Umpqua National Forest

Home , Diamond Peak Wilderness, Umpqua National Forest

Travel Management Plan ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

United States Department of Agriculture

Pacific March 2010 Northwest Region

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

LEAD AGENCY

USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest

COOPERATING AGENCY

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Clifford J. Dils, Forest Supervisor Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: 541-957-3200

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT

Scott Elefritz, Natural Resource Specialist Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: 541-957-3437 email: [email protected]

Electronic comments can be mailed to: comments-pacificnorthwest- [email protected]

ABSTRACT On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264- 68291) (Final Rule). The final rule revised regulations 36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295 to require national forests and grasslands to designate a system of roads, trails and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year. These designations are to be clearly displayed on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and made available to the public free of charge. The MVUM will be reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes to the designated system. When designations are made and a MVUM published, use of motor vehicles off the designated system, or inconsistent with the designations will be prohibited.

In accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the Umpqua National Forest proposes to designate a system of roads, trails and areas for wheeled motor vehicle use and to non-significantly amend the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; 1990) to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system. These amendments would change travel management direction on the Forest from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed,” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.”

The purpose of this project is to provide a motor vehicle transportation system to address current and anticipated needs that also offers a variety of recreation access opportunities and balances management considerations with the physical, biological, and social values of the forest. It responds to the need to comply with national direction through the implementation of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212). This project deals with the regulatory activities of designating roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicles, rather than project-level, ground disturbing activities such as constructing, opening, closing or decommissioning trails or roads.

The Proposed Action would non-significantly amend the Umpqua Forest Plan to allow motor vehicle use only on a designated system of roads and trails and on existing non-system routes in designated corridors for the purpose of dispersed camping.

In addition to the Proposed Action, the Forest Service also analyzed an alternative in which the designated system emphasizes non-motorized recreation opportunities and one that emphasizes motorized recreation opportunities.

The intent of the Travel Management Rule is to reduce and prevent adverse resource impacts caused by unmanaged motorized use in order to maintain and protect the health of ecosystems and watersheds. Allowing motorized use only on the designated system of routes is expected to reduce the amount of soil erosion and distribution of noxious weeds occurring through cross-country motor vehicle use. It will also reduce motor vehicle impacts to wildlife as well as

aquatic, botanical and heritage resources. Ecosystem health and watershed function are expected to be improved through the Proposed Action. Due to the steep topography and dense vegetation of the Umpqua National Forest, opportunities for cross-country motorized travel are limited and little currently occurs. Because of current use patterns, the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel is expected to have little practical impact on motorized recreation opportunities or use on the Forest.

All alternatives analyzed, excluding the No Action Alternative, would reduce the opportunity for motor vehicle travel on the Umpqua National Forest. While the total miles of routes available for motorized use may be reduced, the quality of opportunities available for off highway vehicle (OHV) use would be increased through improved connectivity of routes open to non-highway legal vehicles.

After completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and a 30-day public comment period, the Forest Supervisor will select an alternative, or combination of alternatives, based on review of the analysis and public comment received on the analysis. The Forest Supervisors’ decision will be documented in a Decision Notice along with any mitigation measures that may apply.

Due to their large size, the maps for this project are located on the Umpqua National Forest website; http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/projects/travel/index.shtml. Hardcopies of the maps are available for viewing at all Ranger District offices as well as the Umpqua National Forest Headquarters in Roseburg, Oregon.

iii

CONTENTS

1. Purpose and Need for Action Introduction 1 Planning Area Location and Environmental Setting 4 Purpose and Need 6 Proposed Action 7 Decision to be Made 8 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Planning Documents and Analyses 9 Scoping 11 Issues 11 Issues that did not Drive Alternatives 12 Project Implementation 13

2. Comparison of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Introduction 15 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 16 No Action Alternative 17 Alternative A: Proposed Action 17 Alternative B: Motorized Recreation Emphasis 19 Alternative C Non-Motorized Recreation Emphasis 19 Comparison of Alternatives 20 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Introduction 25 Forest Transportation System 25 Recreation 32 Visual Resources 38 Wildlife Resources 43 Aquatic Resources 49 Botanical Resources 61 Heritage Resources 70 Law Enforcement 74 Other Resources 75 National Forest Management Act Determination Of Significance 76 Specifically Required Disclosures 79

4. Consultation with Others Introduction 81 Agency Consultation 81 Interdisciplinary Team 82 References 83

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Current Travel Management Direction 85 Appendix 2: Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan 99 Appendix 3: Maps 107 Appendix 4: Motorized Mixed Use Analysis 109 Appendix 5: Biological Evaluation: Terrestrial Species 121 Appendix 6: Biological Evaluation: Aquatic Species 141 Appendix 7: Wetlands and Floodplains Declaration 147 Appendix 8: Comparison of Alternatives by Vehicle Type and Season of Use 149

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Management Areas Currently Open to Motorized Cross-Country Travel 5 Table 1.2 Management Areas Currently Closed to Motorized Cross-Country Travel 6 Table 2.1 Routes Open to Motorized Use: Existing Condition 17 Table 2.2 Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use: Alternative A 18 Table 2.3 Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use: Alternative B 19 Table 2.4 Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use: Alternative C 20 Table 2.5 Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use by Alternative 20 Table 2.6 Proposed Mixed Use by Alternative 20 Table 2.7 Proposed Corridors for Motorized Access to Dispersed Campsites by Alternative 21 Table 2.8 Season of Use Dates by Alternative 21 Table 2.9 Areas Open and Closed to Motorized Cross Country Travel by Alternative 21 Table 3.1 Road Mileage Summary: No Action Alternative 27 Table 3.2 Road Mileage Summary: Alternative A 28 Table 3.3 Road Mileage Summary: Alternative B 29 Table 3.4 Road Mileage Summary: Alternative C 30 Table 3.5 Sensitivity Levels 1 and 2 by Road 38 Table 3.6 Sensitivity Level 3 by Road 39 Table 3.7 High Visual Sensitivity Corridors by Alternative 40 Table 3.8 Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species 43 Table 3.9 Effect of No Action Alternative on Forest Service Sensitive Species and MIS Species 45

Table 3.10 Effect of Action Alternatives on Forest Service Sensitive Species and MIS Species 46 Table 3.11 List of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species 59 Table 3.12 Botanical TES Effects Summary 64 Table 3.13 Noxious Weed List for the Umpqua National Forest 68

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION Travel Management Rule: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (36 CFR 212) (Final Rule)

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264- 68291). The final rule revised regulations 36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295 to require national forests and grasslands to designate a system of roads, trails and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year. These designations must be clearly displayed on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and will be reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes to the designated system. When designations are made and a MVUM published, motorized travel off the designated system will be prohibited.

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

The final rule states (FR p. 68265) “Americans cherish the National Forests and Grasslands for the values they provide: opportunities for healthy recreation and exercise, natural scenic beauty, important natural resources, protection of rare species, wilderness, a connection with their history, and opportunities for unparalleled outdoor adventure. The agency must strike an appropriate balance in managing all types of recreational activities. To this end, a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, established with public involvement, will enhance public enjoyment of the National Forests while maintaining other important values and uses of NFS lands.”

The final rule also states (FR p. 68264) “The clear identification of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on each NF will:

 Enhance management of NFS lands

 sustain natural resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use

 enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on NFS lands

 address needs for access to NFS lands

 preserve areas of opportunity for non-motorized travel and experiences”

The rule (FR p. 68266) focuses on the need to balance uses where “the National Forest System is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the National Forest to provide different opportunities for recreation….National Forests belong to all Americans, but Americans do not have a right to unrestricted use of National Forests. Congress established the Forest Service to provide reasonable regulation of the National Forest so that future generations can continue to enjoy them.”

The final rule recognizes that “motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate way for people to enjoy their National Forests in the right places, and with proper management” (FR p. 68264). Motorized use is a popular use on the Umpqua National Forest and is an important form of recreation for many individuals, families, and groups. A designated and sustainable system of routes and areas is needed to provide this use, protect resources, and comply with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212).

Current Management Direction: The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identifies the forest-wide goal of developing and managing an economical and safe Forest transportation system that is responsive to land and resource management goals (LRMP p. IV-81). To this end, forest system roads are maintained in accordance with maintenance standards in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58; Transportation System Maintenance Handbook. Roads are designed to different standards, depending on the type of use they are intended for. System roads are categorized by Maintenance Levels (ML 1 through 5) which relate to the maintenance condition for each road. Objective Maintenance Levels indicate the appropriate, or desired, maintenance condition for each road. Operational Maintenance Levels reflect the actual maintenance condition of each road. In general, Operational ML 1 roads, called closed or custodial roads, are not maintained to support full sized vehicle traffic and have been stabilized for weather (i.e. “storm proofed”). Most have been blocked with a physical barrier (i.e., boulders, logs, berms, etc.) to eliminate full sized vehicle use. Operational ML 2 roads are maintained for use by high clearance vehicles and Operational ML 3, 4 and 5 roads are maintained, to varying degrees, for use by passenger vehicles. All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on all open Forest Development Roads (roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5), except where Federal orders under 36 CFR 261 have been issued (36 CFR 212). (LRMP p. IV-83)

The Forest Plan states, “Off-road vehicle (ORV) opportunities will be directed towards blocked roads (ML 1 roads), developed trails, the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA), and dispersed unroaded recreation management areas. ORV use will be managed to assure that significant resource damage and/or conflicts with non-motorized users do not occur.” (LRMP p. IV-18) The OCRA was established as part of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, and includes the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness and the Diamond Peak Wilderness. The OCRA Management Plan (LRMP Appendix E) provides management direction for the nonwilderness portion of the OCRA. The nonwilderness portion of the OCRA is divided into seven zones, four of which lie within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest. The intent is to increase opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation as well as to facilitate wildlife and other resource enhancement. The North Umpqua and West Thielsen Zones are managed to provide semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM) recreation opportunities. The Calamut Lake and Thirsty Point Zones are managed to provide semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation opportunities. A Recreation Travelway Management Guide (LRMP Appendix F) provides broad direction for travel management of vehicles used for recreation. It identifies general Forest guidelines for preparation and implementation of travel management plans for the purpose of assigning specific access management goals and objectives to individual routes, trails and land areas. District level Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plans were developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and implemented in 1994. These ATM Plans changed the maintenance levels for certain National Forest System roads and included both permanent and seasonal road closures. Seasonal closures for wildlife protection (i.e., elk winter range, calving areas) were established as well as permanent closures for resource protection (i.e., Unique Wildlife or Mosaic Habitats, Resource Natural Areas, Non-Motorized Semi-Primitive Areas, etc.). Generally, all ML 1 roads are open to Class 1 (<50” in width and < 800 lbs.) and Class 3 (motorcycles) vehicles and ML 2 roads are open to Classes 1, 3 and Class 2 (>50’ in width and >800 lbs.) vehicles, both highway legal and non-highway legal, unless signed otherwise. Oregon State Vehicle Code prohibits the use of non-highway legal OHVs on roads maintained for passenger car traffic (i.e., ML 3-5 roads). The Forest Supervisor has issued Orders in accordance with 36 CFR 261.50, which close or restrict the use of specific areas and National Forest System roads or trails. A comprehensive list of current travel management direction is contained in Appendix 1 (Current Travel Management Direction). There are inconsistencies in guidance pertaining to travel management on the Umpqua National Forest. Standards and Guidelines for Transportation contained in the Forest Plan (LRMP p. IV-81) state that “roads will be maintained in accordance with maintenance standards in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58; Transportation System Maintenance Handbook”. FSH 7709.59; Road

System Operations and Maintenance Handbook (7709.59 superseded 7709.58 February, 5 2009) defines an ML 1 road as being “closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses”. Standards and Guidelines for Recreation (LRMP p. IV-18) state that “ORV opportunities will be directed towards blocked roads…” The Recreation Travelway Management Guide (LRMP Appendix F) and District ATM Plans allow for the use of Class I & 3 vehicles on ML 1 roads. District ATM maps were published that did not show ML 1 roads but clearly stated that All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) could be used on blocked or closed roads, roads that are open but not maintained for public travel, and roads that are maintained for public travel but are also signed as open to ATVs. In addition, Forest Order 125 prohibits “being on any road with a motorized vehicle, where entry is restricted by a closed or locked gate, barricade, or road closed sign.” These guidance inconsistencies would be resolved by designation of a motorized route system and amendment of the Forest Plan. Forest Orders would be revised or rescinded as necessary to be in compliance with the designations made under the Travel Management Rule. For the existing condition, ML 1 roads will be considered open to Class 1 & 3 vehicles. This will serve as the baseline for effects analysis of the Proposed Action and alternatives.

PLANNING AREA LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area includes all of the approximately 983,000 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest. The Umpqua National Forest is comprised of the Cottage Grove, North Umpqua, Diamond Lake and Tiller Ranger Districts, located in the State of Oregon in portions of Lane, Douglas and Jackson Counties. The project area includes the transportation system of motorized roads, trails and areas of the Forest.

The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) designated 14 management areas (MAs) on the Forest. These management areas are land areas managed towards a common focus. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 list management areas open to motorized cross-country travel and closed to motorized cross- country travel, respectively. Management Areas 12 and 13 were established to emphasize a specific resource (Fisheries for MA 12 and Minerals for MA 13). Their land areas overlap other management areas and their management direction is intended to be supplemental to the underlying

management area direction.

Table 1.1 Management Areas Currently Open to Motorized Cross-Country Travel MANAGEMENT ACRES NAME AREAS AREA (1000) SPNM – 18,700 ac. Unroaded 1 26.3 SPM – 6,700 ac. Recreation Unroaded Concentrated – 900 ac. North Umpqua , West Thielsen Oregon SPNM – 18,800 ac. 5 Cascade 35.5 Recreation Area Calumet & Thirsty Point SPM – 16,700 ac. Wild and Scenic North Umpqua Highway Viewshed 7 7.0 River Experimental South Umpqua Experimental 8 0.7 Forest Forest Sustainable 10 Timber 632.9 Production Closed to OHV’s December thru 11 Winter Range 191.0 April TOTAL 893.4 SPNM - Semi primitive nonmotorized SPM – Semi primitive motorized

Table 1.2 Management Areas Currently Closed to Motorized Cross-Country Travel MANAGEMENT ACRES NAME AREAS AREA (1000) Concentrated Lemolo Lake 2 Developed 9.4 Diamond Lake Recreation 3 Winter Sports 3.5 Mt. Bailey Boulder Creek 4 Wilderness 70.8 Rouge-Umpqua Divide Mt. Thielsen Jobs Garden, Umpqua Rocks, Inner Canyon Basalts, Umpqua Hot Springs, Crystal Spring, Cow Special Interest 6 3.0 Creek Gorge, Slide Creek Fossil Areas Beds, Emile Big Tree, Incense Cedar Grove, Illahee Rock, Spring River, Huckleberry Patch Limpy Rock Research 9 2.6 Cougar Butte Natural Areas Squaw Flat Undeveloped 3 areas 14 Intact 1.5 Ecosystems TOTAL 90.8

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, 1994) amended the Umpqua National Forest LRMP and established standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. It allocated lands into seven categories: congressionally reserved areas; late-successional reserves; adaptive management areas; managed late-successional areas; administratively withdrawn areas; riparian reserves; and matrix. Standards and guidelines for each land allocation provide a coordinated ecosystem management approach to the NWFP planning area (Pacific Northwest federal forests).

PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this project is to provide a motor vehicle transportation system to address current and anticipated needs that also offers a variety of recreation access opportunities and balances management considerations with the physical, biological, and social values of the forest. It responds to the need to:

Meet National Direction – The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) requires national forests to designate routes and areas that are open to motor vehicle use and to publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for distribution to the public.

The project will also:

Reduce Adverse Resource Impacts – As travel on the forest increases, the impacts on resources becomes more pronounced. The maintenance and restoration of healthy ecosystems and watersheds can be compromised by unmanaged motorized use. Increased demand for motorized use has led to user conflicts, safety concerns, and conflicts with resource protection goals. A designated and managed system of routes and areas is needed to provide for sustainable motorized opportunities and healthy, properly functioning ecosystems.

Specify Uses – It is necessary for the forest to clearly specify what uses are allowed on each road, trail and area. As directed by the Travel Management Rule, forests must designate those routes and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and season of use and displayed on a MVUM.

