and developing Wildwood to accommodate those travelers can greatly benefit the recreation site in terms of revenue generation. The further that a person travels for recreation, the more likely they will be needing or wanting a higher level of amenities such as full hookups or a permanent shelter like a cabin. Winter Opportunities The winter recreation market focuses more heavily on skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, and day-use fishing for salmon and steelhead on the Sandy River. The addition of the improved lodging at Wildwood would allow the recreation site to accommodate winter recreation demands. Wildwood would generate more revenue by tapping into the popular winter tourism market of the Mount Hood Region. Traditionally campgrounds close during the winter months, as camping usually occurs during the summer months, and coincides with the sunny days. Building yurts or cabins at Wildwood would allow for a year round camping season, thus increasing revenue during the shoulder season without drastically increasing the cost to operate. With appropriate camping development and public transportation servicing Wildwood, it could allow for possible winter season use. The traditional outdoor recreation “shoulder season” includes the winter season; however, due to the location of Wildwood (approximately 1,200 feet elevation) being out of the snow zone (approximately 1,400 feet elevation) and with the appropriate overnight facility development, Wildwood could take advantage of the popular winter recreation market that exists from Mount Hood reducing the shoulder season. Mount Hood Express, the local public transportation, has begun incorporating Wildwood as a stop on the route; this allows visitors of Wildwood to travel to Mount Hood, Sandy Ridge Trailhead and other popular trailheads without
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 51 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA needing to use their vehicle. People that feel uncomfortable or have a vehicle that may not perform well in snow could take the Mount Hood Express to head up to Mount Hood. Proposed Action Regional Projections EA Table 9 shows the projected revenue, estimated visitation, and total days available at proposed sites would be occupied seasonally, utilizing occupancy rates from the USFS campgrounds in the region and the Oxbow Regional Park. The calculations in EA Table 9 utilized the analytical assumptions from EA Section 3.2. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. Each column is multiplied by the next until it reaches the total in the “Revenue” column. Table 9: Proposed Action Projected Revenue Based on Regional Occupancy Rates Occupancy Days Cost Per Days Type Amount Revenue Visitors Rate Available Night Occupied Full Hookups 23 55% 184 $35 $81,466 2,328 7,450 (RV Loop) Full Hookup 62 55% 184 $35 $219,604 6,274 20,077 (Lower Loops 1 and 2) Cabins 15 80% 184 $65 $143,520 2,208 7,066 Cabins w/ SOCK 7 80% 184 $80 $82,432 1,030 3,296 Group Camp 1 40% 184 $420 $30,912 74 2,479 Shelters Camping Total $557,934 11,914 40,368 Day-Use Total $49,470 49,295 Combined Total $607,404 89,663
To achieve a similar amount of revenue as projected by the Proposed Action, day-use visitation would have to increase to 522,527 people annually compared to the projected 89,663 visitors that are estimated under this alternative. In other terms, to generate the similar revenue as the Proposed Action, day-use fees would have to be increased by 11 times the current fee rate of $5, which would mean that a single day-use fee would be $55. EA Table 10 displays the total economic impact within the analysis area from day-use and the overnight camping development proposed under the Proposed Action, utilizing occupancy rates from the USFS campgrounds in the region and the Oxbow Regional Park. The total amount of local economic input generated within the analysis area from the Proposed Action is $3,578,388.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 52 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 10: Proposed Action Economic Impact from Development using Regional Projections Average # of Total Tax length of Days Average $ Jobs Visitor Type Visitors, Economic Revenue stay occupied spent/visit Created seasonally Input Generated (days) Overnight 38,350 3.3 11,318 $374 $1,282,707 15 $62,596 nonlocal (95%) Overnight 2,018 3.3 596 $374 $67,547 1 $3,296 local (5%) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 89,663 31,632 $3,578,388 41 $174,624
Fishermen’s Bend Projections In addition to the calculations above using the USFS campgrounds and Oxbow Regional Park as analogs for occupancy, the projected revenue, estimated visitation, and total days all available proposed sites would be occupied seasonally was determined utilizing the Fishermen’s Bend occupancy rates. The calculations in EA Table 11 utilized the analytical assumptions from EA Section 3.2. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. Each column is multiplied by the next until it reaches the total in the “Revenue” column.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 53 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 11: Proposed Action Projected Revenue Based on Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Rates Cost Occupancy Days Days Type Amount Per Revenue Visitors Rate Available Occupied Night Full Hookups 23 65% 184 $35 $81,466 2,751 8,803 (RV Loop) Full Hookup 62 65% 184 $35 $259,532 7,415 23,728 (Lower Loop) Cabins 15 80% 184 $65 $143,520 2,208 7,066 Cabins w/ SOCK 7 80% 184 $80 $82,432 1,030 3,296 Group Camp 1 55% 184 $420 $42,504 101 3,384 Shelters Camping Total $609,454 13,505 46,277 Day-Use Total $49,470 49,295 Combined Total $658,924 95,572
To achieve a similar amount of revenue as projected by the Proposed Action, day-use visitation would have to increase to 655,624 people annually compared to the projected 95,572 visitors that are estimated under this alternative. In other terms, to generate the similar revenue as the Proposed Action, day-use fees would have to be increased by 13 times the current fee rate of $5, which would mean that a single day-use fee would be $65. EA Table 12 displays the total economic impact within the analysis area from day-use and the overnight camping development proposed under the Proposed Action, utilizing the Fishermen’s Bend occupancy rates. The total amount of economic input generated within the analysis area from the Proposed Action is $3,758,701.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 54 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 12: Proposed Action Economic Impact from Development using Fishermen's Bend Projections
Average # of Total Tax length of Days Average $ Jobs Visitor Type Visitors, Economic Revenue stay occupied spent/visit Created seasonally Input Generated (days) Overnight 43,963 3.3 12,830 $374 $1,454,067 17 $70,959 nonlocal (95%) Overnight 2,314 3.3 675 $374 $76,500 1 $3,733 local (5%) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 95,572 33,223 $3,758,701 43 $183,424
Alternative A Regional Projections EA Table 13 shows the projected revenue, estimated visitation, and total days all available proposed sites would be occupied seasonally, utilizing occupancy rates from the USFS campgrounds in the region and the Oxbow Regional Park. The calculations in EA Table 13 utilized the analytical assumptions from EA Section 3.2. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. Each column is multiplied by the next until it reaches the total in the “Revenue” column.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 55 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 13: Alternative A Projected Revenue Based on Regional Occupancy Rates Cost Occupancy Days Days Type Amount Per Revenue Visitors Rate Available Occupied Night Full Hookup 23 55% 184 $35 $81,466 2,328 7,450 (RV Loop) Full Hookup 62 55% 184 $35 $219,604 6,274 20,077 (Lower Loops) Group Yurts 4 40% 184 $110 $32,384 294 3,528 Cabins 15 80% 184 $65 $143,520 2,208 7,066 Cabins w/ SOCK 7 80% 184 $80 $82,432 1,030 3,296 Group Camp 1 40% 184 $420 $30,912 74 2,479 Shelters Camping Total $590,318 12,208 43,896 Day-Use Total $49,470 49,295 Combined Total $639,788 93,191