PROPOSED ACTION In accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the Umpqua National Forest proposes to designate a system of roads and trails for motor vehicle use and to non-significantly amend the Land and Resource Management Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system. The Proposed Action would non-significantly amend Standards and Guidelines for Recreation and Transportation, one Management Area and multiple Management Prescriptions. Management direction for all or portions of six Management Areas (approximately 893,400 acres) would be changed to prohibit motorized cross- country travel, and general travel management direction on the Forest would be changed from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed,” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.”

The Proposed Action (see Chapter 2) identifies exceptions to this prohibition on cross-country motorized travel by designating corridors along system roads that allow for limited use of motor vehicles. These corridors would provide for motorized access to existing dispersed (informal, undeveloped) campsites using existing non-system roads and trails. In designated corridors, dispersed campsites within 150 feet of system roads could be accessed by motor vehicles using non-system routes if it does not causes environmental damage to streams, meadows, or forested areas. The Proposed Action also identifies certain segments of roads, currently closed to non-highway legal vehicles, as open to

mixed use (both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles). These segments, subject to a mixed use safety analysis, would serve as connections between roads currently open to non-highway legal vehicles and enhance loop opportunities for those vehicles. See Appendix 4 (Motorized Mixed-Use Analysis) for a summary of the results of the safety analysis.

A Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would be produced for the entire forest. Only those routes shown on the MVUM would be open for motorized use on the Umpqua National Forest.

The scope of this project and the decisions to be made are limited to how the Forest Plan should be amended to limit wheeled motorized use to a designated system of roads and trails. The project does not apply to or analyze the impacts of over-snow vehicles or motorized access for permitted activities such as firewood and grazing permits. This project is programmatic in nature and does not propose any new ground disturbing activities or site-specific modifications.

A list of proposed Forest Plan amendments is contained in Appendix 2 (Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan).

DECISION TO BE MADE Based on the analysis documented in this Environmental Assessment, the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest will decide the following:

To implement the project as proposed; to implement a modified version of the project (an alternative) that addresses unresolved issues; or to not implement the project at this time (no action).

If the project is implemented, what mitigation measures and monitoring are necessary to achieve resource goals, objectives, and the desired future condition.

If the project is implemented, whether to amend the Forest Plan as proposed.

The Forest Supervisors’ decision will be documented in a Decision Notice along with any mitigation measures that may apply. The Proposed Action is intended to deal with regulatory activities rather than project-level activities. Past decisions regarding site-specific travel management such as road decommissioning will not be revisited.

RELATIONSHIP TO LAWS, REGULATIONS, OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSES Laws and Regulations:

There is clear congressional and executive intent for the USDA Forest Service to provide land uses within limits that Forest resources can support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In managing motor vehicles on National Forest System roads, the Umpqua is consistent with state laws and regulations. The Oregon State Motor Vehicles Division has strict rules for operating non-highway legal motor vehicles on roads, and the mixing of highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821 specifically addresses off-highway vehicles (OHV) and establishes vehicle classes, driver requirements, equipment requirements and where various classes of vehicles may and may not operate. Development of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is in accordance with implementation regulations of National Forest System Land Management Planning (36 CFR 219) and Council of Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508).

Tiered Environmental Impact Statements: This EA is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Land and Resource Management Plan – Umpqua National Forest (USDA, 1990), as amended.

Plans and Local Assessments: Watershed analyses have been completed on the Umpqua National Forest. All of these analyses have recognized the importance of roads and their effects on the environment and many make recommendations regarding specific roads and their management.

The Forest Plan directed the development of District travel management plans (Chapter IV and Appendix F) and provided prescriptions for management of road, off-road vehicle and trail access and travel. District-level Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plans were developed and implemented in 1994.

These 1994 ATM Plans were updated in 1996-1998 to identify the primary and secondary road system essential for public access and travel throughout the Forest. This was done to match road maintenance budgets with the priorities and standards for road maintenance. The intent of the updated District ATM Plans was to wisely allocate limited funds to the highest priority roads first. Primary Roads would get highest priority for funding followed by Secondary Roads and then “Other” roads.

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

of additional information. Third, to provide guidance for watershed scale and project scale roads analysis.

SCOPING The Forest began prescoping for this project in early 2008. The Forest established a travel management website and public comment was solicited through news releases in the local media, brochures, and the website. The project proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in July 2008 and has been posted on the SOPA quarterly since then. Project presentations were made to various organizations, user groups and interested publics. Open houses were held in Cottage Grove and Roseburg in July of 2008. Based on preliminary issues identified through prescoping and coordination with other federal, state, county and other local entities, tribal governments and interested publics, the Forest developed a Proposed Action. On April 10, 2009 a scoping letter describing the Proposed Action was mailed to about 300 interested publics. This information was also posted on the Umpqua National Forest website. Public comment was again solicited through news releases in the Roseburg News Review and other media sources and open houses were held in Cottage Grove and Roseburg in June 2009. Due to the high level of public interest generated by the Proposed Action, the Forest worked closely with interest groups and individuals and extended the public scoping period through September 2009.

ISSUES The Forest Supervisor identified the following four significant issues raised during public scoping. These issues will be addressed in each alternative in this analysis:

• Access o amount (motorized vs. non-motorized) and type (class of vehicle) o availability of loop opportunities for non-highway legal vehicles o user demographics (elderly/physically limited) o roadless areas (inventoried, unroaded, and potential wilderness) o hunting opportunities

• Mixed Use o public safety and user conflicts on roads (highway legal and non- highway legal) o public safety and user conflicts on trails (motorized and non- motorized)

• Dispersed Camping o amount (total miles of corridors) o corridor width (allowable distance from system road)

o concentrating use (resource impacts and quality of experience) o availability of traditional camping sites

• Resource Impacts/Noise o invasive species o wildlife habitat and disturbance o fish habitat/water quality o historical/cultural/archeological o soils/site productivity o opportunities for solitude

ISSUES THAT DID NOT DRIVE ALTERNATIVES The following issues were raised during the public scoping process and are either resolved through existing guidance or beyond the scope of this project:

Unnecessary and Unconstitutional Regulation - The purpose and need as well as the authority for implementation of the Travel Management Rule are addressed in Chapter 1 of this document.

Road Decommissioning - This project does not include any proposals to decommission (return to a natural condition) existing roads nor does it revisit past decisions concerning road decommissioning. The project is programmatic in nature and is intended to deal with regulatory activities rather than project-level activities.

Emergency Response - The use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes is exempted from designations under the Travel Management Rule. Implementation of the Proposed Action or any of the Alternatives would not have an adverse impact on the ability of federal, state or county officials to respond to emergencies.

Big Game Retrieval - The final rule provides the responsible official the authority to designate the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of designated routes, and/or specified time periods, solely for the purposes of big game retrieval. Authority to designate exceptions to the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel for big game retrieval was not delegated to the Forest Supervisor. Forest Service Region 6 policy precludes designating exceptions for big game retrieval.

Access for Disabled Users - The Travel Management Rule does not provide for special exceptions for motorized use by persons with disabilities. The restriction against motorized off-road travel (including motorized big game retrieval) applies to everyone and as such, will not discriminate against any population.

Side-by-Sides - There are increasing numbers of “side-by-side” all terrain vehicles (ATV’s) available for motorized recreation. While these vehicles are greater than 50 inches in width and over 800 pounds in weight, some forest users feel impacts from these vehicles are less than those of Class II vehicles (>50” and >800 lbs.) and should be considered Class I vehicles (<50” and <800 lbs.). Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821 specifically addresses off- highway vehicles (OHV) and establishes vehicle classes. It is beyond the scope of this project or the Travel Management Rule to establish new vehicle classes.

Enforcement - Implementation of the final rule will not increase the Forest’s budget or the number of law enforcement officers. The Forest Service is committed to using whatever resources it has available to accomplish the purposes of the Travel Management Rule in a focused and efficient manner. Education and cooperative relationships with users will support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of this project would occur with the publication of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). These maps would be available free of charge at Umpqua National Forest district offices and the supervisor’s office. The MVUM would also be published on the Umpqua National Forest website.

One of the foundational concepts of the Travel Management Rule is that the burden of responsibility to travel along designated routes has shifted from the Forest Service to the motorized user. The Forest Service will continue to use signs and to provide information to inform users on a variety of topics, including regulations and prohibitions. However, the agency has found that posting routes as open or closed to particular uses has not always been effective. Signing each undesignated route would be an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on agency resources and would tend to defeat the purpose of the final rule. Signs have also proven difficult to maintain and subject to vandalism (FR 68283- 68284). The Travel Rule will place more responsibility on visitors to obtain free MVUM’s from Forest Service offices or the Web and to remain on routes designated for motorized use. The MVUM would serve as an enforcement tool, identifying the legal use of the designated system for law enforcement officers and the public.

Initial implementation of the project would focus on public education. This will allow forest visitors to become familiar with the new system and use of the MVUMs. During the initial implementation, citations would only be issued for violations of the new rules resulting in damage to resources or social disruption, such as mudding, destruction of vegetation, and off-road travel near private land where it is not authorized.

The effectiveness of implementing the Travel Management Rule will be monitored by recording the number of Forest visitors carrying the MVUM and tracking and recording the number, type, and location of violations. The Forest Service will continue to involve the public to further develop and refine an environmentally sustainable motorized transportation system. It will be a continuing process to resolve specific access issues that were not directly addressed in the initial publication of the MVUM. Opportunities to evaluate user created routes or new routes and acquisition of needed easements will continue to be considered. Any future changes to motor vehicle use will be included in updates to the MVUM. The Forest will continue to look for community partnerships to help sustain motorized recreation opportunities through route maintenance and management.

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

INTRODUCTION The Forest Supervisor established an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) comprised of Forest experts in the disciplines he determined appropriate and essential to the successful completion of this project. The Forest Supervisor guided the IDT in the development of alternative proposals to meet the identified need and address issues raised through public scoping. This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the project. Some alternatives were considered but not developed in detail for various reasons. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) evaluated roads, trails and areas for motorized designation. The alternatives analyzed here were designed based on public input and guidance contained in 36 CFR 212.55, Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas, Forest Service Manuals, Handbooks, the Forest Plan. It is important to note that the Proposed Action described and analyzed in this document is an updated version of that presented during the public scoping process. Data cleanup and correction of mapping errors has resulted in changes to the data presented during public scoping. The three noteworthy changes are:

• Approximately 55 miles of roads with signed decommissioning Decisions were omitted from the scoping maps. These roads are currently open to motor vehicle use. They will remain open, and displayed on the MVUM, until physically decommissioned on the ground. Past decommissioning Decisions will not be revisited and these roads will be decommissioned and removed from subsequent MVUMs without further NEPA analysis or public involvement as funding becomes available. • Approximately 135 miles of ML 2 roads within Soil Erosion Risk Classes (ERC) 2 & 4 were omitted from the Proposed Action scoping maps. Occurrence within ERC 2 & 4 is one of the criteria the IDT used to identify ML 1 roads unsuitable for designation as motorized trails. This criterion was erroneously applied to ML 2 roads as well, eliminating them from the proposed system of motorized routes. Decisions to close roads will be made under separate, site specific NEPA analysis. (ML 1 roads are closed roads where Class 1 & 3 OHV use is allowed) • Approximately 108 miles of roads in calving/fawning areas were shown on the Proposed Action scoping map as having a 8/1-11/30 season of use. Forest Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists, in collaboration with Oregon Hunters Association, have determined that a

season of use of 7/1-11/30 in calving/fawning areas would meet wildlife conservation needs and enhance hunting opportunities. The season of use for motorized routes in calving/fawning areas has been extended an additional 30 days. These roads, as well as the extended calving/ fawning season of use, have been included in the Proposed Action described and analyzed in this Environmental Assessment. The Forest Supervisor determined this modified Proposed Action was unlikely to generate any new issues and that additional public scoping prior to alternative development and analysis was unnecessary.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY The following alternatives were considered by the Forest Supervisor to address comments raised during public scoping. They were eliminated from detailed study for various reasons.

• Eliminate Seasonal Restrictions – This alternative was suggested in public comments submitted in response to the Proposed Action. Public comment was received indicating seasonal restrictions were confusing, un-enforceable and unnecessary. This alternative was not fully developed because it does not meet the Purpose and Need of this project to designate a sustainable motorized system in balance with the resources of the land. Seasonal restrictions were established to avoid disturbance to wildlife during critical periods (i.e., wintering, calving/fawning, nesting) and direct motorized use away from sensitive habitats. These resource concerns are still valid today and need to be considered in the designation process.

• Open, Close, Construct or Decommission Roads – Many route specific comments were received requesting the Forest Service consider the construction of new OHV routes, opening or closing existing roads and decommissioning roads. An alternative addressing these comments was not fully developed because it is beyond the scope of the project. This project is intended to deal with the regulatory activities of designating roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicles, rather than project- level, ground disturbing activities such as constructing, opening, closing or decommissioning trails or roads. These types of Decisions will be made under separate, site specific NEPA analysis.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the Forest Service would not designate a system of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use and would not amend the Land and Resource Management Plan to prohibit wheeled motor vehicle use off the designated system. The Forest Plan would not be consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and would allow unmanaged motor vehicle use to continue on the Umpqua National Forest. Impacts from unmanaged cross- country vehicle travel would continue to occur. This alternative represents the existing condition and serves as the baseline for effects analysis of the Proposed Action and alternatives.

Table 2.1 - Routes Open to Motorized Use: Existing Condition Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Open to highway legal vehicles only (ML 3-5) 521 0 Open to all vehicles (ML 2 + motorized trails) 2955 7 Open to vehicles <50” in width and < 800 lbs. 1052 81 (ML 1 + motorized trails) Open to motorcycles only (motorized trails) 0 60 Total 4528 148

See Appendix 3 (Maps) for a visual representation of the existing condition and proposed designations for motorized use.

ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED ACTION This alternative would non-significantly amend the Umpqua National Forest LRMP to make it consistent with the Travel Management Rule. See Appendix 2 (Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan) for a comprehensive list of the specific proposed changes by citation. It would designate a system of roads and trails for wheeled motor vehicle use and amend the Forest Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system. This alternative would change the existing status of access and travel management on the Forest from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed,” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.” Under this alternative:  Direction for all or portions of six Management Areas (approximately 893,400 acres) and related Management Prescriptions would be changed to prohibit motorized cross-country travel. See Appendix 2 (Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan).

 Maintenance Level 1 roads appropriate for motorized use would be designated as motorized trails (approx. 557 mi.). Motorized use of all remaining ML 1 roads would be prohibited (approx. 495 mi.).  Camping corridors would be established where motorized access to existing dispersed campsites would be allowed within 150’ of open roads if it does not cause environmental damage to streams, meadows, or forested areas (approx. 493 mi.). These corridors would provide motorized access to most of the existing dispersed campsites on the forest.  Certain segments of roads, currently closed to non-highway legal vehicles, would be designated as open to mixed use based upon Mixed-Use Safety Analysis (approx. 197 mi.). These segments would serve as connections between roads currently open to non-highway legal vehicles and enhance loop opportunities for those vehicles.  Seasonal road closures would be consolidated into three seasons of use. Additional miles of seasonal restrictions would be designated based on results of recent studies and recommendations from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (approx. 106 mi.).  Existing trails not designed or maintained for motor vehicle use would not be designated as motorized routes (approx. 60 mi.).

Table 2.2 - Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use: Alternative A Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Open to highway legal vehicles only (ML 3-5) 324 0 Open to all vehicles (ML 2 + motorized trails) 3152 7 Open to vehicles <50” in width and < 800 lbs. 557 18 (ML 1 + motorized trails) Open to motorcycles only (motorized trails) 0 63 Total 4033 88

See Appendix 3 (Maps) for a visual representation of the existing condition and proposed designations for motorized use. The designation of a road or trail for motorized use would include all trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the road or trail. The designation of a road would include parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road (within 20’ from the edge of the road surface) when it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS resources or facilities. The designation of a trail would include the width of the trail and the distance necessary to allow other users to pass where it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS resources and facilities.