To achieve a similar amount of revenue as projected by Alternative A, day-use visitation would have to increase to 635,906 people annually compared to the projected 93,191 visitors that are estimated under this alternative. In other terms, to generate the similar revenue as Alternative A, day-use fees would have to be increased by 13 times the current fee rate of $5, which would mean that a single day-use fee would be $65. EA Table 14 displays the total economic impact within the analysis area from day-use and the overnight camping development proposed under Alternative A, utilizing occupancy rates from the USFS campgrounds in the region and the Oxbow Regional Park. The total amount of economic input generated within the analysis area from Alternative A is $3611,707.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 56 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 14: Alternative A Economic Impact from Development using Regional Projections Average # of Total Tax length of Days Average $ Jobs Visitor Type Visitors, Economic Revenue stay occupied spent/visit Created seasonally Input Generated (days) Overnight 41,701 3.3 11,598 $374 $1,314,440 15 $64,145 nonlocal (95%) Overnight 2,195 3.3 610 $374 $69,133 1 $3,374 local (5%) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 93,191 31,926 $3,611,707 41 $176,251
Fishermen’s Bend Projections In addition to the calculations above using the USFS campgrounds and Oxbow Regional Park as analogs for occupancy, the projected revenue, estimated visitation, and total days all available proposed sites would be occupied seasonally was determined utilizing the Fishermen’s Bend occupancy rates. The calculations in EA Table 15 utilized the analytical assumptions from EA Section 3.2. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. Each column is multiplied by the next until it reaches the total in the “Revenue” column.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 57 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 15: Alternative A Projected Revenue Based on Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Rates Occupancy Days Cost Per Days Type Amount Revenue Visitors Rate Available Night Occupied Full Hookup 23 65% 184 $35 $96,278 2,751 8,803 (RV Loop) Full Hookup 62 65% 184 $35 $259,532 7,415 23,728 (Lower Loops) Group Yurts 4 55% 184 $110 $44,528 405 4,860 Cabins 15 80% 184 $65 $143,520 2,208 7,066 Cabins w/ SOCK 7 80% 184 $80 $82,432 1,030 3,296 Group Camp 1 55% 184 $420 $42,504 101 3,384 Shelters Camping Total $668,794 13,910 51,137 Day-Use Total $49,470 49,295 Combined Total $718,264 100,432
To achieve a similar amount of revenue as projected by Alternative A, day-use visitation would have to increase to 714,778 people annually compared to the projected 100,432 visitors that are estimated under this alternative. In other terms, to generate the similar revenue as Alternative A, day-use fees would have to be increased by 14.5 times the current fee rate of $5, which would mean that a single day-use fee would be $73. EA Table 16 displays the total economic impact within the analysis area from day-use and the overnight camping development proposed under Alternative A, utilizing the Fishermen’s Bend occupancy rates. The total amount of economic input generated within the analysis area from Alternative A is $3,804,714.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 58 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 16: Alternative A Economic Impact from Development using Fishermen’s Bend Projections
Average # of Total Tax length of Days Average $ Jobs Visitor Type Visitors, Economic Revenue stay occupied spent/visit Created seasonally Input Generated (days) Overnight 48,580 3.3 13,215 $374 $1,497,700 17 $73,088 nonlocal (95%) Overnight 2,557 3.3 696 $374 $78,880 1 $3,851 local (5%) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 100,432 33,629 $3,804,714 43 $185,671
Alternative B Regional Projections EA Table 17 shows the projected revenue, estimated visitation, and total days all available proposed sites would be occupied seasonally, utilizing occupancy rates from the USFS campgrounds in the region and the Oxbow Regional Park. The calculations in EA Table 17 utilized the analytical assumptions from EA Section 3.2. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. Each column is multiplied by the next until it reaches the total in the “Revenue” column. Table 17: Alternative B Projected Revenue Based on Regional Occupancy Rates
Cost Occupancy Days Days Type Amount Per Revenue Visitors Rate Available Occupied Night Full Hookups 23 55% 184 $35 $81,466 2,328 7,450 Cabins 15 80% 184 $65 $143,520 2,208 7,066 Cabins w/ SOCK 7 80% 184 $80 $82,432 1,030 3,296 Group Camp 1 40% 184 $420 $30,912 74 2,479 Shelters Camping Total $338,330 5,640 20,291 Day-Use Total $49,470 49,295 Combined Total $387,800 69,586
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 59 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
To achieve a similar amount of revenue as projected by Alternative B, day-use visitation would have to increase to 386,428 people annually compared to the projected 69,586 visitors that are estimated under this alternative. In other terms, to generate the similar revenue as Alternative B, day-use fees would have to be increased by eight times the current fee rate of $5, which would mean that a single day-use fee would be $40. EA Table 18 displays the total economic impact within the analysis area from day-use and the overnight camping development proposed under Alternative B, utilizing occupancy rates from the USFS campgrounds in the region and the Oxbow Regional Park. The total amount of economic input generated within the analysis area from Alternative B is $2,867,334. Table 18: Alternative B Economic Impact from Development using Regional Projections
Average Tax # of Total length of Days Average $ Jobs Revenue Visitor Type Visitors, Economic stay occupied spent/visit Created Generate seasonally Input (days) d Overnight 19,276 3.3 5,358 $374 $607,240 7 $29,633 nonlocal (95%) Overnight 1,015 3.3 282 $374 $31,960 1 $1,560 local (5%) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 69,586 25,358 $2,867,334 33 $139,925
Fishermen’s Bend Projections In addition to the calculations above using the USFS campgrounds and Oxbow Regional Park as analogs for occupancy, the projected revenue, estimated visitation, and total days all available proposed sites would be occupied seasonally was determined utilizing the Fishermen’s Bend occupancy rates. The calculations in EA Table 19 utilized the analytical assumptions from EA Section 3.2. The occupancy rate reflects the average amount of nights a campsite is used over the 184 available days. Each column is multiplied by the next until it reaches the total in the “Revenue” column.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 60 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 19: Alternative B Projected Revenue Based on Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Rates Occupancy Days Cost Per Days Type Amount Revenue Visitors Rate Available Night Occupied Full Hookups 23 65% 184 $35 $96,278 2,751 8,803 Cabins 15 80% 184 $65 $143,520 2,208 7,066 Cabins w/ SOCK 7 80% 184 $80 $82,432 1,030 3,296 Group Camp 1 55% 184 $420 $42,504 101 3,384 Shelters Camping Total $364,734 6,090 22,549 Day-Use Total $49,470 49,295 Combined Total $414,204 71,844
To achieve a similar amount of revenue as projected by Alternative B, day-use visitation would have to increase to 412,739 people annually compared to the projected 71,844 visitors that are estimated under this alternative. In other terms, to generate the similar revenue as Alternative B, day-use fees would have to be increased by eight times the current fee rate of $5, which would mean that a single day-use fee would be $40. EA Table 20 displays the total economic impact within the analysis area from day-use and the overnight camping development proposed under Alternative A, utilizing the Fishermen’s Bend occupancy rates. The total amount of economic input generated within the analysis area from Alternative A is $2,918,334. Table 20: Alternative B Economic Impact from Development using Fishermen’s Bend Projections
Average # of Total Tax length of Days Average $ Jobs Visitor Type Visitors, Economic Revenue stay occupied spent/visit Created seasonally Input Generated (days) Overnight 21,421 3.3 5,785 $374 $655,633 8 $31,995 nonlocal (95%) Overnight 1,128 3.3 305 $374 $34,567 1 $1,687 local (5%) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 71,844 25,808 $2,918,334 34 $142,414
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 61 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative means there would be no new development made to Wildwood. Full hook-up camping would continue within the analysis area, however, there would be a reduction in mid-level amenity campsites under the No Action Alternative. If no development is completed, the projected economic impact from day-use only recreation opportunities would remain the same or even continue a slow decline (EA Table 21; EA Appendix B). As inflation continues to rise, the stagnant or declining fee revenue and appropriated funding would be able to purchase less and less, having a greater impact to the ability for the BLM to maintain the recreation site (EA Appendix B). This would further complicate the recreation sites ability to provide a well-maintained and safe recreation environment and a backlog of maintenance would continue to grow. As the sites infrastructure further deteriorates and the level of visitor services suffers do to a lack of funds, visitor satisfaction will decrease, resulting in even less visitation and fee revenue. EA Table 21 displays the total projected economic impact within the analysis area from day-use for the No Action Alternative. The total amount of economic input generated within the analysis area from the No Action Alternative is $2,228,134. Table 21: No Action Projected Economic Impact Average # of Total Tax length of Days Average $ Jobs Visitor Type Visitors, Economic Revenue stay occupied spent/visit created seasonally Input Generated (days) Day-use 8,380 1 3,352 $113 $378,776 4 $18,484 nonlocal (17%) Day-use local 40,915 1 16,366 $113 $1,849,358 21 $90,248 (83%) Total 49,295 19,718 $2,228,134 25 $108,732
Labor costs are the largest annual expense for Wildwood. If the No Action Alternative is selected, it would benefit the entire recreation program to treat Wildwood like many of the other recreation sites, and manage the recreation site from the Northwest Oregon District Office in Salem. 3.2.3 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects study area for this issue includes the area encompassed within a 60- minute drive time from Wildwood. This area includes the communities of Portland, Oregon, in Multnomah County. The total economic input of camping opportunities within the cumulative effects area for 2017 was approximately $60,000,000 (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). Within the cumulative effects area, overnight camping visitation and spending has increased on an average by 5.25 percent from 2010 to 2017 (Dean Runyan Associates 2018). This spending trend was used as an analog for reasonably foreseeable future actions related to camping opportunities within the cumulative effects area. Using this trend, the projected total economic input from overnight camping within the cumulative effects area is approximately $73,627,435. Under the
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 62 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA action alternatives, economic input, using the regional projection, from overnight camping at Wildwood would range from $2,867,334 to $3,611,707, or approximately four to five percent increase to the total economic input within the cumulative effects area by 2021. Similarly, using the Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site projection, the action alternatives would contribute $2,918,334 to $3,804,714, or approximately four to five percent increase to the total economic input within the cumulative effects area by 2021. Thus, cumulative effects from overnight camping at Wildwood would yield a minimal, four to five percent, increase in economic input by 2021. The Nash Equilibrium, which is an economic theory for selecting the best outcome for all parties involved in market competition, suggests that the mid-level of development would also result in the best situation for all parties involved in camping (EA Appendix B). Specific to this analysis area, the best outcome means that it would yield the highest visitation rate for Wildwood, while having the least amount of impact on visitation on the other campground providers (private, and public) within the analysis area. The mid-level of development would not pull a noticeable amount of market share from either the USFS or the private sector due to the development targeting a different audience and filling an unmet need as well as current demand rates in Oregon (SCORP 2019). It is unlikely that the private sector or the USFS would change from the current course of the types of amenities that their campgrounds offer (EA Appendix B). This theory suggests that there would be an increase in visitation to the other sites due to Wildwood entering into the market and advertising to a different group of campers. Campground development at Wildwood would attract additional visitors to both the USFS and the private sector campgrounds from Clackamas County and Travel Oregon advertising of Wildwood and camping within the analysis area. Additionally since Wildwood is taking the mid- level approach of development, a customer that is looking for a more rustic campground that does not provide RV hookups could go to the USFS, or if a customer is looking for a higher amount of amenities like Wi-Fi, laundry, and cable hookups could go to the private sector instead. Likewise, the inverse could happen for Wildwood, this is the benefit of developing based on the Nash Equilibrium (EA Appendix B). Past and present activities within the cumulative effects area include the BLM Sandy Ridge Trail System, Marmot Recreation Site, USFS Recreation Areas and camping opportunities, and private recreation areas and camping opportunities. Other projects in the analysis area include revitalization projects in the surrounding communities that includes an overall pedestrian and bicycle plan, adding travel hubs, and improving and updating the towns curb appeal to travelers on US Highway 26. All of these projects combine to increase the economic and socio-economic value of the analysis area.
3.3 Issue 3: How would the proposed campsite fees impact the cost of maintaining Wildwood, including facilities maintenance, staff time for monitoring, and expenses for construction of new facilities? To determine the impact from the proposed campsite fees associated with the facilities included in the alternatives on the cost of maintenance of the recreation site, the current operations and maintenance costs were expanded to include the proposed facilities and staffing levels under all action alternatives. The increases in cost of supplies under each alternative was estimated based on comparing staffing levels at existing recreation sites, including Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site, and professional judgement (EA Appendix B). In addition to operations and maintenance
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 63 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA costs, construction costs for the action alternatives were used to determine impacts from campsite fees. The analysis area for this issue includes the Sandy River Basin-Mount Hood Corridor. In preparing this analysis, the BLM has made several analytical assumptions that provide the framework to the analysis of the issue below: The BLM used the five-year average for fees collected within Wildwood, $49,470. An increase or decrease in the revenue generated from day-use fees is not anticipated due to an overall stagnation of visitation for picnicking centered day-use sites outside of major metropolitan areas. The projected Operations and Maintenance costs for each action alternative includes staff expenses, Youth Corps labor, vehicles, equipment and supplies, services (water testing, waste pumping, trash, etc.), Camp Host stipend, and Law Enforcement (EA Appendix B; US DOI BLM 2016). It does not include cost for construction of the facilities proposed under each action alternative, nor the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure. These operations and maintenance projections are based off the 2016 Fiscal Year recreation budget for Wildwood. Wildwood works as the operation center for the North Cascade Recreation sites, these sites consists of Wildwood, Sandy Ridge Trailhead, and the Former Marmot Dam. Construction costs of the proposed facilities under the action alternatives were determined using past and current BLM construction contracts (EA Appendix B). Fees generated from Wildwood would remain at the BLM Northwest Oregon District Office level and be utilized to support the recreation site. 3.3.1 Affected Environment Currently, Wildwood is not generating enough fee revenue annually to make a noticeable impact on the costs associated with operating and maintaining the site. Day-use fees alone are not capable of meeting the costs of operation and maintenance, nor likely to ever contribute a significant portion of the operation and maintenance costs due to stagnation in picnic based day- use recreation. EA Table 22 and EA Figure 12 show the current O&M cost associated with Wildwood.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 64 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 22: Current O&M Costs