ALTERNATIVE B: MOTORIZED RECREATION EMPHASIS Many comments were received from the public identifying specific roads, trails and camping areas that are an important part of their traditional motorized use of the forest. Those routes and areas not included in the Proposed Action were evaluated by the IDT for inclusion in the designated system. This alternative represents an effort to accommodate those traditional motorized uses while complying with the intent of the Travel Management Rule. This alternative is the same as Alternative A (including the non-significant Forest Plan amendments) with the following exceptions: Under this Alternative:  Camping corridors would be expanded to allow motorized access to existing dispersed campsites within 300’ of open roads.  Additional camping corridors would be established (approx. 188 mi.). (Alt. A 493 mi. + Alt. B 188 mi. = 681 total mi.)  Additional ML 1 roads would be designated as motorized trails (approx. 13 mi.). (Alt. A 557 mi. + Alt. B 13 mi. = 570 total mi.)  Portions of trail SNO-1589 A, E, F and T would be designated for use by Class 1&3 vehicles during the season of use for wheeled vehicles (approx. 6 mi.).  Segments of roads, currently closed to non-highway legal vehicles, proposed as open to mixed use would be reduced (approx. 38 mi.). (Alt. A 197 mi. – Alt. B 38 mi. = 159 total mi.)

Table 2.3 - Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use: Alternative B Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Open to highway legal vehicles only (ML 3-5) 384 0 Open to all vehicles (ML 2 + motorized trails) 3092 7 Open to vehicles <50” in width and < 800 lbs. 570 24 (ML 1 + motorized trails) Open to motorcycles only (motorized trails) 0 63 Total 4046 94

See Appendix 3 (Maps) for a visual representation of the existing condition and proposed designations for motorized use.

ALTERNATIVE C: NON-MOTORIZED RECREATION EMPHASIS Many comments were received from the public concerning the impact of OHV use on the long-standing tradition of quiet, nature-based recreation on the Forest. Comments indicated existing Forest Development Roads (ML 2 through 5) provided adequate access and opportunities for all classes of motor vehicles. The IDT evaluated the exclusion of all ML 1 roads and existing trails from the

designated system for motorized use. This alternative represents an effort to maximize those opportunities for quiet recreation while still providing adequate motorized access to the Forest. This alternative is the same as Alternative A with the following exceptions: Under this Alternative:  No ML 1 roads would be designated as motorized trails, with the exception of 2 miles which provide access to established recreation facilities.  No existing trails would be designated for motorized use, with the exception of the Noonday Wagon Road, Trail # 1405 (approx. 7 mi.).  Portions of trail SNO-1589 A, E, F and T would be designated for use by Class 1&3 vehicles (approx. 8 mi.).

Table 2.4 - Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use: Alternative C Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Open to highway legal vehicles only (ML 3-5) 385 0 Open to all vehicles (ML 2 + motorized trails) 3091 7 Open to vehicles <50” in width and < 800 lbs. 2 8 (ML 1 + motorized trails) Open to motorcycles only (motorized trails) 0 0 Total 3478 15

See Appendix 3 (Maps) for a visual representation of the existing condition and proposed designations for motorized use.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Key quantitative differences between alternatives are compared in Tables 2.5. through 2.9.

Table 2.5 - Designated Routes Open to Motorized Use by Alternative Vehicle Type Miles Existing Alternative Alternative Alternative Condition A B C Open to highway legal 521 324 384 385 vehicles only (ML 3-5) Open to all vehicles 2962 3159 3099 3098 (ML 2 + motorized trails) Open to vehicles <50” in width and < 800 lbs. 1133 575 594 10 (ML 1 + motorized trails) Open to motorcycles only 60 63 63 0 (motorized trails) Total 4676 4121 4140 3493

Table 2.6 – Proposed Mixed Use by Alternative PROPOSED MIXED USE Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Miles of road currently closed to non- highway legal vehicles 197 159 158 (ML 3-5) that would be opened to mixed use

Table 2.7 – Proposed Corridors for Motorized Access to Dispersed Campsites by Alternative PROPOSED CAMPING CORRIDORS Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Width = 150’)* (Width = 300’)* (Width = 150’)* Miles of corridor 493 681 492 * Measured from the edge of the road surface on both sides of road (e.g., 150’ left and 150’ right of road edge)

Table 2.8 – Season of Use Dates by Alternative SEASON OF USE EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED (All Alternatives) Winter Range (5/1 – 11/30) Winter Range (5/1 – 11/30) Cottage Grove District Calving (7/1 – 11/30) Calving/Fawning (7/1 – 11/30) Tiller District Calving (6/15 – 2/28) Peregrine (8/1 – 12/31) Raptors (8/16 – 12/31)

Table 2.9 – Areas Open and Closed to Motorized Cross-Country Travel by Alternative MOTORIZED CROSS-COUNTRY EXISTING PROPOSED AREA RESTRICTIONS CONDITION (All Alternatives) acres acres Closed to motorized cross-country 358,784 983,153 travel Open to motorized cross-country travel 426,589 0 Open seasonally (5/1-11/30) to 197,780 0 motorized cross-country travel TOTAL 983,153 983,153

See Appendix 8 (Comparison of Alternatives by Vehicle Type and Season of Use) for a comprehensive list of roads, trails and areas by vehicle type and season of use by alternatives.

Purpose and Need - All alternatives, with the exception of the No Action Alternative, meet the Purpose and Need of the project. They provide sustainable motorized access to the Forest and afford a broad spectrum of motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities in balance with the capabilities of the land. They meet the requirements and intent of the Travel Management Rule.

Issues - Issues identified through the public scoping process are addressed in one or more of the alternatives analyzed in this Environmental Assessment.

All alternatives provide adequate access to Forest lands. The No Action Alternative maximizes motorized access to Forest lands while providing the least amount of loop opportunities for non-highway legal vehicles. Alternatives A and B provide a greater degree of motorized access than Alternative C. Specifically, Class 1&3 vehicle access is greater, addressing the public concern for providing motorized opportunities for hunting and elderly/physically limited forest visitors. Alternative C provides for increased non-motorized hunting opportunities and reduced motorized access for elderly/physically limited forest visitors. Alternatives A and B, and to a lesser degree Alternative C, provide increased loop opportunities for non-highway legal vehicles by allowing mixed use on portions of ML 3 – 5 roads currently open to highway legal vehicles only. Alternative C addresses the public concern that motorized use within Inventoried Roadless Areas, as well as other undeveloped areas, could preclude their suitability for designation by Congress as Wilderness. Under Alternative C no existing trails, except the Noonday Wagon Road (#1405), would be designated for motorized use.

• Mixed Use o public safety and user conflicts on roads (highway legal and non- highway legal) o public safety and user conflicts on trails (motorized and non- motorized)

Mixed use on NFS roads refers to the use of a road by both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles. All alternatives except the No Action Alternative address the concern for public safety and user conflicts on NFS roads through motorized mixed use analysis (USDA Forest Service, EM 7700-30). Motorized mixed use analysis is a qualitative analysis of road characteristics completed by a qualified engineer for each road considered for designation for mixed use through the travel management process. Mixed use on NFS trails refers to both motorized and non-motorized use of the same trail. Alternative C addresses the public concern for safety and conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users by eliminating mixed use on existing trails (except Noonday Wagon Road). Under alternatives A, B and the No Action Alternative, these public concerns are addressed through trail signage for permitted uses.

• Dispersed Camping o amount (total miles of corridors) o corridor width (allowable distance from system road) o concentrating use (resource impacts and quality of experience) o availability of traditional sites

Concern about motorized access to dispersed campsites was perhaps the most prevalent issue raised throughout the public scoping process. Under the No Action Alternative motorized access to dispersed campsites is limited only by Management Area direction (i.e., SPNM, Wilderness, etc.) and federal regulations against causing resource damage (36 CFR 261.9 and 261.15(h)). Alternatives A and C address this issue by providing access to dispersed campsites through the proposed designation of 150’ wide camping corridors. Alternative B provides increased access to dispersed campsites by designating 300’ wide corridors and designating additional corridors identified by the public as existing, traditional use sites. Under Alternatives A, B, and C the proposed camping corridors would provide for the “limited” use of motor vehicles off the designated system of routes. Motorized use would be limited to accessing existing campsites using existing routes. Pioneering new routes within camping corridors would not be allowed.

• Resource Impacts/Noise o invasive species o wildlife habitat and disturbance o fish habitat/water quality o historical/cultural o soils/site productivity o opportunities for solitude

All alternatives, except the No Action Alternative, address the public concern raised for preventing or reducing resource impacts. Alternatives A, B, and C address these concerns by prohibiting motorized cross-country travel.

Alternative A and B address these resource concerns by reducing the amount of routes available for motorized use. Alternative C further reduces resource impacts and affords more opportunities for solitude by eliminating motorized use on ML 1 roads and existing trails.

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

INTRODUCTION The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed existing guidance, Forest assessments, relevant literature, and used their professional judgment and knowledge of the Forest to determine how the proposed alternatives are likely to affect the environment. This chapter summarizes the physical, biological and social environments of the planning area and analyzes the potential changes to those environments as a result of the implementation of the alternatives. It predicts the cumulative effects of implementing the alternatives based on past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The intent of the Travel Management Rule is to reduce and prevent adverse resource impacts caused by unmanaged motorized use in order to maintain and protect the health of ecosystems and watersheds. The proposed alternatives analyzed here are programmatic in nature and are intended to deal with regulatory activities rather than project-level activities. This project does not: • Designate any new roads, trails or areas for motorized use, • Identify any roads or trails for closure or decommissioning, • Allow for new motorized use in camping corridors, or • Propose any new ground disturbing activities. The analysis focuses on the effects associated with the Forest Plan amendment that restricts all motorized use to a designated system of roads, trails and areas and eliminates motorized cross-country travel. It also analyzes the effects of providing exceptions to the motorized cross-country prohibition through the designation of camping corridors. Results of Motorized Mixed Use Analysis are incorporated in the Forest Transportation section of this chapter. See Appendix 4 (Motorized Mixed Use Analysis) for the complete Motorized Mixed Use Analysis conducted by the Qualified Engineer.

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

National Forest System (NFS) roads are categorized by assigned maintenance levels (ML) 1 -5, in accordance with road management objectives identified and documented for each road. ML 1 roads are in storage for periods exceeding 1 year between intermittent uses. They are typically closed at the entrance with physical barriers to eliminate all traffic and some may be under legal closure orders to prohibit traffic. They are opened for short term use by specific land management activities, generally not available for public use during that activity, and are closed again following use. ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles, while user comfort and convenience are not considerations for low clearance vehicles (passenger cars). Use by low clearance vehicles is discouraged by signing and/or other physical indicators at the entrance. Some ML 2 roads are managed for administrative use only, may be closed with gates to eliminate other traffic, and may be under legal closure orders to prohibit other traffic. ML 3 roads are maintained for use by standard passenger cars, though user comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. ML 4 roads are maintained to provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience for passenger cars. They are typically paved single or double lane roads, though some are aggregate surfaced. ML 5 roads are maintained to provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience for passenger cars, and are typically paved double lane.

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

Motorized Mixed Use of NFS Roads

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

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

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

An engineering analysis was conducted in accordance with FSM 7709.55 Ch. 30, addressing all roads identified for motorized mixed use in Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C. This motorized mixed use analysis (MMUA) was guided by the Forest Service publication Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads (EM-7700-30). The purpose of the MMUA is to identify public safety risks that may be incurred as a result of allowing motorized mixed use on designated roads or road segments. The MMUA is a technical evaluation with recommendations, including mitigation measures, presented to the responsible official for consideration in decisions reflected on the MVUM. The results are documented in Appendix 4.

Existing Condition There are 4790 miles of NFS roads administered by the Umpqua National Forest. 1235 miles are managed as closed ML 1 roads. They are typically native surfaced, though some are gravel. 3034 miles are managed for high clearance vehicle use as ML 2 roads. They are typically gravel roads, though some are native surface and some are paved with asphalt. There are 521 miles of ML 3 - 5 roads (360 miles ML 3, 123 miles ML 4, and 38 miles ML 5), open and suitable for use by passenger cars.

The ML 3 – 5 roads are considered to be the “primary” road system and are highest priority for routine, annual maintenance. Of the 3034 miles of ML 2 roads, a higher priority is placed on 1074 miles considered to be “secondary” roads, which together with the primary roads, form the “key road system” (Umpqua Roads Analysis Report, 2003). Secondary roads receive maintenance as budget and scheduling allow, but often are not maintained on an annual basis, and may be inaccessible from blow down and slides for extended periods of time. The remaining 1960 miles of ML 2 roads typically do not receive scheduled routine maintenance, but are maintained in conjunction with and at the time of specific land management project access needs.

Some NFS roads on and administered by the Umpqua National Forest are primarily maintained by private entities. These are some of the roads where private entities have acquired easements to access lands under their ownership or to access privately operated facilities on National Forest lands. These particular roads predominately serve the access needs of the private entity, and the Forest Service has only incidental, administrative access needs. Most of these roads are closed to public access. 20 miles of ML 1 and 74 miles of ML 2 roads are in this category and were not considered in this analysis. Potential conflicts with private road maintenance responsibilities precluded consideration of establishing public motorized vehicle access on these roads at this time.

Many other roads of all maintenance levels have easements established for use by private entities or non-federal government agencies, but where the Forest Service is the primary road maintainer. Maintenance responsibilities are jointly

shared however, and the private or non-federal government user is responsible for a share of maintenance commensurate with their use. Maintenance agreements include standards to ensure the road is maintained in a condition and level of public accessibility consistent with the established maintenance level for each road, regardless of who performs the maintenance. Public motorized access is typically allowed on these roads, and they have been included in this analysis.

Some ML 1 roads primarily maintained by the Forest Service are managed under prior management decisions that specifically exclude all motorized traffic, including OHV’s. 163 miles of ML 1 road in this category were not considered in this analysis for consideration to establish public OHV access at this time.

Some ML 2 roads primarily maintained by the Forest Service are managed under prior management decisions that limit motorized access to administrative use only. 5 miles of ML 2 road in this category were not considered in this analysis for consideration to establish public access at this time.

No Action Alternative

Table 3.1 Road Mileage Summary: No Action Alternative No Action Road Mileage Summary Motorized Use ML 1 ML 2 ML 3 ML 4 ML 5 TOTALS No Motorized 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles Class I and III Only (ML 1 Roads 1052 0 0 0 0 1052 Designated as Motorized Trails) Highway-Legal- 0 0 360 123 38 521 Vehicles-Only

Mixed Use 0 2955 0 0 0 2955

TOTALS 1052 2955 360 123 38 4528

Effects common to all action alternatives None of the action alternatives changes the maintenance level of any road. All alternatives maintain the existing mileage of roads open to highway legal vehicles.

Alternative A Alternative A is the proposed action. 557 miles of ML 1 roads would be designated for use as motorized trails, while motorized vehicles would be prohibited on the remaining 495 miles of ML1 roads. Motorized mixed use would be allowed on 3152 miles of road, including 197 miles of ML 3, 4 and 5 roads.

Table 3.2 Road Mileage Summary: Alternative A Alternative A Road Mileage Summary Motorized Use ML 1 ML 2 ML 3 ML 4 ML 5 TOTALS No Motorized 495 0 0 0 0 495 Vehicles Class I and III Only (ML 1 Roads 557 0 0 0 0 557 Designated as Motorized Trails) Highway-Legal- 0 0 210 92 22 324 Vehicles-Only

Mixed Use 0 2955 150 31 16 3152

TOTALS 1052 2955 360 123 38 4528

Alternative B In Alternative B, 570 miles of ML 1 roads would be designated for use as motorized trails, while motorized vehicles would be prohibited on the remaining 482 miles of ML 1 roads. Motorized mixed use would be allowed on 3092 miles of road, including 156 miles of ML 3, 4 and 5 roads.

Based on a safety analysis of proposed motorized mixed use (Appendix 4), Alternative B would exclude 64 miles of road with safety concerns from motorized mixed use compared to Alternative A. Those roads would allow highway-legal vehicles only. The road segments included in Alternative A, but excluded from Alternative B would be:

• 2610 (Lemolo Lake – Bird’s Point): 13.9 miles from 2614 intersection to 2154 • 2612 (Lemolo Lake): 4.2 miles from 2610 to 60 • 2614 (Lemolo Loop): 2.7 miles from 2610 to 2612 • 27 (Little River – Quartz Mtn.): 9.8 miles from Co. Rd. 17C to Lake in the Woods Campground

• 28 (South Umpqua – Copeland Creek): 7.0 miles from 2715 intersection to State Hwy. 138 • 37 (Fish Creek): 7.0 miles from State Hwy. 138 to 3703 intersection (end of pavement) • 3818 (Homestead Creek): 5.6 miles from 38 to end of pavement • 4714 (Panther Creek): 5.8 miles from State Hwy. 138 to intersection with 4714-300 • 4714-300 (Up Panther): 3.8 miles from 4714 intersection to 2703 • 4775 (Medicine Creek): 3.9 miles from State Hwy. 138 to end of pavement

Alternative B would have additional OHV loop driving opportunities compared to Alternative A. This would result from allowing motorized mixed use on four additional segments of road totaling 4 miles in length that link together other roads open for motorized mixed use. The additional road segments in Alternative B that would not be included in Alternative A are:

• 22 (Brice Creek): 0.6 miles from 2212 intersection to 2213 intersection • 2212 (Noonday): 2.3 miles from 22 to 2212-724 intersection • 38 (Steamboat): 0.2 miles from 3816 intersection to 3817 intersection • 4760 (Grassy Ranch – Singe Creek): 0.8 miles from start of pavement near Steamboat Falls Campground to 4713 intersection

Table 3.3 Road Mileage Summary: Alternative B Alternative B Road Mileage Summary Motorized Use ML 1 ML 2 ML 3 ML 4 ML 5 TOTALS No Motorized 482 0 0 0 0 482 Vehicles Class I and III Only (ML 1 Roads 570 0 0 0 0 570 Designated as Motorized Trails) Highway-Legal- 0 19 207 120 38 384 Vehicles-Only

Mixed Use 0 2936 153 3 0 3092

TOTALS 1052 2955 360 123 38 4528

Alternative C In Alternative C, 2 miles of ML 1 roads would be designated for use as motorized trails, while motorized vehicles would be prohibited on the remaining 1050 miles of ML 1 roads. Motorized mixed use would be allowed on 3091 miles of road, including 155 miles of ML 3, 4 and 5 roads.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C would exclude 64 miles of road with safety concerns from motorized mixed use compared to Alternative A. Those roads would allow highway-legal vehicles only. The road segments included in Alternative A, but excluded from Alternative C for safety concerns would be the same segments described for Alternative B.

Another segment of road would be excluded from motorized mixed use in Alternative C compared to both Alternative A and Alternative B. The segment is 1.4 miles of road 23 (Martin Creek – Canton Creek) from the 2358 intersection to the beginning of BLM jurisdiction near the Forest Boundary would allow highway- legal vehicles only. This would reduce potential conflicts with additional OHV entry onto adjacent BLM road systems.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C would have additional OHV loop driving opportunities compared to Alternative A. This would result from allowing motorized mixed use on four additional segments of road totaling 4 miles in length that link together other roads open for motorized mixed use. The additional road segments in Alternative C that would not be included in Alternative A are the same segments described for Alternative B.

Table 3.4 Road Mileage Summary: Alternative C Alternative C Road Mileage Summary Motorized Use ML 1 ML 2 ML 3 ML 4 ML 5 TOTALS No Motorized 1050 0 0 0 0 1050 Vehicles Class I and III Only (ML 1 Roads 2 0 0 0 0 2 Designated as Motorized Trails) Highway-Legal- 0 19 208 120 38 385 Vehicles-Only

Mixed Use 0 2936 152 3 0 3091

TOTALS 1052 2955 360 123 38 4528

Cumulative Effects Past decisions to decommission roads over approximately twenty years have reduced the total mileage of NFS roads on the Umpqua National Forest. In this time period, approximately 155 miles of road have been decommissioned. Approximately 85 of those miles have been ML 2 roads, open to public travel but not maintained for passenger cars. The other 70 miles have been ML 1 roads, not open to public travel. Past decisions also include approximately 56 miles of road decommissioning not implemented that may be implemented in the foreseeable future, further reducing total road mileage. Approximately 42 of those miles are ML 2 roads, the other 14 miles ML 1. Watershed restoration planning efforts may also lead to future decisions for road decommissioning.

Limited maintenance on existing ML 2 roads, especially the approximately 1960 miles that are not part of the key road system as secondary roads, may result in some reduction of drivable road mileage in the foreseeable future. Encroachment of roadside tree and brush growth, slides, rock-fall, and tree blowdown all contribute. Countering this is the maintenance these roads receive in conjunction with various land management project activities, or with road maintenance performed in conjunction with wild fire suppression activities. This type of intermittent maintenance may result in substantial increases in drivable road mileage for some years.

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

RECREATION Management Direction Management of motorized recreation opportunities on the Forest is based on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) in a range from semi-primitive to rural settings. Management Areas in the LRMP provide focus, and Prescriptions provide specific direction. Appendix F of the LRMP, the Recreation Travelway Management Guide, provides a summary of direction for recreation use of vehicles by prescription and vehicle type, for roads, trails, and management areas.

The Forest Recreation Niche: The Recreation Niche defines the best suited recreation experiences the Forest can offer, balancing supply with demand, that are sustainable over time. During development of the Niche, the Forest was grouped into five categories: Diamond/Lemolo Lakes, the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway, Cascades Dispersed, Wilderness areas, and Winter Recreation. The Umpqua Recreation Niche is focused on regionally distinctive water features and destination opportunities such as lakes, rivers, and waterfalls located in the Lakes and Byway categories. Funding for recreation facilities is prioritized in these areas to support the Niche. Motorized recreation opportunities for summer 32

Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) are focused in the areas assigned Cascades Dispersed. These areas cover the majority of the Forest.

Existing Condition Motorized Recreation Use on the Umpqua: The National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM) provides science-based information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on the Forest. Studies were conducted on the Umpqua in 2001 and 2007, interviewing visitors as they exited the Forest. Activity descriptions varied between the two study years and the results are not indicative of trends, but they do provide a range of data. Total visits to the Forest are estimated at 600,000 to 900,000 per year. In 2001, 2.7% of visitors said they participated in Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use and 0.7% said it was their primary activity. In 2007, a new activity, “motorized trail activity” was added. General OHV use dropped to 1.6% total with 0% primary; motorized trail activity was 2.3% with 1.1% as the primary activity. Driving for pleasure was about the same for both rounds: 28-30% of visitors. It is assumed that this activity is primarily highway legal vehicles.

Observations by Forest recreation personnel indicate there are two primary types of recreational OHV riding on the Umpqua. Either the vehicle is just the mode of transportation used to access a recreational activity (i.e. hunting) or the vehicle use itself is the primary activity (i.e. trail and road system riding). Demand for both opportunities has been slowly increasing over the last decade, although it has not been statistically measured. Of the three classes of OHVs, Class I vehicles are the most common. The highest use of Class I and II vehicles is on Operational Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) roads during fall hunting seasons. Use is lower on ML 1 roads, because many have grown in with vegetation and are not passable. Class III (motorcycle) use is low across the Forest on system trails. Demand for Class II trail opportunities is highest on the Cottage Grove Ranger District. Summer OHV use in conjunction with traditional family camping is increasing. While much of the Forest is open to motorized travel (43%), cross- country use of motorized vehicles is limited due to steep terrain, dense vegetation, and natural obstacles.

Current concerns related to OHV use are the safety of mixed use (highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles) on ML 3 gravel roads, “mudding” in wet areas, and ground disturbance to unique and meadow mosaic habitats and to riparian areas.

Dispersed Camping: Except for specific area prohibitions, most of the Forest is open to dispersed camping. The majority of high use camps have been inventoried. They are managed for vehicle use with placement of traffic barriers and/or short access roads have been designated as transportation system roads. New campsites are monitored and a determination is made whether to manage or eliminate use and access based on site specific resource concerns. Riparian areas and unique and

mosaic habitats, such as meadows, are the biggest concern for resource damage.

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

No Action Alternative Under this alternative, there would be no change or effect on motorized access, mixed vehicle use on roads, motorized trails or management of dispersed camping on the Forest. The Forest would continue in a reactive management strategy and implement site specific plans and travel or camping prohibitions, when resource impacts are unacceptable or in violation of LRMP direction, standards and guidelines, and regulations 36 CFR 261.15[h] or 36CFR 261.9[a]. Resource impacts would continue to occur in a similar manner and frequency over time.

There would be no change or effect on non-motorized recreation opportunities on the Forest.

Effects common to all action alternatives All action alternatives would eliminate all cross-country motorized travel opportunities and limit motorized vehicles to designated roads and trails. Current cross-country travel is low and limited by terrain and vegetation. Limiting vehicles to roads and trails reduces the opportunity for those who view travel cross-country as a technical challenge. All action alternatives have the potential to displace this activity to other land ownerships, or if recreationists choose to continue this activity on National Forest lands, they do so illegally. Wildlife management seasons would be changed and there would be additional seasonal closures on roads and trails which would limit the season of use for motorized recreation. Seasons have been simplified from the current condition and should be easier for visitors to understand.

Forest visitors would have an additional responsibility to carry a Motor Vehicle Use Map to determine which routes are open for motorized activities.

Over snow travel (snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, etc.) is not affected by any alternatives.

Forest visitors that prefer non-motorized recreation benefit from all the action alternatives by eliminating motorized access off designated roads and trails. The amount of roads and trails open to motorized use varies by alternative.

Trails open to all ATV classes are the same for all alternatives; 7 miles, the Noonday Wagon Road Trail #1405, on the Cottage Grove Ranger District. A possible indirect effect of all action alternatives is designated camping corridors may attract more use over time because they would be identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Alternative A ML 1 roads open only to vehicles 50” or less would be reduced from 1052 to 557 miles - about 50%. Access to some remote dispersed camps would be eliminated. Open ML 1 roads would become motorized trails and nearly double the Forest trails program. No additional appropriated funding is expected to maintain these 557 miles of new trails. Maintenance would be dependent on volunteers and grant opportunities. Unmaintained and low use trails would gradually grow in with vegetation and become impassable to vehicles. Over time, these roads would be removed from the MVUM and be unavailable for motorized recreation.

There would be no change to the total miles of road available to highway legal vehicles (521). Roads open to mixed highway and non-highway vehicles would increase from 2955 to 3152 miles. Safety concerns increase with high use and higher maintenance level roads (see Appendix 4: Motorized Mixed Use Analysis). Signing roads for mixed use and speed limits can help mitigate these concerns. Conflicts between types of vehicles could increase with increased mixed use.

Trails open to vehicles 50” or less would be reduced from 81 to 18 miles, open seasonally only. Trails open to motorcycles only would be increased from 60 to 63 miles. The total reduction of motorized trails would be 60 miles. Many of these trails were never designed for OHV’s and are very short, too steep, or too narrow to meet safety concerns. Since these trails were rarely used by OHV’s, the impact to motorized recreationist would be minimal.

All or portions of eight trails occur in inventoried roadless areas (IRA). Trail 1407 is in Canton Creek/Puddin Rock IRA, trails 1417 and 1417A are in Fairview IRA, trails 1452 and 1452A are in Mt. Bailey IRA, trails 1513 and 1518 are in Williams Creek IRA, and trail 1534 is in Bulldog Rock IRA. These trails are in LRMP Management Area 1 (Unroaded Recreation Management Areas) and are specifically authorized for semi-primitive motorized use (Prescription A1-IV, pages IV-146 – 147). All of the trails are currently open to motorcycles only except trail 1534, which is open to vehicles 50” or less. Although these trails would be designated for motorized use, some non-motorized trail users may not expect to see or hear motorized vehicles in an unroaded area, and would be adversely affected by that occurrence.

Dispersed camping corridors of 150’ (each side of the road) would be designated on 493 miles of roads. Dispersed camping would still be allowed outside of designated corridors where access roads have been inventoried and are part of the Forest transportation system. Unmaintained roads that access dispersed camping sites and are not transportation system roads would be inventoried and evaluated for potential addition to the transportation system in the future. Non- system roads adversely impacting resources would be evaluated for closure, both physical and administrative.

Opportunities for non-motorized recreation are increased in this alternative by reducing the total miles of roads and trails open to motorized vehicles. Motorized recreation would still be available on the miles of roads and trails identified above. Both non-motorized and motorized recreational activities would be available and would be beneficial to those who enjoy these activities.

Alternative B ML 1 roads open only to vehicles 50” or less would be reduced from 1052 to 570 miles. Effects are basically the same as Alternative A.

Effects to mixed use and highway legal roads are the same as in Alternative A.

Trails open to vehicles 50” or less would be reduced from 81 to 24 miles, open seasonally only. The 60 miles closed in Alternative A remain the same and 6 miles of snow trails on the Diamond Lake RD would be added as summer OHV trails. These trails would also provide loop opportunities for Class I & III OHVs. Trails open to motorcycles only would be increased from 60 to 63 miles.

All or portions of eight trails occur in inventoried roadless areas. Trail 1407 is in Canton Creek/Puddin Rock IRA, trails 1417 and 1417A are in Fairview IRA, trails 1452 and 1452A are in Mt. Bailey IRA, trails 1513 and 1518 are in Williams Creek IRA, and trail 1534 is in Bulldog Rock IRA. These trails are in LRMP Management Area 1 (Unroaded Recreation Management Areas) and are specifically authorized for semi-primitive motorized use (Prescription A1-IV, pages IV-146 – 147). Although these trails would be designated for motorized use, some non-motorized trail users may not expect to see or hear motorized vehicles in an unroaded area, and would be adversely affected by that occurrence.

Dispersed camping corridors in this alternative are wider - 300’ (each side of the road) and would be designated on 681 miles of roads, a 38% increase from Alternative A. Dispersed camping would still be allowed outside of designated corridors where access roads have been inventoried and are part of the Forest transportation system. Unmaintained roads that access dispersed camping sites and are not transportation system roads would be inventoried and evaluated for potential addition to the transportation system in the future. Non-system roads

adversely impacting resources would be evaluated for closure, both physical and administrative.

Opportunities for non-motorized recreation are increased in this alternative by reducing the miles of roads and trails currently open to motorized vehicles. The snow trails added as OHV trails are not currently managed for summer use and do not attract non-motorized use. Effects to non-motorized recreationists would be minimal by adding these motorized trails. They are located near Diamond and Lemolo Lakes, both highly developed recreation areas.

Of all the action alternatives, Alternative B. has the greatest benefit to motorized recreation.

Alternative C In this alternative, all ML 1 roads would be closed to motorized vehicles. Hunters who prefer to use motor vehicles and are unwilling or unable to walk or ride a horse on these routes would be the most affected. Their access opportunities would be limited to higher level maintenance roads.

Effects to mixed use and highway legal roads are the same as in Alternatives A and B.

All other existing motorized trails (148 miles) would be closed to motorized vehicles and 8 miles of snow trails on the Diamond Lake RD would be added as summer OHV trails. Opportunities for motorcycle only trail riding (single track) would be eliminated on the Forest.

There would be no motorized trails in inventoried roadless areas.

Dispersed camping corridors in this alternative are similar to Alternative A: 150’ (each side of the road) would be designated on 492 miles of roads. Dispersed camping would still be allowed outside of designated corridors where access roads have been inventoried and are part of the Forest transportation system. Important access roads that are not currently system roads would be evaluated and inventoried for potential addition to the system.

Of all the action alternatives, Alternative C has the least amount of miles of roads and trails open motorized use. This would benefit those non-motorized recreationists who would be adversely affected by the sight and sound of motor vehicles on the roads and trails they use.

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

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule would further reduce opportunities for motor vehicle use on the Forest, primarily due to the elimination of cross-country travel and reduction of open miles of ML 1 roads (motorized trails). In addition, ML 1 roads (motorized trails) that are not used would gradually grow in with vegetation and become impassable. Future road decommissioning would also lower the amount of road available for motorized use. In the future, some roads may become impassable due to the inability to maintain all of the roads on the transportation system. This would adversely affect those who recreate on lower maintenance level roads and those who wish to travel off-road, and it would be a beneficial effect for those who favored non- motorized recreation. Conversely, there may be the addition of some road mileage in areas where future management activities occur. This would be a benefit to those who wish to recreate on lower maintenance level roads. Increased use on mixed use roads may lead to unacceptable safety concerns. Monitoring of mixed use would occur, and MVUM revisions would respond to safety concerns. The amount of mixed use roads may change over time based on this.

Appropriated funds for trail maintenance are not expected to increase in the future. Additional trail construction requests would need to be evaluated to determine how the trails would be maintained. It is likely that low use trails (motorized and non-motorized) would not be maintained. Vegetation would gradually grow in and the trail would become impassable. Trails would be removed from the MVUM and trail system as this occurs.