Expense Category (Average, including benefits) Annual Cost Staff Labor and Expenses $276,600 Youth Corps Labor $57,600 Vehicles $28,000 Equipment and Supplies $30,000 Services (water testing, waste pumping, trash, etc.) $20,000 Camp Host Stipend $7,000 Law Enforcement (including contracts) $30,450 Total $449,650
Development and replacement costs includes both the construction of new and updates to existing systems (EA Table 22). Currently, fee revenue only accounts for 11 percent, $49,470, of the total cost to operate Wildwood annually, leaving the BLM to pay the remaining $400,180 through appropriated funding (EA Table 23). Having such a large deficit at Wildwood affects the rate at which the BLM is able to replace deteriorating infrastructure and to meet the demand of visitors at other high use popular sites. Wildwood currently has a single revenue-generating source because the only fee collection is from day-use. Table 23: Difference between Current Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs
Current Costs Day-Use Fees Collected $49,470 Operation and Maintenance $449,650 Difference (-) $400,180
Figure 12: Current Cost of Operations and Maintenance for Wildwood
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 65 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Wildwood has had multiple upgrades and new development in the recent past and present (EA Table 24). Over the past 12 years, the BLM has spent approximately $2.4 million dollars on repair and replacement of facilities at Wildwood (EA Appendix B; US DOI BLM 2016). Table 24: New and Upgraded Development at Wildwood
Development/Repair Item Date Cost Seasonal Housing Replacement 2006 $140,000 Host Pad Construction 2006 $30,000 Cascade Streamwatch Drain Repair 2006 $12,000 Restroom Replacement 2006 $12,000 Septic/Sewer Replacement and Electrical Upgrade 2007 $1,000,000 Salmon River Footbridge Repair 2008 $150,000 Signage Replacement 2009 $20,000 Water Line Replacement 2010 $750,000 Shelter Hearth and Appliance Replacement 2010 $21,000 Shelter Siding Replacement 2010 $15,000 Irrigation Well House 2011 $120,000 Trail Re-Surfacing 2011 $100,000 Wildwood Fish Viewing Window Repair Platform Ongoing $25,000 Total $2,395,000
3.3.2 Environmental Effects Proposed Action Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Costs Versus Projected Revenue The total O&M cost projected for the Proposed Action is $598,585. This cost includes labor and expenses for approximately ten staff members, Youth Corps labor, vehicles, equipment and supplies, services, eight camp hosts, and law enforcement, both BLM staff and County Sheriff contracts (EA Table 25).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 66 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 25: Proposed Action Projected O&M Costs Expense Category Projected Cost Staff Labor and Expenses $375,365 Youth Corps Labor $66,800 Vehicles $32,500 Equipment and Supplies $48,000 Services $29,800 Camp Host Stipend $10,820 Law Enforcement $35,300 Total $598,785
The projections based on regional averages that were taken from USFS campgrounds within the analysis area and Metro’s Oxbow Regional Park suggests the total amount of revenue that Wildwood would bring under the Proposed Action, which includes the current day-use fee revenue generated ($49,470), is $607,404 (EA Table 26). With the O&M costing a projected $598,585 annually after development, there would be no deficit at Wildwood, and instead there would be a profit of $8,819 (EA Appendix B). This would result in the Northwest Oregon District saving an estimated $480,729 annually. Similarly, the modeling using Fishermen’s Bend suggests the total amount of revenue that Wildwood would generate after development, adding in the current day-use fee revenue generated ($49,470), would be $658,924. With the O&M costing a projected $598,585 annually after development, there would be no deficit at Wildwood and the site would instead generate a profit of $60,339 (EA Table 27). Table 26: Projected Annual Revenue, using both Regional Average and Fishermen's Bend Average
Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Recreation Type Regional Occupancy Average Average Day-use $49,470 $49,470 Camping $557,934 $609,454 Total $607,404 $658,924
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 67 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 27: Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs
Regional Fishermen’s Bend Projection Projection Fees Collected $607,404 $658,924 Operations and Maintenance $598,585 $598,585 Difference (+) $8,819 (+) $60,339
Wildwood would become more self-sufficient based on the current and projected fees for O&M costs. In addition to becoming more self-sufficient, the added fee revenue would allow for improved maintenance and visitor services, as well as other enhancements to the recreation site. Additional fee revenue and an additional fee revenue source, overnight camping facilities, would allow Wildwood to be more responsive to changes in outdoor recreation needs and demands, reducing the likelihood that Wildwood would revert to a stage of having a large deficit. Cost of Development The below table (EA Table 28) represents the total construction cost for the proposed development. The most significant costs to the development would be the construction of the new asphalt ($1,253,088) and the installation of the new electric, water and sewer hookups ($613,632). The costs savings from this alternative is the $100,000 from not developing group yurts.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 68 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 28: Total Construction Cost for the Proposed Action
Construction Item (with unit amount) Cost per Unit Total Cost Electrical Service Conduct and Line (5,188 feet) $12.50 per foot $64,850 Electrical Service Pedestal (85) $900.00 each $76,500 Water Service Mainline Pipe (5,188 feet) $14.00 per foot $72,632 Water Service Line Pipe (850 feet) $ 10.00 per foot $8,500 Sewer Service Mainline Pipe (5,188 feet) $50.00 per foot $259,400 Sewer Service Line Pip (850 feet) $30.00 per foot $25,500 Water Service RV Hookup (85) $500.00 each $42,500 Sewer Service RV Hookup (85) $750.00 each $63,750 New Constructed Asphalt (257,044 sqft) $5.85 per sqft $1,503,707 New Constructed Cabins (15) $20,000 each $300,000 Precast Shower and Restroom (1) $225,000 each $225,000 New Constructed Office (1) $250,000 each $250,000 Wooden Play Structure (1) $5,000 each $5,000 Precast Restroom (2) $65,000 each $130,000 Picnic Tables (85) $653.00 each $55,505 Fire Rings (85) $179.00 each $15,215 Barbeque Grills (85) $230.00 each $19,550 Tent Pad (10,000 sqft for 100 sites) $2.15 per sqft $21,500 Total $3,139,109
The Proposed Action would take approximately five camping seasons to pay back the construction costs based on the projected fees from both the regional and Fishermen’s Bend projections. This does not take into consideration the upper camping area remaining open during the winter season. The pay off period would be reduced depending on the success of the recreation site during the winter recreation season. The Proposed Action does not include the construction of yurts, thus it only selects the development types that have the longest life cycles and would need the least amount of future repairs and replacement. In a 30-year period and after factoring construction costs, the Proposed Action would generate between $15,333,630 to $16,879,230 in revenue, without the need for any major repairs or additional development. Wildwood being able to offset hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in current operating costs, through fee revenue generation, can help improve and grow the entire recreation program. The greater the amount of fee revenue that Wildwood can generate, the less of the appropriated funding is needed to offset O&M, and the more that is available to place toward other projects,
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 69 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA further increasing efficiencies and fee revenue generation at other recreation sites. This creates a scenario of the recreation program being able to better provide recreation opportunities to more people. Alternative A Operation & Maintenance Costs versus Projected Revenue The total O&M cost projected for Alternative A is $608,585. This cost includes labor and expenses for approximately ten staff members, Youth Corps labor, vehicles, equipment and supplies, services, eight camp hosts, and law enforcement, both BLM staff and County Sheriff contracts (EA Table 29). Table 29: Alternative A Projected O&M Costs
Expense Category Projected Cost Staff Labor and Expenses $375,365 Youth Corps Labor $66,800 Yurt Labor and Maintenance $10,000 Vehicles $32,500 Equipment and Supplies $48,000 Services $29,800 Camp Host Stipend $10,820 Law Enforcement $35,300 Total $608,585
The projections based on regional averages that were taken from USFS campgrounds within the analysis area and Metro’s Oxbow Regional Park suggests the total amount of revenue that Wildwood would bring under Alternative A, which includes the current day-use fee revenue generated ($49,470), is $639,788 (EA Table 30). With the O&M costing a projected $608,585 annually after development, there would be no deficit at Wildwood, and instead there would be a profit of $31,203 (EA Appendix B). This would result in the Northwest Oregon District saving an estimated $503,113 annually. Similarly, the modeling using Fishermen’s Bend suggests the total amount of revenue that Wildwood would generate after development, adding in the fee revenue generated ($49,470), would be $718,264. With the O&M costing a projected $608,585 annually after development, there would be no deficit at Wildwood and the site would instead generate a profit of $109,679. This would result in the Northwest Oregon District saving an estimated $581,589 annually (EA Table 31).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 70 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 30: Alternative A Projected Annual Revenue, using both Regional Average and Fishermen’s Bend Average
Recreation Type Regional Occupancy Average Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Average Day-use $49,470 $49,470 Camping $590,318 $668,794 Total $639,788 $718,264
Table 31: Alternative A Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs
Regional Fishermen’s Bend Projection Projection Fees Collected $639,788 $718,264 Operations and Maintenance $608,585 $608,585 Difference (+) $31,203 (+) $109,679
Wildwood would become more self-sufficient based on the current and projected fees for O&M costs. In addition to becoming more self-sufficient, the added fee revenue would allow for improved maintenance and visitor services, as well as other enhancements to the recreation site. Additional fee revenue and an additional fee revenue source, overnight camping facilities, would allow Wildwood to be more responsive to changes in outdoor recreation needs and demands, reducing the likelihood that Wildwood would revert to a stage of having a large deficit. Cost of Development The below table (EA Table 32) represents the total construction cost for the proposed development. The most significant costs to the development would be the construction of the new asphalt ($1,253,088) and the installation of the new electric, water, and sewer hookups ($613,632).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 71 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 32: Total Construction Cost for Alternative A
Construction Item (with unit amount) Cost per Unit Total Cost Electrical Service Conduct and Line (5,188 feet) $12.50 per foot $64,850 Electrical Service Pedestal (85) $900.00 each $76,500 Water Service Mainline Pipe (5,188 feet) $14.00 per foot $72,632 Water Service Line Pipe (850 feet) $ 10.00 per foot $8,500 Sewer Service Mainline Pipe (5,188 feet) $50.00 per foot $259,400 Sewer Service Line Pip (850 feet) $30.00 per foot $25,500 Water Service RV Hookup (85) $500.00 each $42,500 Sewer Service RV Hookup (85) $750.00 each $63,750 New Constructed Asphalt (257,044 sqft) $5.85 per sqft $1,503,707 New Constructed Cabins (15) $20,000 each $300,000 New Constructed Yurt (4) $25,000 each $100,000 Precast Shower and Restroom (1) $225,000 each $225,000 New Constructed Office (1) $250,000 each $250,000 Wooden Play Structure (1) $5,000 each $5,000 Precast Restroom (2) $65,000 each $130,000 Picnic Tables (85) $653.00 each $55,505 Fire Rings (85) $179.00 each $15,215 Barbeque Grills (85) $230.00 each $19,550 Tent Pad (10,000 sqft for 100 sites) $2.15 per sqft $21,500 Total $3,239,109
The Alternative A would take approximately 4.6 camping seasons to pay back the construction costs based on the projected fees from both the regional and Fishermen’s Bend projections. This does not take into consideration the upper camping area remaining open during the winter season. The pay off period would be reduced depending on the success of the recreation site during the winter recreation season. In a 30-year period and after factoring construction costs, Alternative A would generate between $16,281,703 to $18,635,983 in revenue, without the need for any major repairs or additional development. Wildwood being able to offset hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in current operating costs, through fee revenue generation, can help improve and grow the entire recreation program. The greater the amount of fee revenue that Wildwood can generate, the less of the appropriated funding is needed to offset O&M, and the more that is available to place toward other projects, further increasing efficiencies and fee revenue generation at other recreation sites. This creates a
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 72 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA scenario of the recreation program being able to better provide recreation opportunities to more people. Alternative B Operation & Maintenance Costs Versus Projected Revenue The total O&M cost projected for Alternative B is $568,680. This cost includes labor and expenses for approximately ten staff members, Youth Corps labor, vehicles, equipment and supplies, services, eight camp hosts, and law enforcement, both BLM staff and County Sheriff contracts (EA Table 33). The two additional camp hosts, one additional park rangers, some additional staff labor, supplies, and services costs were reduced due to not having the additional camping loops. Table 33: Alternative B Projected O&M Costs Expense Category Projected Cost Staff Labor and Expenses $348,365 Youth Corps Labor $66,800 Vehicles $32,500 Equipment and Supplies $47,170 Services $29,800 Camp Host Stipend $8,745 Law Enforcement $35,300 Total $568,680
The projections based on regional averages that were taken from USFS campgrounds within the analysis area and Metro’s Oxbow Regional Park suggests the total amount of revenue that Wildwood would bring under Alternative A, which includes the current day-use fee revenue generated ($49,470), is $387,800 (EA Table 34). With the O&M costing a projected $568,680 annually after development, the deficit at Wildwood would be reduced to (-)$180,880 (EA Appendix B). This would result in the Northwest Oregon District saving an estimated $291,030 annually. Similarly, the modeling using Fishermen’s Bend suggests the total amount of revenue that Wildwood would generate after development, adding in the current day-use fee revenue generated ($49,470), would be $414,204. With the O&M costing a projected $568,680 annually after development, the deficit at Wildwood would be reduced to (-)$154,476. This would result in the Northwest Oregon District saving an estimated $317,434 annually (EA Table 35).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 73 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 34: Alternative B Projected Annual Revenue, using both Regional Average and Fishermen’s Bend Average
Recreation Type Regional Occupancy Average Fishermen’s Bend Occupancy Average Day-use $49,470 $49,470 Camping $338,330 $364,734 Total $387,800 $414,204
Table 35: Alternative B Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs
Regional Fishermen’s Bend Projection Projection Fees Collected $387,800 $414,204 Operations and Maintenance $568,860 $568,860 Difference (-) $180,880 (-) $154,476
Wildwood would become more self-sufficient with an increase in labor needs based on the current and projected fees for O&M costs. In addition to becoming more self-sufficient, the added fee revenue would allow for improved maintenance and visitor services, as well as other enhancements to the recreation site. Additional fee revenue and an additional fee revenue source, overnight camping facilities, would allow Wildwood to be more responsive to changes in outdoor recreation needs and demands, reducing the likelihood that Wildwood would revert to a stage of having a large deficit. Cost of Development The below table (EA Table 36) represents the total construction cost for the proposed development. The most significant costs to the development would be the construction of the new asphalt ($474,084) and the installation of the new electric, water, and sewer hookups ($613,632). The most significant costs savings for this alternative is the savings from not developing the lower camping loops. The savings from not developing the loops come to $1,525,503.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 74 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Table 36: Total Construction Cost for Alternative B