There is a proposal for future OHV riding trails in the White Rock area of Roseburg Bureau of Land Management lands. It involves approximately 50 miles of riding on existing roads/trails and new construction of trails. New construction could involve approximately 15 to 24 miles of trail. If this system is developed, it could be expanded in the future to involve National Forest lands on the North Umpqua Ranger District. Specific details concerning the involvement of National Forest lands have not been developed at this time.

Increases in population in surrounding areas have the potential to increase demand for all types of recreation on the Forest. Visitor use and satisfaction is monitored through the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program, which is currently on a five year cycle. The next time this round of monitoring is expected to occur on the Umpqua is in 2012 or 2013.

VISUAL RESOURCES Management Direction The scenic resources on the Umpqua National Forest were inventoried under the Forest Service’s Visual Management System (VMS). The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) assigned a range of

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

Motorized use on roads and trails which are designed for that purpose has no effect to the scenic resource.

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

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

Table 3.5 Sensitivity Levels 1 and 2 by Road Ranger District Road VQO Sensitivity Level Cottage Grove Co. Rd. 2460, 2473, PR 1 2470 “ 773 to Fairview Peak PR 2 North Umpqua Hwy. 138 R 1 “ Steamboat Road 38 PR 2 “ Little River Rd. 27 & M 2 2700-495 Diamond Lake Hwy. 138 R or PR 1 “ Rd. 2610, 2610-400 R or PR 1 “ Hwy. 230 R or PR 1 “ Rd. 4795-300 R or PR 1 “ Rd. 60 M 2 “ Rd. 6000-958 PR 2 “ Rd. 37 R 2

Ranger District Road VQO Sensitivity Level “ Rd. 3700-870 PR 2 “ Rd. 4793 to -100 jct. PR 2 “ Rd. 4795-300 &-380 R 2 Tiller Rd. 2925-800 M, PR 1 “ Rd. 6800-950 R 1 “ S. Umpqua Rd. 28 PR 2 “ Rd. 2715-950 PR 2 “ Rd. 2823 R, PR 2 “ Rd. 2830 & 2830-600 PR 2 “ Rd. 2840 to Beaver PR 2 Swamp TH “ County Rd. 36 PR 2 “ County Rd. 1 PR 2

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

Recreation Access Routes Table 3.6 Sensitivity Level 3 by Road Ranger Road VQO Sensitivity Miles or District Level Section Cottage Grove Brice Creek Rd. PR, M, 3 13.5 22 & 2212 MM “ Layng Creek Rd. M, MM 3 1.0 17 North Umpqua Wilson Creek Rd. R, PR, M, 3 9.3 4770 MM “ Snowbird Rd. R, PR, M, 3 3.0 2715 MM “ Reynolds Rd. PR, M 3 10.0 3850 & 3817 Diamond Lake Medicine Creek R, PR, M 3 4.0 Rd. 4775 Tiller Jackson Creek M, MM 3 19.5 Rd. 29 & 2947 “ Castle Rock Rd. R, PR 3 2.5 2823 “ Rd. 2900-550 R, M 3 1.0

High Visual Sensitivity Routes Proposed as Camping Corridors

Table 3.7 High Visual Sensitivity Corridors by Alternative District Alt. A – 150 Alt. B – 300 Alt. C – 150 foot foot corridors foot corridors corridors Cottage Grove 2460 (SL1) 2460 (SL1) 2460 (SL1) 2470 (SL1) 2470 (SL1) 2470 (SL1) 22 (SL3) 2212 (SL3)

North Umpqua 27 (SL2) 27 (SL2) 27 (SL2) 38 (SL2) 38 (SL2) 38 (SL2) 2715 (SL3) 2715 (SL3) 2715 (SL3) 3850 (SL3) 3850 (SL3) 3850 (SL3) 4770 (SL3) 4770 (SL3) 4770 (SL3)

Diamond Lake 2610 (SL1) 37 (SL2) 37 (SL2) 37 (SL2) 4793 (SL2)

Tiller 2925-800 (SL1) 29 -gravel 29-gravel 29-gravel section in section in section in Jackson Creek Jackson Creek Jackson Creek (SL3) (SL3) (SL3)

Existing Condition The majority of existing dispersed camps along high visual sensitivity routes have been inventoried. They are managed for vehicle use with placement of traffic barriers and/or short access roads have been designated as system roads. New campsites are monitored and decisions made whether to manage or eliminate use and access based on site specific resource concerns. Riparian areas and unique and mosaic habitats are the biggest concern for resource damage.

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

Effects common to all action alternatives The designation of dispersed camping corridors on high visual sensitivity level routes has the most potential for degradation of visual resources. Camping corridors allow motorized use off designated routes for the purpose of dispersed camping to existing camps. Overland travel to create new camping areas may also occur but is likely to be limited due to vegetation, terrain, and natural obstacles. A possible indirect effect is designated camping corridors may attract more use over time because they would be identified on the Motor Vehicle Users Map.

Alternative A Camping corridors extend 150’ on each side of the road. Visual Sensitivity Level 1, 2 and 3 roads are affected. Some monitoring would be needed to ensure evidence of new campsites in the foreground seen areas meet Visual Quality Objectives.

Alternative B Camping corridors extend 300’ on each side of the road. Designated corridors in this alternative include four Sensitivity Level 1 routes. Potential effects to the visual resource are greater compared to Alternatives A and C. More monitoring than in Alternatives A and C would be needed to ensure evidence of new campsites in the foreground seen areas meet Visual Quality Objectives.

Alternative C Camping corridors and effects are the same as Alternative A.

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

On the North Umpqua Ranger District, two years ago the Rattle Fire, and last year the Williams Creek Fire, affected the viewsheds from portions of Highway 138 by removing vegetation (shrubs and branches of trees) and blackening tree trunks. On the Tiller Ranger District, in 2002 the Tiller Complex affected viewsheds from portions of Forest Service Road 28 by removing vegetation and blackening trees. Last year the Boze Fire affected viewsheds from portions of Rd. 28 and Rd. 2715-950 in the same manner.

In the future, D-Bug Hazardous Fuels Timber Sale Project proposes fuel reduction activities in the Diamond Lake area. In the short term along certain roads, the VQO of retention is proposed to be reduced to partial retention and partial retention to modification. Viewsheds from portions of the following roads

would be affected: Highways 138, 230, Roads 2610, 2610-400, 4795-300, 60, 6000-958, 37, 3700, 3700-870, and 4793 to 4793-100 junction. Refer to the D- Bug Draft Environmental Impact Analysis (pgs. 281-291) for more information concerning the effects of the project to the visual resources of these areas. In the future, the Cow Creek Timber Sale has the potential to affect the visual resources of County Road 36 on the Tiller Ranger District. The environmental analysis of this proposed timber sale has not been completed at this time.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES The following is a summary of the Biological Evaluation (BE) and Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Interest analysis prepared for this project. See Appendix 5 (Biological Evaluation: Terrestrial) for the complete BE prepared by the Forest Wildlife Biologist.

Management Direction Management direction for wildlife resources is contained in the Umpqua Forest Plan, as amended. The Plan, as combines the forest-level strategy for managing wildlife resources on the Forest with the Northwest Forest Plan’s regional strategy for managing old-growth and late-successional forest ecosystems on federal lands.

Existing Condition Federally Listed Species The only federally listed wildlife species found on the Forest is the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) which is federally threatened. The northern spotted owl utilizes mature forests for both nesting and foraging and is considered to be an old growth obligate species. Land management activities to maintain adequate habitat for this species are guided by Recovery Plan for the Spotted Owl (USDI 2008) and the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Key elements in these conservation strategies are Late Successional Reserves (LSR's), designated Recovery Habitat (MOCA's) and buffer areas around spotted owl activity centers. Suitable habitat, owl nesting locations and areas of designated critical habitat occur across the Forest. Motorized activities may have an effect to resident nesting owls resulting from disturbance. If these activities are above ambient noise levels and are reoccurring and frequent, or of long duration, they may alter breeding and reproductive activities. Disturbance activities within 60 meters of historic nest stands or computer predicted occupied nesting sites between March 1 and July 15 may cause effects likely to adversely effect the owl, while disturbance activities in these locations conducted from July 16 to September 30 may result in effects that are not likely to adversely effect owls. Activities conducted after September 30, but prior to March 1, will have no effect resulting from disturbance to owls.

Sensitive Species Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species found on the Umpqua National Forest and

their associated habitats are discussed in the BE for terrestrial species in Appendix 5 (Biological Evaluation: Terrestrial). The project area contains suitable habitat for 31Sensitive wildlife species as summarized in Table 3.8 below.

Table 3.8 Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Suitable Habitat Common Scientific Name Habitat Present in Name Project Area Evening fieldslug Deroceras Riparian areas Yes hesperium Salamander slug Gliabates Mature conifer forest Yes oregonius Oregon Helminthoglyta Near forest openings Yes shoulderband hertleini Oregon Megomphix hemphilli Mature conifer forest Yes megomphix Chace sideband Monadenia chaceana Near rock outcrops Yes Crater Lake tightco Pristiloma articum Riparian areas Yes crateris Johnson’s Callophrys johnsoni Mistletoe in coniferous forest Yes hairstreak Mardon skipper Polites mardon Grasslands/meadow Yes Siskiyou short- Chloealtis aspasma Grasslands/meadow Yes horned grasshopper Coronis fritilarry Speyeria coronis Grasslands/meadow/openings Yes coronis Southern torrent Rhyacotriton Riparian areas Yes salamander variegatus Foothill yellow- Rana boylii Slow water streams/ponds Yes legged frog Northwestern pond Clemmys Slow water streams/ponds Yes turtle marmorata Common Lampropeltis Slow water streams/ponds Yes Kingsnake getulus Oregon spotted Rana pretiosa Higher elevation lakes/ponds Yes frog Yellow rail Coturnicops Large meadow/wetlands Yes noveboracensis Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Large waterbodies Yes Horned grebe Podiceps auritis Large waterbodies Yes Red-necked Podiceps grisegena Large waterbodies Yes grebe Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Large cliff faces Yes Northern bald Haliaeetus Large waterbodies with large Yes eagle leucocephalus trees for nest-building Harlequin duck Histronicus Turbulent, higher elevation Yes

histronicus streams Lewis’ Melanerpes lewis Open canopied forest Yes woodpecker White-headed Picoides Open canopied forest Yes woodpecker albolavatus Purple martin Progne subis Fields, waterbodies, Yes shrublands Black swift Cypseloides niger Waterfalls Yes Pacific shrew Sorex pacificus Mesic forest stands Yes cascadensis Pacific pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Caves, human structures Yes pacificus Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Caves, human structures Yes Wolverine Gulo gulo Remote areas Yes Pacific fisher Martes pennanti Mature coniferous forest Yes

Management Indicator Species and Rare and Uncommon Species The use of Management Indicator Species (MIS) in project planning is established by National Forest Management Act regulations. MIS are species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a wide range of species with similar habitat requirements. The Forest Plan identifies 8 Management Indicator Species: Northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, pine marten, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, and “cavity nesters”. The northern spotted owl is a federally listed species and the bald eagle and peregrine falcon are Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive species. They are addressed in the BE. The Umpqua Forest Plan includes habitat objectives and standards for MIS species. Incorporated into Forest Plan standards are seasonal restrictions on motorized use designed to maintain peregrine falcon reproductive sites (January 1 through July 31), bald eagle reproductive sites, (January 1 through August 15) and big game winter range areas ( December 1 through April 30).

Also considered in the project analysis is another set of wildlife species, identified as rare and uncommon species. These species are: Chace sideband, Oregon shoulderband, Oregon megomphix, evening fieldslug, Crater Lake tightcoil, great grey owl, white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl. The mollusk species (Chace sideband, Oregon shoulderband, Oregon megomphix, evening fieldslug, Crater Lake tightcoil) are also Forest Service Sensitive species and are not repeated here. The remaining bird species (great grey owl, white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl) all have suitable habitat within the project area. The principle habitat concern for the great grey owl is the retention of suitable nesting habitat (large diameter trees in close proximity to large natural openings). For the remaining bird species, the principle habitat concern is the retention of adequate amounts of suitable nesting/foraging snag habitat.

No Action Alternative The No Action alternative represents current conditions. It would have “No Effect” to the currently identified spotted owl recovery habitat (2008 MOCA’s) or to previously identified recovery habitat (1992 Critical Habitat Unit’s (CHU’s)). Likewise, the No Action alternative would have “No Effect” to the availability of suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat or dispersal habitat; and has “No Effect” on the potential for reproductive disturbance when compared to current conditions.

The No Action alternative would also have “No Effect” on Forest Service Sensitive Species or Management Indicator Species as summarized in Table 3.9 below.

Table 3.9 Effect of No Action Alternative on Forest Service Sensitive Species and MIS Species Habitat Impacted by No Common Name Effects Determination Action Alternative Evening fieldslug No No Effect Salamander slug No No Effect Oregon shoulderband No No Effect Oregon megomphix No No Effect Chace sideband No No Effect Crater Lake tightcoil No No Effect Johnson’s hairstreak No No Effect Mardon skipper No No Effect Siskiyou short-horned No No Effect grasshopper Coronis fritilarry No No Effect Southern torrent salamander No No Effect Foothill yellow-legged frog No No Effect Northwestern pond No No Effect turtle Common Kingsnake No No Effect Oregon spotted frog No No Effect Yellow rail No No Effect Bufflehead No No Effect Horned grebe No No Effect Red-necked grebe No No Effect Peregrine falcon No No Effect Northern bald eagle No No Effect

Harlequin duck No No Effect Lewis’ woodpecker No No Effect White-headed woodpecker No No Effect Purple martin No No Effect Black swift No No Effect Pacific shrew No No Effect Pacific pallid bat No No Effect Fringed myotis No No Effect Wolverine No No Effect Pacific fisher No No Effect

The No Action alternative retains all current habitat conditions for Management Indicator Species, including seasonal restrictions for raptors and big game habitats. As such, it is compliant with Forest Plan requirements for all of the MIS species. The No Action alternative, likewise, retains all current habitat conditions for rare and uncommon species.

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives Alternatives A, B and C all result in a reduction in the number and acreage of potential disturbance to spotted owl reproductive sites. The motor vehicle use management plan implemented with any of these alternatives “May Effect” the degree to which reproductive spotted owls may be disturbed by motorized vehicles adhereing to Forest policy. Since these alternatives reduce the potential for disturbance, they are “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” spotted owl reproductive efforts or recovery objectives.

Most Forest Service Sensitive species have potentail habitat that may be impacted by action alternatives. The management of off-road/trail travel in these circumstances has a beneficial effect. The effects of the action alternatives on Forest Service Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species is summarized in Table 3.10 below.

Table 3.10 Effect of Action Alternatives on Forest Service Sensitive Species and MIS Species Habitat Impacted by No Common Name Effects Determination Action Alternative Evening fieldslug Yes Beneficial Effect Salamander slug Yes Beneficial Effect Oregon shoulderband Yes Beneficial Effect Oregon megomphix Yes Beneficial Effect

Habitat Impacted by No Common Name Effects Determination Action Alternative Chace sideband Yes Beneficial Effect Crater Lake tightcoil Yes Beneficial Effect Johnson’s hairstreak No No Effect Mardon skipper Yes Beneficial Effect Siskiyou short-horned Yes Beneficial Effect grasshopper Coronis fritilarry Yes Beneficial Effect Southern torrent salamander Yes Beneficial Effect Foothill yellow-legged frog Yes Beneficial Effect Northwestern pond Yes Beneficial Effect turtle Common Kingsnake Yes Beneficial Effect Oregon spotted frog Yes Beneficial Effect Yellow rail Yes Beneficial Effect Bufflehead Yes Beneficial Effect Horned grebe Yes Beneficial Effect Red-necked grebe Yes Beneficial Effect Peregrine falcon Yes Beneficial Effect Northern bald eagle Yes Beneficial Effect Harlequin duck Yes Beneficial Effect Lewis’ woodpecker Yes Beneficial Effect White-headed woodpecker Yes Beneficial Effect Purple martin Yes Beneficial Effect Black swift No No Effect Pacific shrew Yes Beneficial Effect Pacific pallid bat No No Effect Fringed myotis No No Effect Wolverine Yes Beneficial Effect Pacific fisher Yes Beneficial Effect

All action alternatives incorporate seasonal use restrictions for raptors (bald eagles and preegrine falcons) and big game (both winter and reproductive

periods). These seasonal restrictions were modified in location and duration based on data and information provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the interest of usability of the final Motor Vehicle Use Map, raptor seasonal restrictions and big game reproductive seasonal restrictions were lumped as recommended in an interagency meeting with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Douglas County Comissioners.