Construction Item (with unit amount) Cost per Unit Total Cost Electrical Service Conduct and Line (1,606 feet) $12.50 per foot $20,075 Electrical Service Pedestal (23) $900.00 each $20,700 Water Service Mainline Pipe (1,606 feet) $14.00 per foot $22,484 Water Service Line Pipe (230 feet) $ 10.00 per foot $2,300 Water Service RV Hookup (23) $500.00 each $11,500 New Constructed Asphalt (97,248 sqft) $5.85 per sqft $568,901 New Constructed Cabins (15) $20,000 each $300,000 Precast Shower and Restroom (1) $225,000 each $225,000 New Constructed Office (1) $250,000 each $250,000 Wooden Play Structure (1) $5,000 each $5,000 Picnic Tables (23) $653.00 each $15,019 Fire Rings (23) $179.00 each $4,117 Barbeque Grills (23) $230.00 each $5,290 Tent Pad (3,450 sqft for 100 sites) $2.15 per sqft $7,418 Total $1,457,804
The Alternative B would take approximately three camping seasons to pay back the construction costs based on the projected fees from both the regional and Fishermen’s Bend projections. This does not take into consideration the upper camping area remaining open during the winter season. The pay off period would be reduced depending on the success of the recreation site during the winter recreation season. In a 30-year period and after factoring construction costs, Alternative B would generate between $10,271,013 to $11,063,133 in revenue, without the need for any major repairs or additional development. Wildwood being able to offset hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in current operating costs, through fee revenue generation, can help improve and grow the entire recreation program. The greater the amount of fee revenue that Wildwood can generate, the less of the appropriated funding is needed to offset O&M, and the more that is available to place toward other projects, further increasing efficiencies and fee revenue generation at other recreation sites. This creates a scenario of the recreation program being able to better provide recreation opportunities to more people. No Action The underlying issue with the economics of the recreation site is the inability to generate enough fee revenue to make a noticeable impact on the operation and maintenance costs (EA Appendix B). Day-use fees alone are not capable of meeting the costs of operation and maintenance, nor
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 75 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA likely to ever contribute a significant portion of the operation and maintenance costs due to the decline in picnic based day-use recreation. As inflation continues to rise at an average of three percent per year (McMahon 2014), the stagnant or declining fee revenue and BLM appropriated funding would be able to purchase less and less, having a greater impact to the ability for the Bureau of Land Management to maintain the recreation site. This would further complicate the recreation site’s ability to provide a high quality recreation environment and a backlog of maintenance would continue to grow. As the site’s infrastructure further deteriorates and the level of visitor services suffers do to a lack of funds, visitor satisfaction will decrease, resulting in even less visitation and fee revenue. Labor costs are the largest annual expense to the recreation site. Table 37: No Action Projected O&M Costs
Expense Category Projected Cost Staff Labor and Expenses $320,665 Youth Corps Labor $66,800 Vehicles $32,500 Equipment and Supplies $34,800 Services $23,200 Camp Host Stipend $8,115 Law Enforcement $35,300 Total $521,380
Operation & Maintenance Costs Versus Projected Revenue It is likely that the five-year average of $49,470 for day-use fee revenue would continue at Wildwood. The fee revenue has been within 15 percent of the five-year average for the past decade, and it is a safe assumption that this fee revenue would remain consistent within the next five years. Staff and labor expenses would remain at the existing level because there would be no additional hiring or staffed needed under the No Action. The operation and maintenance costs for Wildwood would continue to rise with the rate of inflation, thus the deficit would to $471,910 (EA Table 38). The projected deficit is a significant increase in total cost to manage Wildwood. Table 38: No Action Difference between Revenue Collected and Expenditure Costs
Projected Amount Fees Collected $49,470 Operation and Maintenance $521,380 Difference (-) $471,910
3.3.3 Cumulative Effects
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 76 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
The cumulative effects of campsite fees on the operations and maintenance of the action alternatives are similar to those discussed under Issue 2.
Chapter 4 Consultation
Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife was not warranted because there is no Northern spotted owl critical habitat, known or historic sites, or any individuals within the project area. The proposed project is not within the historic or known home range of any Northern spotted owl sites. The project area is considered dispersal habitat and as such, habitat modification is not likely to adversely affect the species. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service is not warranted since the proposed project was designed to occur outside of the one-site tree potential buffer for the Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation.
Chapter 5 Citations
Crane Associates, INC. 2018. A Strategic Plan For Improving Water-Based Tourism In Oregon’s Mt Hood Territory. Available online: https://www.dropbox.com/s/122hp73833fpsog/Clackamas%20County%20Water%20Touris m%20Report%20F.pdf?dl=0 Dean Runyan Associates. May, 2018. Oregon Travel Impacts: Statewide Estimates 1992-2017. Available online: http://industry.traveloregon.com/research/archive/oregon-travel-impacts- 1991-2011-dean-runyan-associates/ Longwoods International. 2013. Oregon 2013 Regional Visitor Report, Mount. Hood-Columbia River Gorge. Available from Travel Oregon Web site: http://industry.traveloregon.com/content/uploads/2014/11/OR-Mt.-Hood-Columbia-River- Gorge-Region-2013-Final-Report.pdf Longwoods International. 2015. Longwoods Travel USA: Oregon 2015 Regional Visitor Report The Mt. Hood-Columbia River Gorge Region McMahon, Tim. 2014. Long Term U.S. Inflation. Online available: https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp Mt. Hood Territory. 2017. Oregon’s MT. Hood Territory 2016-17 Business Plan. Available online: https://www.mthoodterritory.com/partners-/document-center Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division. 2014. Hydraulics Design Manual. Available from Oregon.gov Geo-Environmental Section, Hydraulics web site: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/GEOENVIRONMENTAL/pages/hyd_manual_info.as px Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2019. 2013-2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Available online: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/2013- 2017_Oregon_SCORP.pdf
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 77 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Outdoor Foundation. 2014. Outdoor Recreation Participation topline report 2014. Available online: www.outdoorfoundation.org RIMS. 2016. Recreation Management Information System. Retrieved from https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/viewresource.php?courseID=313 Roy, Steven P and Braga Andrea M. 2009. Saving Silver Lake. Civil Engineering. Available online: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/12/21/Roy%2C%20Steven%20P.%20and%20A ndrea%20Braga.%20February%202009.%20Saving%20Silver%20Lake.%20Civil%20Engin eering%E2%80%94ASCE%2C%20Vol.%2079%2C%20No.%202%2C%20pp.%2072- 79..pdf US Census Bureau. 2016. 2016 US Census Bureau Estimates for Portland-Vancouver, Metro Area July 1, 2016. Available from US Census Bureau Web site: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The History of Timberline Lodge. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mthood/learning/history- culture/?cid=stelprdb5433158 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and USDI BLM. 1993. Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, and USDI BLM Salem District, Salem, OR. Available online: http://www.rivers.gov/documents/plans/salmon-oregon-plan.pdf U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for Western Oregon. Coos Bay, Eugene, Salem Districts, and Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Volumes 1-4. Available: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl- front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&proj ectId=57902&dctmId=0b0003e880abf259. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Coos Bay, Eugene, Salem Districts, and Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Available: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/57902/79046/91311/NCO_ROD_RMP_ePlanning.pdf. US. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services Handbook (H-8320-1). U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Sandy River Basin Recreation Sites Business Plan. Northwest Oregon District, Salem, OR. Available online: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/orwa-business-plan-sandy-river-basin.pdf White, E.M., D.B. Gooding, and D.J. Stynes (May, 2013). Estimation of National Forest Visitor Spending Averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: Round 2. Availabel online: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr883.pdf
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 78 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Chapter 6 Appendices
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 79 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Appendix A: Issues Not Analyzed in Detail How would proposed camping at Wildwood affect the supply and demand for camping within the Mount Hood Corridor? During public scoping, the BLM received comments asking how the proposed overnight facilities at Wildwood would impact the current supply and demand for camping within the analysis area. The effects of the proposed overnight camping facilities on supply and demand within the analysis area are not analyzed in detail because, regardless of project-specific or site- specific information, there would be no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects. The supply for overnight camping facilities in the analysis area is already out paced by demand during the primary outdoor recreation season. The BLM Recreation Planner contacted the US Forest Service and Oregon Metro (Metro) periodically to check the availability of overnight facilities at private and public campgrounds that provided for full hookups within the analysis area (US DOI BLM 2016). The locations were at capacity or near full capacity when checking for available sites, during weekends, weekdays, and holidays. The action alternatives were designed to cater to the top three fastest growing outdoor recreation categories per capita in the nation, which are developed skiing (20 percent to 50 percent increase), undeveloped skiing (9 percent to 31 percent), and challenge activities (6 percent to 18 percent) (Buckley, Rempel 2015). The PRMP/FEIS indicated there would be an increase in camping demand of 0.9 percent annually into the foreseeable future (2060) for Western Oregon (PRMP/FEIS p. 272). Additionally, the PRMP/FEIS indicates that there would be a greater amount of demand for camping opportunities in the Northern Willamette Valley, which is an area most likely to partake in overnight visitation as 95 percent of overnight visitation occurs by recreationist who live outside of an hour’s drive time to a site (PRMP/FEIS p. 574; White, Gooding, Stynes 2013). The PRMP/FEIS predicts an increase of demand for communities in the Northern Willamette Valley from 2 percent to 7 percent with the median of 4 percent for those communities (PRMP/FEIS p. 574). Clackamas County’s Mount Hood Territory commissioned a water tourism study that looked at the overall outdoor recreation market within Clackamas County, primarily focusing on water based recreation. Overall, the study called for more, higher quality, and higher amenity level infrastructure. The study noted, “Camping is in high demand especially on the summer weekends, and additional campsites in the county are likely to be filled” (Crane Associates 2018). Additionally, the study says, “These data do show that camping is preferred over hotels by twice as much across the entire market” (Crane Associates 2018). Oregonian’s participate in developed camping at a rate of 27 percent greater than the United States national average (Buckley, Rempel 2015). The state of Oregon conducted a statewide assessment of the current outdoor recreation market to identify the needs, economic impact, and to develop a five year plan of implementation. The 2019 to 2023 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) found that the second greatest need in Oregon is "RV/trailer campgrounds & facilities" (SCORP 2019 p. 169). For Clackamas County specifically, the greatest need is "Group Campgrounds and facilities" (SCORP 2019 p. 169). These are similar findings to the field survey, data collection, and professional judgement used by the BLM in developing the action alternatives, and understanding of the demand versus current capacity of the analysis area.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 80 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
How would an increase in visitation from the proposed camping impact the security and safety of site users within Wildwood, including increases in homeless populations, increased strain on local emergency responders, vandalism, and crime? During the scoping period, public members commented on the potential for an increase in homeless populations, vandalism, and crime with the introduction of camping to Wildwood. Additionally, comments were received asking what type of strain this increases would put on the existing emergency response within the Mount Hood corridor. The effects of the proposed camping on visitor security and safety are not analyzed in detail because additional staffing and other security enhancements would be implemented, thus there would be no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects. The proposed management plan includes increasing staff, hiring volunteer camp hosts, installing security cameras, and implementing fees before campsite development would occur. These management and design features would reduce the possibility of illegal occupancy by individuals within Wildwood beyond the BLM supplemental rule for 14-day stay limits. The increases in staffing would also reduce the possibility of vandalism and crime by having staff presence. In addition to the increased presence of staff, increased presence of people generally has a deterring element on those looking to commit vandalism or theft. The BLM has law enforcement officers on staff, as well as existing contracts with Clackamas County Sheriff's Department to provide additional emergency response. Increasing staffing at the recreation site would also deter possible future criminal activities, and would allow for quicker response to natural resource issues like tree blowdown, building maintenance, and fire. How would implementing overnight camping fees impact low-income population use of Wildwood? The BLM received scoping comments asking how increased fees for overnight camping and day- use would affect low-income populations in the analysis area. The BLM is proposing to implement new fees for overnight camping use only. Day-use fees would remain at the current amount of $5 per day-use vehicle. This issue was not analyzed in detail because there would be no potential for significant effects to low income populations because the BLM would continue to have opportunities for low-income populations on BLM-administered lands, and would allow for charge the existing $5 per day-use vehicle fee at Wildwood. Wildwood also honors the “America the Beautiful” pass system which provides fee free day-use opportunities. The BLM would offer a $30 day-use annual pass for all recreation sites within the Northwest Oregon District, with the exception of Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area. The District-wide pass would also be available free of charge through completion of 12 hours of volunteer time. Additionally, the BLM is required to supply fee-free opportunities for the recreating public (Recreation Permit and Fee Administration Handbook 2012). The BLM has interpreted dispersed camping as a fee-free opportunities. No dispersed camping opportunities would be removed within the analysis area from the proposed camping in Wildwood, thus BLM would continue to supply fee-free opportunities for low-income populations. The proposed fees for overnight camping and the District-wide day-use annual pass is currently working through the Resource Advisory Council process. Fees would be required to be in place prior to construction of any overnight camping facilities and the proposed fee schedule can be found in the Sandy River Basin Recreation Sites Business Plan (US DOI BLM 2016).