Habitat components important for the MIS group “cavity nesters” was determined to be unaffected by action alternatives. The remainder of MIS species had habitat impacted by action alternatives. For each action alternative, this was a reduction in potential adverse impacts. All action alternatives were determined to be consistent with Forest Plan objectives and direction for Management Indicator Species.

Of the rare and uncommon species, action alternatives were found to beneficially effect potential habitat for mollusk species, with no effect for the remainder.

All alternatives are consistent with the Umpqua Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan objectives and direction.

Cumulative Effects A wide variety of land use activities (including but not limited to: timber harvest, forest stand improvement, soils restoration, noxious weed control, fuel management, recreational uses, special use permits, mineral extraction, special forest product extraction, habitat enhancements, etc) occur within the project area. These activities that are presently occurring or imminent (already have NEPA decision documentation) are considered as part of the project baseline conditions. It is foreseeable that other, similar activities will be occurring that may occur in or near suitable habitat for federally listed, Forest Service Sensitive, Management Indicator, and rare and uncommon species. It is expected that these new activities will all adhere to agency policies applicable to any given species. Utilizing this assumption, the wildlife reports did not identify any circumstance where any of the Umpqua Travel Management Plan alternatives, working in concert with other activities, would result in cumulative effects that would conflict with current agency direction.

AQUATIC RESOURCES Existing Condition Beginning at the crest of the Cascade Mountains, the Umpqua River Basin drains about 3 million acres in SW Oregon, primarily within the boundaries of Douglas County. The Umpqua National Forest encompasses nearly one-million of those acres, including large portions of the headwaters and mainstems of the North and South Umpqua Rivers. The Umpqua River is one of only two river basins in

Oregon that flow directly to the Pacific Ocean from the Cascades (the other is the Rogue River); all of the remaining rivers in Oregon flow into either the Columbia River basin (e.g., Willamette, Deschutes, McKenzie, Santiam, etc.) or drain the Oregon Coast Range (e.g., Coos, Coquille, Siuslaw, Yaquina, etc.). This situation has led to the long-term geological isolation of the Umpqua from other aquatic systems and resulted in unique biological resources, such as the evolution of three endemic fish species that are found nowhere else. Flowing northwesterly from the Calapooya Divide between the Umpqua and Willamette River basins is the Row River, a major tributary to the Coast Fork of the Willamette. The Forest manages approximately 120,000 acres in headwater areas of this basin, including Layng Creek. The Umpqua River system is renowned for its anadromous fisheries values, including important commercial and sport fisheries for Chinook salmon and a world-class sport steelhead fishery in the mainstem and North Umpqua River. Due in large measure to the location of NF lands within the basin, fish habitat and water quality are disproportionately important to these fisheries values - with nearly all the “healthy” salmon and steelhead populations being spawned and reared in rivers and streams within NF boundaries. The Forest also provides refuge habitat for several “at-risk” salmon species, such as the Federally ESA- listed (Threatened) coho salmon. The portion of the South Umpqua River within the Forest serves as critical habitat for recovery of coho, a species with coast- wide implications for sport and commercial fisheries and is the sole remaining habitat for a unique population of spring Chinook that is on the verge of extinction. Additionally, the Cottage Grove District portion of the Forest provides refuge habitat for the ESA-listed (Threatened) Oregon chub. The North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River is a 33.7 mile-long mainstem reach that was designated by Congress in 1992 and is unregulated by dams or diversions, and features Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV’s) for water quality, fisheries, scenic, and recreational values. Several other streams, including the South Umpqua River mainstem, some of its larger tributaries, and Steamboat Creek (a North Umpqua River tributary) contain one or more ORV’s and, as a consequence, were found eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system. Although deemed eligible, none have been congressionally designated to date. The need for high quality water from the Forest will be increasing for the foreseeable future – thus water and aquatic habitat management will remain a vital task for the Umpqua NF. The Umpqua NF has always played an important role in water resource management, affecting the quality and quantity of water flowing into the Willamette and Umpqua River basins. With anticipated changes in basin hydrology, such as timing and quantity due to global climate change coupled with increased demand from population growth, this role will undoubtedly become even greater in the future.

Beneficial Uses of Water and 303(d) listed Streams To comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, and the standards and guidelines of the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), the beneficial uses of waters must be identified and management activities planned so they would not interfere with or be injurious to the beneficial uses of adjacent or downstream waters. The relevant beneficial uses of the Row River, and the North and South Umpqua Rivers, as determined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) include the following: 1) public and private domestic water supply; 2) industrial water supply; 3) irrigation; 4) livestock watering; 5) resident fish and aquatic life; 6) wildlife and hunting; 7) fishing; 8) water contact recreation; and 9) aesthetic quality (ODEQ, 2003). In addition to providing the public water supply for the southern Willamette Valley, much of the high-quality water for downstream domestic, commercial, and agricultural use in the Umpqua Valley also originates on the Forest. This includes the public water supply for Glide, Roseburg, and numerous rural residents from the North Umpqua and the south-county communities of Tiller, Days Creek, Canyonville, Tri City, Myrtle Creek, Dillard and Winston from the South Umpqua River. The Forest’s many lakes and impoundments also provide many varied recreational experiences that depend on high water quality and productive fish habitat. The ODEQ has identified water quality impaired streams and bodies of water throughout the State of Oregon as required by the Clean Water Act. The Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was signed in 2007. Forest- wide implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) are generally accepted by the State of Oregon as a management approach that will maintain or allow for attainment of water quality standards.

Environmental Consequences At the landscape scale, it is well documented that motorized routes can modify the frequency, timing, and magnitude of disturbance to aquatic systems. The current motorized travel system on the Forest includes over 4,750 miles and nearly 625,000 acres of potential motorized routes, although a substantial portion of these may not be actually accessible or used. Many of these routes are located within proximity to occupied fish habitat and sensitive watershed areas. The overriding adverse effect of this motorized travel system on the fisheries resource is via sediment input to stream systems, and to a lesser degree fragmentation of aquatic habitats due to impassable road/stream crossings. These conditions have contributed to decreased distribution and abundance of native salmon stocks, particularly anadromous salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. The action alternatives (alternatives A, B, and C) contain potential changes to the Umpqua Forest Plan, requiring amendments that are designed to provide management and enforcement consistency. One thing these amendments would

substantially change is the amount of off-road motorized opportunities, with little of the Forest open to that use as it would be restricted to narrow corridors adjacent to some roads. While widespread and unregulated cross-country travel on the Umpqua NF is fairly rare due to the challenges of operating vehicles in the difficult terrain presented by the Forest’s dense vegetation and irregular topography, severe adverse consequences can happen where it does occur; such as in and adjacent to stream courses, in riparian areas, and in meadow habitat. Another change would be the designation of camping corridors. Dispersed camping is inherently associated with roads and generally within the same zone of impact as the road. Dispersed camping is unlikely to generate measureable watershed impacts over and above those associated with roads. The action alternatives include prohibitions for damage to land, vegetation, or streams including the cutting of trees. Under these conditions dispersed camping activities would have no more than a localized, short-term and indirect effect on aquatic resources. This project involves the identification of a motorized travel system and publication of a Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), for all vehicles, including OHV’s, on the Forest. Following completion of the MVUM, motorized travel on the Forest would be restricted to designated routes and areas only. In general, this project is merely designating permitted vehicle use on the existing system of routes within the Forest. Accordingly, the baseline (i.e., pre-project) condition includes all adverse impacts to aquatic resources such as water quality, aquatic biota populations and aquatic habitat from this existing route network. The magnitude and extent of road and trail impacts to aquatic resources is highly variable depending on site specific characteristics. General effects of roads and trails on water quality and the fisheries resource are described below. All of the proposed action alternatives would reduce total motorized access on the Forest relative to the existing condition, yet maintain a mix of OHV uses. These alternatives would permit many existing uses while changing and even eliminating some other uses (such as generalized off-road use) on a designated system of motorized routes; such as specified roads, trails, and areas. Roads proposed for closure to public use, principally Maintenance Level-1 (ML-1) roads, have been evaluated in this analysis since the level of use would change from unregulated public use to limited administrative use or use by permit only. The conversion of ML-1 roads to motorized trails has been evaluated, even though the level of current use is expected to remain approximately the same. There would be no increases from road and motorized trail-related impacts to 303(d) listed streams beyond what is currently occurring because all the action alternatives would reduce OHV access and no new routes would be created. Existing water quality limited streams would not be further impacted by the proposed alternatives.

General Effects Roads, particularly those located in proximity to riparian areas, pose a distinct threat to aquatic biota habitat quality and population structure. Roads can route

sediment into water bodies, alter hydrologic processes, fragment aquatic habitat (i.e., migration barriers), and provide a vector for introduction of aquatic nuisance species and hazardous materials. Additionally, roads provide access to and concentrate human and livestock use within riparian areas. This can lead to widespread degradation of stream banks, in-channel aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation. Under all of the action alternatives, roads and motorized trails (routes) would be identified for use within Forest watersheds, including many that support fish populations and other aquatic biota. Some of these routes are located within Riparian Reserves, and thus have a high likelihood of producing adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota populations and habitats. Riparian Reserves on the Umpqua National Forest were designated under the Northwest Forest Plan (1994) as one element of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). It should be noted that none of the alternatives would result in measurable increases from road and motorized trail related impacts to aquatic habitat beyond what is currently occurring because all action alternatives would reduce OHV access and few or no new routes would be created. The following list is specific to the analysis of the effects of OHV use on roads and trails on aquatic resources such as water and fish habitat quality and quantity on the Umpqua National Forest and expected to occur under all alternatives. 1) A stream with adverse effects to water quality as a result of sediment from unpaved roads and trails (or other causes) generally shows one or more of the following characteristics: pools have been partially or completely filled-in with sediment, an excessive amount of fine-grained material occurs throughout much of the channel, the channel is wide and shallow, recent erosion of the channel is excessive, and the streambanks are unstable. 2) The reduction or elimination of motorized vehicle traffic in an off-road area or on a road or trail near a stream will result in less sediment delivered from the road or trail to the stream, and this in turn will reduce the risk of adverse effects to water and fish habitat quality from roads and trails. This is because the reduction or elimination of vehicle traffic on a road or trail, over a period of time, would re-vegetate with grass, shrubs, or trees. As a result, the amount of material that is readily available to erode from the road to a nearby stream should be reduced. The available research has shown that the erosion rates from a closed road will often decrease to near background levels as the density of vegetation on the surface of the road increases. 3) The elimination of motorized vehicle traffic on a road or trail near a stream during periods of wet road conditions will result in less sediment delivered from the road to the stream. Vehicle use on wet roads tends to cause ruts and damage to the roads, which tends to increase erosion of sediment from the road during rainfall events and periods of snowmelt.

4) The density of roads and trails at the watershed scale will not be substantially changed as a result of any of the action alternatives because it is beyond the scope of this project. The primary reason for this assumption is that these alternatives involve the closure of routes to motorized vehicle use by the public and not the physical removal of roads. The removal of roads typically involves the excavation of culverts, the ripping of the road surface, and, in some cases, the re-contouring of the ground surface to blend in with the natural topography.

Water Temperature Roads and, to a lesser extent, trails affect water quality directly through sediment supply and by reduction in canopy cover from trees that can reduce stream shading and contribute to increased summer water temperature in perennial streams. Elevated water temperatures are common during the summer low-flow stream conditions and are the result of a variety of natural and human-caused factors. Water quality effects of National Forest management activities are governed by TMDL’s established by ODEQ which provides a list of water quality impaired streams. On the Umpqua National Forest, most of the listed streams are listed as impaired for water temperatures that exceed State standards. As stated previously, Forest-wide implementation of BMPs and the ACS are generally accepted by the State of Oregon as a management approach that will maintain or allow attainment of water quality standards.

Sediment Numerous researchers have established that roads are the primary source of fine sediment that is delivered to streams in otherwise relatively undisturbed watersheds. In addition, research has concluded that fine sediment from roads can result in adverse effects to streams and aquatic habitat. Road related sedimentation is a result of road-induced hydrologic changes. The hydrology of road networks has important implications for both road surface sediment production and mass-wasting. Fine tuning road design and road maintenance Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid excessive water concentration and erosive power is an important step toward avoiding excessive road sedimentation. This may require improved drainage spacing specifications for unstable lithologies, or saturated areas.

Change in Flow Timing, Volume, or Duration Overland flow occurs whenever rainfall intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil. In humid, forested landscapes such as is found throughout much of the Umpqua NF, rainfall intensity rarely exceeds infiltration capacity, and overland flow occurs infrequently in naturally functioning watersheds. In contrast, road surfaces are highly compacted, have high bulk densities, and have little or no pore space. Although roads occupy a very small percentage of most watersheds, they can be responsible for the majority of overland flow in forested basins. Road surfaces can produce runoff in most moderate to severe storm events. Hillslope runoff processes in the Pacific Northwest are dominated by

subsurface flow. Subsurface flow occurs when permeable soil overlies relatively impermeable bedrock. Roads are typically cut into the soil profile, and sometimes into underlying decomposed and solid bedrock, where they are capable of intercepting, concentrating, and rerouting subsurface flow from upslope contributing areas. Roads with deep road cuts and roads constructed on shallow soils are especially prone to intercepting subsurface flow. Although effects are well described generally; direct, quantitative, cause-and-effect links between roads and trails and aquatic conditions have not been extensively studied or documented on the Umpqua NF and, as a result of these limitations, the analysis of the alternatives in this section is a relative risk assessment of the likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic resources from altered hydrologic processes.

Soil Productivity Soil productivity includes the inherent capacity of soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity on the Forest has been directly impacted by the type, extent, and location of designated roads, motorized trails, and areas used for cross-country motor vehicle use. Off-road motorized activities can produce unacceptable levels of soil degradation by compacting, moving, eroding, or puddling of the soil. Motorized vehicles can damage soil directly from impact from surface traffic and indirectly by hydrologic modifications, soil transport, and deposition. Compaction resulting from off-road use can inhibit plant growth. Off-road use, and motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails are sources of long-term management- related sediment. While there are numerous Standards and Guidelines (S&G’s) in the Umpqua LRMP for the protection and restoration of soil productivity, it was acknowledged that roads, landings, and trails were the exception and diminishment was expected.

No Action Alternative This alternative represents the current situation and serves as the baseline for comparison of the Action alternatives. Under this alternative, the current motorized route system, including extensive areas open to off-road use, would remain on the landscape and vehicle use designations would not change. Consequently, current effects to the watershed and fisheries resources from the motorized route system would persist. These effects are described in general terms above. Site specific effects from individual routes or groups of routes do vary in magnitude and scope across the Forest and by alternative. Adverse effects to aquatic systems from roads are well documented at the site specific scale, but can be difficult to quantify at the watershed and landscape scales. Common watershed and landscape scale effects include: sediment influx into stream channels, migration barriers due to improperly designed road-stream crossings, water temperature increases, altered stream flow regimes, and reduced soil productivity.

Alternative A This alternative (Proposed Action) was developed to meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212). As such, the effects are resultant from changes, mostly reductions, to the existing motorized use across the Forest. One of the key benefits to watershed and fisheries resources under this alternative is the elimination of motorized cross-country travel on the Forest. This action should limit current and future expansion of unauthorized user-created routes, thus, potentially limiting degradation of high value aquatic habitats and furthering soil productivity restoration. This alternative would maintain an extensive system of motorized trails, including nearly all designated motorized trails in the existing condition and the conversion of many miles of ML-1 roads into motorized trails. It would, however, reduce the amount of ML-1 roads open to motorized use, relative to the existing condition. Under this alternative, off- road camping would be allowed up to 150 feet off of designated routes (corridors) to facilitate dispersed recreation. Dispersed recreation is presently a common activity across the Forest under the existing conditions that is likely to continue and is an activity that can result in detrimental impacts to adjacent aquatic habitats. These effects may include increased sediment influx into water bodies from bank damage and user-created crossings, reduced riparian plant composition and structure, and increased risk of aquatic nuisance species transfer and introduction. Each of these effects has the potential to reduce fisheries habitat condition, alter fish population structure, and lower soil productivity at the site scale. Overall, although there are still risks to aquatic resources, the risks of adverse consequences from Alternative A would be less than under the No Action (Existing Condition) Alternative.

Alternative B This alternative was developed to allow non-highway legal vehicles to use some additional roads, principally ML-1 roads that would be converted into motorized trails and some snowmobile trails, as compared to Alternative A. Also, off-road camping along designated corridors would be expanded to 300 feet, double the distance established in Alternative A. Overall, the risk of adverse effects of this alternative to aquatic resources would be similar, but slightly higher, than those in Alternative A because the additional amount of motorized trails and the expanded distance for designated corridors would result in greater disturbance to soil and vegetation.

Alternative C This alternative would substantially reduce OHV use as compared to Alternatives A and B. In addition to the elimination of off-road motorized use, this alternative would greatly reduce the system of motorized trails. As a consequence, the risk of unintended adverse effects to aquatic resources would be greatly reduced and the likelihood of recovery through natural re-vegetation would be enhanced, as compared to all the other alternatives due to the substantial reduction of disturbance to soil and vegetation.

Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would not incrementally add to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities to cause a cumulative effect to the sediment regime since no action would occur. All the Action alternatives will improve the existing condition at the site-scale, but improvement at the larger (watershed, landscape) scales will likely be undetectable or difficult to quantify. Alternatives A and B are similar as they would eliminate off-road use and reduce substantially the miles of ML-1 road available for OHV use, relative to the existing condition and may, as a consequence, have future unquantifiable beneficial effects through a reduction of site specific sedimentation and erosion resulting in vegetative recovery. Alternative C would potentially have even greater future unquantifiable benefits to water quality and fish habitat than alternatives A and B due to the elimination of all OHV use on ML-1 roads and a substantial reduction in trails open to motorized use.

Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was designed to facilitate the protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems on lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) which was signed in 1994. The strategy is intended to protect and provide direction for restoration of anadromous fish habitat in streams located on federal lands within the NWFP area, which is roughly the range of the northern spotted owl. It is assumed that implementation of the ACS provides protection for all aquatic species present on the Umpqua National Forest. The NWFP requires that projects demonstrate consistency with the nine ACS objectives. Under the No Action alternative there would be no change to consistency with the nine ACS objectives relative to the existing condition. Under all the Action alternatives several currently authorized uses would be eliminated, primarily the elimination of off-road motorized use and a reduction in ML-1 road miles open to OHV’s. In summary, the project would not retard or prevent attainment of any of the ACS objectives. The consistency of the Action alternatives with the nine ACS objectives is discussed below.

Objective 1--Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. All action alternatives would utilize existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites, and eliminate off-road use, therefore; the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features would be maintained. Objective 2--Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically

unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life- history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Since all action alternatives utilizes existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites and eliminate off-road use, the spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds would be maintained. The physical nature of existing movement corridors would remain unchanged. Elimination of off-road use would not adversely affect those aquatic network connections that include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia since areas that would have potential for habitat degradation were removed from the allowed access sites. Objective 3 --Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. Roads within Riparian Reserves are or have the potential to contribute sediment to streams and increase erosional energy within the aquatic system. While all action alternatives would eliminate areas where off road use would be allowed, Alternative C provides for the most overall reduction in motorized use, resulting in less potential for adverse Riparian Reserve impacts. There is the potential for some restoration of the physical integrity of the aquatic system under all action alternatives, due to the reduction of the occasional damage that occurs from current off road uses. Objective 4--Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. Since all the action alternatives would eliminate areas where off road use would be allowed, there is the potential for some restoration of water quality which is necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems due to the reduction of the occasional damage that occurs from current off-road uses. Use of OHV’s on open roads and existing sites would have no additional adverse effect on water quality under any action alternative. Objective 5--Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. Since all the action alternatives would use existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites and would not develop new sites for off-road use, the existing sediment regime within the aquatic ecosystem would be maintained. Any changes to the existing condition would likely be positive, but unquantifiable, due to the elimination of motorized OHV use on several hundred miles of ML-1 roads and eliminating off-road use entirely. Alternative C provides for the largest reduction in motorized use and as a consequence would have the least number of stream crossings which can result in management-related sediment delivery to streams.

Objective 6--Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected. All action alternatives would utilize existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites and there would not be any new sites developed for off-road use. Therefore, there would be no change to in-stream flow conditions that could affect riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats; and patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing would remain unchanged. Objective 7--Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Floodplain inundation and water table elevation would not influenced by any of the proposed alternatives, since use would be limited to existing sites and would not affect any stream course or upland vegetation that could be tied to floodplains or water tables. Objective 8--Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Eliminating off-road motorized vehicle access and closing some ML-1 roads may help restore some of the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands in those areas, where localized impacts have been occurring. Alternative C would result in the largest reduction in Riparian Reserves impacted, and therefore have the highest likelihood of recovery. However, none of the action alternatives would likely have any quantifiable effect on summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, channel migration, and amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris, sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Objective 9--Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Since all the action alternatives would utilize existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites and would eliminate off-road use; habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species would remain unchanged.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species A Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared by the Fisheries Biologist is considered part of the analysis file. The BE concluded that under all action alternatives, the Travel Management Project would not affect Federally Listed Species, Magnusson-Stevens Act (MSA) designated species, or Sensitive Species. There

would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects upon water quality/quantity or fisheries and there may some unquantifiable benefit, relative to the existing condition. The BE species evaluated and their status are summarized below in Table 3.11. See Appendix 6 (Biological Evaluation: Aquatic Species) for the complete BE prepared by the Forest Fisheries Biologist.

Table 3.11 List of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species Scientific Name Common Name Status Oncorhynchus kisutch Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESA-Threatened and MSA Oregonichthys crameri Oregon Chub ESA - Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Oregon Coast Steelhead ESA – Candidate Oregonichthys Umpqua Chub FS – Sensitive kalawatseti Oncorhynchus keta Pacific Coast Chum Salmon MSA and FS – Sensitive Oncorhynchus Oregon Coast Spring Chinook MSA and FS - tshawytscha Salmon Sensitive Gonidea angulata Western Ridged Mussel FS – Sensitive Lanx subrotunda Rotund Lanx FS - Sensitive

Federally listed species The Oregon Coast Coho Salmon and the Oregon Chub, both with Threatened status, are the only aquatic ESA-listed species on the Umpqua National Forest. The Travel Management Plan would not open new roads to vehicles and would not decommission roads, either. Identification and mapping of dispersed camping sites along NFS roads designated as corridors, where vehicle access would be allowed, should provide better opportunities for law enforcement officers to document resource damage along streams and in meadows at the designated locations. Identification of current resource concerns at existing sites would focus improvements of these dispersed recreation sites as funds become available. Therefore, the project would be expected to improve conditions on the ground over time. Designated Critical Habitat exists throughout the Umpqua River basin portion of the Forest for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon while Oregon Chub Critical Habitat is restricted to a very small area in the Willamette basin on the Cottage Grove District. The no action alternative would have no additional effect on this species or its habitats since existing conditions would be maintained. Alternatives A and B are similar in that they would eliminate off-road use and reduce substantially the miles of ML-1 road available for OHV use, relative to the Existing Condition, and may, as a consequence, have future unquantifiable beneficial effects. The effects would be the reduction of site specific sedimentation and erosion, lower risk of fuel and other toxic spills, and a reduced risk of invasive species transmission in areas closed to OHV use. Alternative C would potentially have an even greater future unquantifiable 60

beneficial effect to water quality and fish habitat than with Alternatives A and B due to the elimination of off-road use, elimination of OHV use on all ML-1 roads, and a substantial reduction in trails open to motorized use.

Sensitive species Under all the action alternatives, the proposed actions such as eliminating cross- country travel and reducing the use of closed (ML 1) roads and designating road corridors as dispersed camping sites would reduce risk (relative to the existing condition); however, there is still a risk that may affect individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species under any of the action alternatives. There are no impacts to fish species or Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnusson-Stevens Act anticipated, as discussed in the Aquatic BE (Appendix 6).

BOTANICAL RESOURCES Unique Habitats Management Direction and Existing Condition Unique habitats are non-forested openings that vary in size from 1 to 75 acres and include meadows, hardwood stands, wetlands, ponds, caves, cliffs, and rock outcrops (USDA Forest Service 1990). They are important due to their scarcity in the forest environment and high wildlife and plant values (Ch. 2 FEMAT 1994, USDA Forest Service 1990). Approximately 85% of the plant species diversity of the Western Cascades is found in non-forested habitats (Hickman 1976) which make up about 3% of the Umpqua National Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects The alternatives that have the most miles of roads and trails open to motorized traffic would have greater potential for accessing unique habitats than those with less miles of open road and trail. Off highway vehicle use in unique habitats would result in rutting and compaction of meadow soils, particularly when soils are wet. Soil alteration, together with direct damage to plants, would result in a shift in vegetative composition to weedier vegetation. The no-action alternative has the most miles of motorized roads and trails followed by Alternative B and A with Alternative C having the least. Because the no-action alternative allows for nearly unrestricted off-road vehicle travel, the existing condition also provides the most opportunity for vehicular damage to unique habitats. None of the action alternatives allow for unrestricted off-road vehicle traffic, although camping corridors under all action alternatives allow for limited off-road travel. Alternative B has both the most miles of camping corridors and the widest camping corridors; therefore, there is greater potential for vehicle damage to unique habitats under this alternative than either Alternative A or C, which have nearly identical corridors.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. The proposed Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline project that would cross the Tiller Ranger District would impact some unique habitat otherwise, actions are typically designed to protect or enhance wildlife values of unique habitats; therefore, there would be little or no cumulative impact from this action on unique habitats.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species Management Direction The National Forest Management Act provides a framework for rare botanical resources in that it calls for maintaining viability of all desired native species. It is Forest Service policy to “ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired plant or contribute… trends towards Federal listing of any species” (FSM 2672.41).

The Umpqua Land and Resource Management plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI, 1994) provides direction for management of sensitive plant species and rare and uncommon species.

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

There are currently 39 vascular plant species, 20 fungi, 12 lichens, and 24 bryophytes listed as Sensitive on the Umpqua National Forest along with two additional rare species that are associated with late-successional/old-growth forest habitats (Table 3.5). No pre-disturbance surveys or management of known sites are necessary for rare or uncommon species that are associated with old-growth/late-successional forest habitats, since no alternative proposes habitat disturbing activities in old-growth/late-successional forest habitats. Most sensitive plants are associated with rare habitat features such as wet or rocky areas although a few sensitive plants require some degree of disturbance, particularly with regards to canopy opening to provide sufficient sunlight for flowering. Species with potential to occur along roads include: Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Calochortus umpquaensis, Eucephalus vialis, Frasera umpquaensis, Cimicifuga elata and Tetraplodon mnoides.

Existing Condition Of the sensitive plants located on the Umpqua National Forest, a few species can occur along road shoulders. Numerous populations of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii occur along road shoulders in Douglas County although this is not true of the one verified population that is documented to occur on the Umpqua National Forest. Where roads cut through serpentine soils, Calochortus umpquaensis occasionally will persist in the road cuts. These habitats are confined to the Tiller Ranger District. Eucephalus vialis is also known to occur along roadsides in Douglas County. Although documented populations occur close to the Umpqua National Forests, it has yet to be confirmed on the Forest. Iliamna latibracteata, on the other hand, is a species that requires disturbance for the open habitat that it prefers and frequently occurs adjacent to roads, particularly in or along ditches. However, roadside occurrences of this species usually only consist of a few plants. One moss, Tetraplodon mnoides, is tied to decaying animal feces and, as such, typically occurs along animal travel routes including roads. It is known from one closed road and the Brice Creek Trail on the Cottage Grove Ranger District. All other known sites of bryophytes, lichens and fungi typically occur away from roads and the immediate road shoulder. Several additional species occur off of roads in meadows or open forest that could potentially be impacted by off-road use under the no-action alternative. Frasera umpquaensis and Cimicifuga elata occur in forest openings in the Rogue-Umpqua Divide area where off-road camping and parking can and does occur on top of isolated plants of particularly the former species. Other rare vascular plant species typically occur in places that are too rocky or too wet for vehicle travel. Potential impacts from off-road travel to other rare species of bryophytes, lichens and fungi are likely to be incidental under the current condition because the rugged and heavily timbered nature of the forest restricts vehicle access to only a few areas of the forest. The major exception to this would be some of the open lodgepole pine forest on the Diamond Lake Ranger District, but this area has no TES plant species habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects Because the single verified site of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is actually in a meadow set back about 300 feet from any road and roads in the vicinity have been thoroughly searched for additional populations without success, there would be no direct or indirect effect of any of the action alternatives upon this species. The road accessing this area is currently seasonally closed for winter range and would remain so under all action alternatives. For these reasons, there would be no effect to this species due to actions under any of the action alternatives. There would, likewise be no effect to Plagiobothrys hirtus which is not known to occur on the Umpqua National Forest. Direct and indirect effects to Calochortus umpquaensis would be similar under all alternatives. Three roads that have had plants growing along the road shoulder would be closed seasonally as winter range under all the action alternatives. This would have little direct benefit, but could indirectly reduce the potential for

illegal off-road travel into the meadow openings in the winter and early spring months when the soils are wet and most subject to damage. One ML-1 road that has Iliamna latibracteata along the road shoulder would be open to motorized vehicles (< 50”) under Alternatives A and B, but not C. Another road with I. latibracteata would be a camping corridor under Alternative B but not the other two action alternatives. There are also several sites of I. latibracteata in the Yellowjacket Glade area, where trails would remain motorized under Alternatives A and B but not C. Currently, there is a known site of this species along the road by the 1522 trailhead but there are no sites currently reported along the trail system itself. This is a large, perennial herbaceous species that could be damaged by vehicles driving along the side of or parking on road/trail shoulders on top of plants. There would be no direct or indirect effects to known sites of the dung moss, Tetraplodon mnoides because the road that it occurs on is within the Layng Creek watershed and is consequently closed to motorized traffic under all alternatives, including the no-action alternative. The Brice Creek Trail is likewise closed to motor vehicles under all alternatives. As the substrate for this species is ephemeral, it could occur on any closed road that passes through favorable habitat. This habitat appears to be primarily on the Cottage Grove Ranger District. There would be more miles of closed road under Alternative C than the other alternatives, however, because the Layng Creek watershed roads are exactly the same under all alternatives and this watershed comprises approximately half of the ranger district, the difference in miles of roads open to motorized vehicles between any alternative is minimal on the Cottage Grove Ranger District. Camping corridors on roads in the Rogue-Umpqua Divide area in Alternative B would continue to allow vehicle damage to Frasera umpquaensis and, to a lesser extent, Cimicifuga elata. However, both species occur in very large, diffusely scattered populations in that area so damage to individual plants is not anticipated to have much effect to viability of the populations. The entire area is currently open to off-road travel under the current condition; although because of the nature of the timber and terrain there would be little potential difference between camping corridors and unrestricted travel. There are no camping corridors identified in this area under either Alternative A or C. There are potential indirect impacts to most TES species due to establishment and spread of invasive weeds. Roads are the primary establishment points for weeds and vehicles are the primary vector for movement of weeds on the forest (see the noxious weed section). Alternative B has the most miles of open road, after the no-action alternative, while Alternative C has the least. Therefore there is more potential for invasive weeds impacting TES plants under the no-action alternative and Alternative B than C. Alternative A is slightly better than alternative B.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. Based on the limited direct and indirect effects of this action, no cumulative effects are identified for the Proposed Action. For each of the sensitive species discussed above, each of the alternatives may affect individuals or habitat but would not lead to a loss of viability of the species or lead to a trend towards listings, although the no-action alternative and alternative B would be most likely to affect individuals and habitat for the reasons discussed above (Table 3.12). For all other sensitive and other rare or uncommon species there would be no impact anticipated under any of the alternatives.