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 81 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
How would installation of artificial lighting structures, i.e. streetlights, in proposed camping areas affect wildlife, nocturnal wildlife, vegetation and recreational values within Wildwood? How would noise and human presence from camping activities impact wildlife species that occur or utilized the Recreation Site? Comments submitted during the public scoping period expressed concern about increased noise and light pollution from the proposed camping opportunities. The effects of the proposed camping on noise and light pollution are not analyzed in detail because there is no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects. Currently, streetlights and other artificial lights are installed throughout the recreation site. Additional lighting would not result in changes beyond what is presently in the recreation site. Additionally, any new street lights or any lights that need replacement would conform to state and local requirements to prevent light pollution. Street lighting at highly developed recreation sites is an expectation within the analysis area, due to the need of the lights during the winter recreation season as it gets dark around 4:00 PM. International Dark Sky Association lighting techniques, similar to those utilized at the Sandy Ridge Trailhead Special Recreation Management Area, would be used to reduce light pollution. Wildwood is already a highly developed recreation site that is adjacent to a major highway (US Highway 26) that has high vehicle use, and the noise from the highway can be heard through the northern section of the recreation site. Additionally, vehicles frequently drive through the recreation site, and large groups of people recreate within the recreation site. The proposed action calls for providing electric hookups at all the camping sites removing the need for generators to be ran. Additionally, the PRMP/FEIS provides management direction to implement the Wildwood Recreation Site SRMA Planning Framework, which lists all the activities and development purposed within the proposed action and action alternatives (Appendix B). How would camping opportunities at the Recreation Site impact traffic flow into the site and along US Highway 26? Public scoping comments received asked how traffic along US Highway 26 would be impacted be the additional visitor use anticipated from the proposed overnight camping opportunities. This issues was not analyzed in detail because there is no potential for significant effects due to the project design in relation to the entrance traffic flow. Currently, during busy weekend mornings, because of the current location of the recreation site fee booth (approximately 350 feet from US Highway 26), traffic can back up onto the highway. Removing the current fee booth and building an office, approximately 1,200 feet from US Highway 26, to accommodate fee payment and visitor information would address congestion issues associated with additional traffic accessing the site. An additional lane for traffic ingress would be added, which would reduce the current and potential future impacts that Wildwood has on US Highway 26 (EA Section 2.1.1). The availability of online campsite reservation would also remove the need for visitors to stop and pay fees at the office, which would assist with traffic congestion. How would the proposed camping opportunities impact wildfire potential within the Wildwood and the surrounding local communities, like Welches and Sandy? What effects would the proposed actions have on fuel loading, fire risk, and air quality? Wildwood would continue to be monitored for fuel loading, and vegetation would be managed under a separate Vegetation Management Plan. Current wildfire hazard potential was modeled at very low on 138 acres and moderate on 415 acres within Wildwood. The BLM’s management within the planning area is unable to provide more than slight variation to fire hazards within
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 82 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Wildwood due to the checkerboard pattern of the landscape within the planning area. Public education on avoiding activities that start fires and treatment of activity fuels would reduce the risk of human caused ignitions. According to Oregon Department of Forestry fire data from 1960 to present there have been three reported fires in Wildwood. Fires would continue to only be allowed in the provided fire rings or barbeque grills. Oregon Department of Forestry public fire restrictions would be adhered by all visitors during fire season. Additional fire restrictions may be issued by the BLM during increased levels of fire danger. Air quality impacts from campfires within the proposed facilities would be on a short term, daily basis, within the immediate vicinity, approximately 0.25 miles, of Wildwood. How would proposed camping impact Critical Habitat? How would the development impact threatened and endangered species? Public scoping comments received asked how critical habitat for wildlife species would be impacted through construction of the proposed camping facilities as well as increased visitation. Public comments did not specify which species’ critical habitat they were concerned about. The BLM assumed the scoping comment referenced critical habitat in relation to Threatened and Endangered species. Threatened and Endangered species within the Cascades Field Office includes the Northern spotted owl, Lower Columbia River coho, Spring chinook, and winter steelhead. This issue was not analyzed in detail because there is no known Northern spotted owl critical habitat, nor Northern spotted owl sites, within Wildwood, hence there is no potential for significant effects. Additionally, all proposed development, which includes vegetation removal, would occur outside of the Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation within the Wildwood SRMA, so there is no potential for significant effects to aquatic Threatened and Endangered species. How would an increase in human presence as well as construction of the proposed camping facilities impact vegetation species that occur within Wildwood? Through public scoping, comments were received asking how existing vegetation within Wildwood would be impacted from construction or the proposed recreation facilities as well as increased human presence. This issue was not analyzed in detail because there is no potential for significant impacts from the proposed development due to project design features for construction and control of human caused vegetation degradation, like firewood collection, recreation site creep, and route proliferation. Construction of the proposed facilities would minimize vegetation disturbance by locating campsites to avoid removal of existing trees, downed wood, and wet areas. The proposed facilities would result in approximately 8.2 acres of vegetation removal, 2.2 acres for cabins, campsites, and picnic spots, and six acres for roads and facilities. Vegetation removal from the proposed project would account for 1.5 percent of disturbance of the 553 acre SRMA. Vegetation removal would not occur within the Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation, approximately 200 feet on either side of the Salmon River and intermittent streams within the Wildwood SRMA. How would construction of the proposed camping facilities and the associated recreation use impact the spread and introduction of invasive and non-native species within Wildwood? Comments submitted during the public scoping period expressed concern about the introduction and spread of invasive and non-native species from the construction of the proposed camping facilities and increased recreation use. The effects of the proposed camping on invasive and non- native species are not analyzed in detail because the project design features included EA Section 2.2 would be adhered to during construction, therefore there would be no potential for reasonably
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 83 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA foreseeable significant effects. Additionally, invasive and non-native species have already been found within the recreation site and are currently being managed and treated annually by the BLM. A vegetation management plan would be developed in association with the Wildwood RAMP. Signage and educational materials would be provided at Wildwood to inform the public about bringing in local firewood to reduce the likelihood of invasive and non-native species. How would camping and day-use impact water quality of the Salmon River? How would the proposed campsite impact intermittent streams and high water areas within the Recreation Site? During public scoping, comments about how potential impacts to the water quality of the Salmon River would affect wetland areas and threatened and endangered fish species. The effects of the proposed camping on the water quality of the Salmon River are not analyzed in detail because there would be no proposed construction activities within the Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation around the Salmon River and intermittent streams, therefore there would be no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects. There is no disturbance associated with the proposed construction within the Riparian Reserve Land Use Allocation, approximately one Site Potential Tree Height (200 feet). How would construction of campsites impact soil compaction overall within the Recreation site? What would happen with excess soil from construction? The Wildwood IDT generated an internal issue in regards to soil compaction and excess soil from the proposed constructed facilities. This issue was not analyzed in detail because the total proposed compacted soil would be one percent (six acres of 553 acres) of the entire SRMA, there for there would be no potential for significant effects. Additionally, the proposed one percent of soil disturbance is within the 20 percent threshold described in the ROD/RMP (ROD/RMP p. 89- 90). The clean soil that would be removed from Wildwood for the new development would be used around the site to level sections, fill holes, and any excess would be transported and disposed of offsite in a stable location not hydrologically connected to the stream network. How would generator use and motor vehicles associated with camping impact air quality? Public scoping comments received on the proposed project asked how air quality would be impacted from generator use by visitors. This issue was not analyzed in detail because there would be no potential for significant effects since the proposed project would supply electricity to all the campsites, eliminating the need for generators.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 84 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Appendix B: Wildwood Economic Development Feasibility Study
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 85 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Appendix C: Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 86 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Appendix D: Planning Framework
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 87 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Appendix E: Campsite Designs
Figure D-1: Drawing showing proposed cabins connected to outdoor kitchen area under action alternatives.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 88 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure D-2: Drawing showing the typical RV site design proposed under the action alternatives.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 89 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure D-3: Drawing showing the proposed full-hook up site design proposed under the action alternatives.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 90 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure D-4: Design of proposed Upper Camping Loop under the action alternatives.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 91 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure D-5: Drawing showing the design of the Lower Camping Area 1, as proposed under the Proposed Action and Alternative A
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 92 of 93 Wildwood Recreation Area Management Plan EA
Figure D-6: Design of Lower Camping Area 2, as proposed under the Proposed Action and Alternative A.
DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2016-0003-EA Page 93 of 93