Table 3.12 Botanical TES Effects Summary Potential Taxa Group and Species Project Effects Habitat Current Alt A Alt B Alt C Threatened or Endangered Plants Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Yes NE NE NE NE Plagiobothrys hirtus No NE NE NE NE

Bryophytes Barbilophozia lycopodioides No NI NI NI NI Bryum calobryoides No NI NI NI NI Calypogeia sphagnicola No NI NI NI NI Chiloscyphus gemmiparus No NI NI NI NI Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana No NI NI NI NI Encalypta brevipes No NI NI NI NI Entosthodon fascicularis No NI NI NI NI Funaria muhlenbergii No NI NI NI NI Helodium blandowii No NI NI NI NI Jamesoniella autumnalis var. No NI NI NI NI Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica No NI NI NI NI Meesia uliginosa No NI NI NI NI Polytrichum sphaerothecium No NI NI NI NI Porella bolanderi No NI NI NI NI Pseudoleskeela serpentinensis No NI NI NI NI Codriophorus depressum No NI NI NI NI Rhizomnium nudum No NI NI NI NI Schistostega pennata No NI NI NI NI Scouleria marginata No NI NI NI NI Splachnum ampullaceum No NI NI NI NI Tayloria serrata No NI NI NI NI Tetraphis geniculata No NI NI NI NI Tetraplodon mniodes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Tomenthypnum nitens No NI NI NI NI Trematodon boasii No NI NI NI NI Tritomaria exsectiformis No NI NI NI NI

Lichens Chaenotheca subroscida No NI NI NI NI

Potential Taxa Group and Species Project Effects Habitat Current Alt A Alt B Alt C Threatened or Endangered Plants Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum No NI NI NI NI Leptogium burnetiae No NI NI NI NI Leptogium cyanescens No NI NI NI NI Lobaria linita No NI NI NI NI Nephroma occultum No NI NI NI NI Pannaria rubiginosa No NI NI NI NI Peltigera neckeri No NI NI NI NI Peltigera pacifica No NI NI NI NI Pseudocyphellaria mallota No NI NI NI NI Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis No NI NI NI NI Ramalina pollinaria No NI NI NI NI Usnea longissima No NI NI NI NI

Fungi Boletus pulcherrimus No NI NI NI NI Chroogomphus loculatus No NI NI NI NI Cortinarius barlowensis No NI NI NI NI Cudonia monticola No NI NI NI NI Dermocybe humboldtensis No NI NI NI NI Destuntzia rubra No NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus imbellus No NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus vividus No NI NI NI NI Gomphus bonarii No NI NI NI NI Gymnomyces fragrans No NI NI NI NI Leucogaster citrinus No NI NI NI NI Pseudorhizina californica No NI NI NI NI Ramaria amyloidea No NI NI NI NI Ramaria aurantiisiccescens No NI NI NI NI Ramaria largentii No NI NI NI NI Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva No NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon exiguous No NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon inquinatus No NI NI NI NI Stagnicola perplexa No NI NI NI NI Turbinellus kauffmanii No NI NI NI NI

Vascular Plants Adiantum jordanii No NI NI NI NI Arabis suffrutescens var. horizontalis No NI NI NI NI Arnica viscosa No NI NI NI NI Asplenium septentrionale No NI NI NI NI Botrychium minganense No NI NI NI NI Botrychium pumicola No NI NI NI NI Calamagrostis breweri No NI NI NI NI Calochortus umpquaensis Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Carex abrupta No NI NI NI NI Carex crawfordii No NI NI NI NI Carex diandra No NI NI NI NI Carex lasiocarpa var. americana No NI NI NI NI Carex nardina No NI NI NI NI

Potential Taxa Group and Species Project Effects Habitat Current Alt A Alt B Alt C Threatened or Endangered Plants Carex serratodens No NI NI NI NI Carex vernacula No NI NI NI NI Cimicifuga elata Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Collomia mazama No NI NI NI NI Cypripedium fasciculatum No NI NI NI NI Elatine brachysperma No NI NI NI NI Eucephalus vialis Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gentiana newberryi No NI NI NI NI Iliamna latibracteata Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Kalmiopsis fragrans No NI NI NI NI Lewisia columbiana var. columbiana No NI NI NI NI Lewisia leana No NI NI NI NI Ophioglossum pusillum No NI NI NI NI Pellaea andromedifolia No NI NI NI NI Perideridia erythrorhiza No NI NI NI NI Poa rhizomata No NI NI NI NI Polystichum californicum No NI NI NI NI Romanzoffia thompsonii No NI NI NI NI Rotala ramosior No NI NI NI NI Scheuchzeria palustris var. americana No NI NI NI NI Schoenoplectus subterminalis No NI NI NI NI Utricularia minor No NI NI NI NI Utricularia ochroleuca No NI NI NI NI Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis No NI NI NI NI Wolffia borealis No NI NI NI NI Wolffia columbiana No NI NI NI NI

Other Rare or Uncommon Species Platismatia lacunosa No NI NI NI NI Cypripedium montanum No NI NI NI NI Frasera umpquaensis Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

NI No Impact. MIIH May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. WOFV impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species BI Beneficial impact.

Noxious Weeds Management Direction The final EIS for Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA 2005) amended the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan and prescribed standards for prevention, inventory, early detection & rapid response on new invasive plant populations as well as restoration guidelines for treatment sites and cooperation with other agencies and landowners.

The Umpqua National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment (USDA 2003) states that each infestation of weeds will be managed according to its classification . Existing Condition The health of native plant communities throughout the Pacific Northwest is at risk by noxious weeds and other invasive plants. Introduced plant species thrive in new ecosystems for various reasons including a lack of natural predators, change in disturbance regime, adaptations for growing on nutrient-poor soils, and allelopathic (plants with natural pesticides) abilities. As a result, many weeds are capable of out-competing native plants, ultimately altering the structure and lowering the diversity of native plant communities. The frequency of fire can also be altered in ways that are detrimental to natural ecosystems by alteration of plant community structure and, in some cases, shift to more flammable weed species (Brooks et al. 2004, Harrod and Reichard 2001, Keely 2001). Further, different soil organisms predominate under different kinds of vegetation. Replacement of native plant communities with weed species can be expected to change soil microbial populations and nutrient cycling processes. Roads are considered the first point of entry for weed species into a landscape, and roads serve as corridors along which plants move farther into the landscape. Logging, construction equipment and off-road vehicles have the potential to transport weed seed beyond roadsides to the disturbed soil that they concurrently generate. Invasive plant seed can also be moved by wind, water, animals, and humans. Most weeds take advantage of disturbed areas such as road sides, trails, logged units, burns, rock quarries, mined sites and areas around human structures. Established populations serve as sources for further dispersal, especially along road, power line, and trail corridors. The increase of noxious weed introductions on the Umpqua National Forest is directly related to expanding weed populations on nearby federal, state, and private lands. Populations of extremely aggressive species such as spotted knapweed, meadow knapweed, and rush skeletonweed have become roadside weeds on frequently traveled highways in Oregon and along arterial roads in the Umpqua and adjacent national forests. The greatest risk of human-caused noxious weed introduction is from seed-contaminated vehicles and equipment traveling through the planning area. The Umpqua National Forest has classified its noxious weeds into four categories: high priority species (Forest Rating A), lower priority species (Forest Rating B), detection species (Forest Rating D), and other weeds of concern (Forest Rating O). The noxious weeds known to occur on the Umpqua National Forest are presented, by category, in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Noxious Weed List for the Umpqua National Forest. Common Name Scientific Name Umpqua A List False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis Malta thistle Centaurea melitensis Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Scotch broom Cystisus scoparius Portuguese broom Cystisus striatus French broom Genista monspessulana English ivy Hedera helix Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Gorse Ulex europaeus Umpqua B List Meadow knapweed Centaurea pratensis Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Canada thistle Cirsium arvense St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea Medusahead rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae Other Weeds of Concern Common burdock Arctium minus Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Chicory Cichorium intybus Wild carrot Daucus carrota Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Curly pondweed Potamogeton crispus Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Direct and Indirect Effects The alternatives that have the most miles of roads and trails open to motorized traffic would have greater potential for spreading invasive weeds than those with less miles of open road and trail. The no-action alternative has the most miles of motorized roads and trails followed by alternative B and A with alternative C having the least. Because the no-action alternative allows for nearly unrestricted off-road vehicle travel, the existing condition also provides the most opportunity for movement of weeds away from roads. None of the action alternatives allow for unrestricted off-road vehicle traffic, although camping corridors under all action alternatives allow for limited off-road travel. Alternative B has both the most miles of camping corridors and the widest camping corridors, therefore

there is greater potential for movement of weeds away from roads under this alternative than either Alternative A or C, which have nearly identical corridors.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. Nearly all actions undertaken on National Forest System lands involve use of roads and will contribute to potential spread of invasive weeds. All commercial activities, including road work and timber sales, however include mitigation measures to minimize the spread of weeds. These mitigation measures include cleaning of heavy equipment prior to entering the Umpqua National Forest, use of certified weed-free straw, hay and seed, and inspection of rock and gravel sources (USDA 2005). Because mitigation measures are in place to substantially limit the potential for other projects to spread weeds, the cumulative effect of actions in any of the alternatives to past, present and foreseeable actions is anticipated to be minimal.

HERITAGE RESOURCES Management Direction and Existing Condition Under numerous laws, regulations, and Executive Orders the Forest Service has the responsibility of protecting historic properties. Historic Properties are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, sites, buildings , structures, or objects included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 800.16(1)(1)). The Umpqua National Forest has been occupied for thousands of years. Archaeological sites have been discovered beneath Mazama ash dated 6,845 before present. Various archaeological sites types have been recorded during inventories. These include village, quarry, cairn, rockshelters, rockshelters with rock art, lithic scatters with features, and culturally modified trees. Consultation is undertaken with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians on undertakings that have the potential to affect these resources. These sites are protected under the Archaeological Protection Act from damage with both civil and criminal penalties. Historic sites include homesteads with remains of dumps, remains of outbuildings and cabins. Mining historic sites are important in the development of Douglas County. Recorded mining features include adits, placer mining tailing piles and pits, the “China Ditch”, and small water diversion features, as well as historic buildings and machinery. Logging was an industry in support of the mining industry in the early years of the Forest. Small mills in the Bohemia District, Steamboat Creek, and the Tiller District supplied the needs of the miners and settlers. Small-scale operators, known as “gypos” begin working in the drainages in the 1920s. Crews felled and bucked logs by hand but used steam donkeys and cable rope to yard the timber to the mills. They produced ties, timbers, and dimensional lumber. The timber 70

resource of the Forest developed dramatically after World War II. Road construction with heavy equipment was now an option. Logging and lumbering continued to grow steadily on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Administered lands in the basin. Recorded logging related sites on the Forest included mill locations and remnants, high stumps and springboard notches, donkey engine settings, donkey engine sleds, logging camps and dumps, and other equipment. These sites are found and recorded throughout the Forest. However, many of them are in the low elevations. Fishing, camping, hiking, and swimming were a mainstay of summer entertainment for area residents. Residents of the Umpqua basin have used the Huckleberry Patch on the Rogue-Umpqua divide for annual berry picking events. Tourism and developed recreation, as known today, began in the 1920s with construction of the Pacific Highway. In the 1930s, after the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) built miles of trails and roads, tourism increased, and recreational use expanded further in 1939 after the North Umpqua Forest Highway opened to Diamond Lake. In the 1950s, Diamond Lake and the Umpqua National Forest interested campers, hikers, fishermen, and hunters.

Summer homes, privately owned cabins permitted on Forest Service lands, were built at Diamond Lake starting in 1924. The initial permits were issued for the cabins with improvements of outhouses, storage sheds, garbage pits, and sleeping cabins sometimes following. In 1948, there were 50 cabin permits issued. One hundred and two cabins eventually completed the track. The Diamond Lake Resort, started in 1922, was also under permit. The resort began with five tent houses and a larger tent house for employees, a kitchen, and a store. By 1948, the resort was capable of housing 150 people with facilities including two stores, a gas station, a post office, and boathouse. A dairy supplied the lodge and recreation cabins with milk. All the Forest’s developed historic recreation sites are recorded including historic features such as rock fire grates and pit toilets. Permitted structures are being documented as part of the compliance process. Sheep ranchers were grazing their flocks on the unassigned lands in the Cascade Forest Reserve prior to the creation of the Umpqua National Forest. It is likely the free grazing occurred until well after 1908. Forest records delineate the grazing allotments with grazing camps and stock driveways. Sheep grazing slowed during World War II and after the war, cattle allotments became common. These sites include corrals and log water troughs, spring enclosures, drift fences, and stock driveways. The stock driveways and trails are located on historic maps. Historic features related to grazing are often found in or near meadow areas with water. The area of the Umpqua National Forest was first included in the Cascade Forest Reserve in the late 19th century and creation of the Forest itself in 1908. Since then, the Forest Service has built various ranger stations, guard stations,

lookouts, shelters, camps, and other structures. Lookout tower structures, ground houses, trail shelters, survey camps, trails and roads were established. In the 1930s, the CCC established several camps and side camps on the Forest. From these camps, the CCC actively built Forest Service Ranger Stations, fire lookouts, campgrounds, bridges, and roads. The network of telephone lines followed existing trail routes linking the Ranger Stations and lookouts. The sites are well documented on Forest Service maps, historic photographs, and other records. Administrative sites were typically located near meadows on level terrain near water sources. Lookouts are located on high points. Trail bridges, wooden stave culverts, and tree blazes are recorded when trails are documented. In 1907, Southern Pacific in an effort to explore the area for power production, built trails and bridges in the area of Toketee Falls and began stream gauging. No further actions were taken by Southern Pacific. In 1922 the California Oregon Power Company (COPCO) completed a reconnaissance of the North Umpqua River drainage between Little River and Diamond Lake for power production. COPCO subsequently filed an application with the Federal Power Commission and investigated the Roseburg area as a potential site for power-generating facilities. Investigations for dam sites were made between 1923 and 1928. Seven possible locations for power generation plants were filed with the State of Oregon. Through negotiations with COPCO and the federal, state, and local agencies two of the proposed dams were dropped. In 1945, the application for a permit for the North Umpqua Project was submitted. The North Umpqua Hydroelectric Facility was approved in 1947 for license. By December 1949, the number 2 generator came on line and by 1956, the existing development including Lemolo No. 1 and No. 2, Clearwater No. 1 and No. 2 forebays and Toketee, Fish Creek, Slide Creek, and Soda Springs dams with seven transmission lines and three switching stations were completed.

Traditional Use Areas Traditional Cultural Properties recorded in consultation with the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe Indians are the primary traditional use areas of the Cow Creek. Tribal consultation is ongoing to identify additional traditional use areas. These studies relied on the use of “ethnographic information obtained from living tribal members who have spent their entire lives in the aboriginal homeland” and provide the first step in identifying traditional use areas.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act The Forest Service has a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the treatment of historic properties (both prehistoric and historic). Motorized use on roads, ML 1 roads and trails, which are designed for that purpose have little to no potential to effect historic resources. Under the PA this type of use would have no potential to cause effects as described under the National Historic Preservation Act. Motorized use off designated routes and motorized access for dispersed camping can affect archaeological sites by rutting 72

and disturbing the fragile nature of some historic properties. Historic properties found in open meadows have the most potential to be effected by rutting. Historic sites can be accessed and theft of historic resources would affect the informational value of the sites. The majority of exiting dispersed camps across the Forest has been inventoried to some degree for historic properties. Where historic properties are discovered and resource damage has occurred, placement of barriers is recommended. New campsites are monitored and if historic properties are discovered, protection measures are put in place. Archaeological damage, including rutting by OHV use, will be investigated by Law Enforcement and an archaeological damage assessment will be completed.

No Action Alternative There would be no changes in or effects on motorized use adjacent to historic properties. The Forest would continue in a reactive management strategy and implement site specific plans and/or camping prohibitions when archaeological damage is recorded in violation of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act or Damage to Government Property.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The designation of dispersed camping corridors on high probability ground has the most potential for damage to archaeological resources. Camping corridors provide all motorized use of designated routes for the purpose of dispersed camping to existing camps. Camping corridors would provide for the “limited” use of motor vehicles off the designated system of routes. Motorized use would be limited to accessing existing campsites using existing routes. Pioneering new routes within camping corridors would not be allowed. Overland travel to create new camping may create damage to historic properties. Upland high meadows and meadow mosaics often have historic properties associated with them. These sites have a high potential to be damaged by OHV use.

Alternative A and C Camping corridors extend 150 feet on each side of the roads. Monitoring shall be needed to ensure evidence of damage to historic properties is not occurring.

Alternative B Camping corridors extend 300 feet on each side of the roads. Potential for damage to historic properties are greater than compared to Alternative A and C. More monitoring would be required than in Alternative A and C.

Cumulative Effects Designating camping corridors may attract more use and damage fragile historic properties over time. Monitoring of use would continue with historic properties removed from the dispersed camping corridors if damage is occurring.

LAW ENFORCEMENT Existing Condition The Forest plan specifies that, “All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on all open Forest Development Roads (roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5), except where Federal orders under 36 CFR 261 have been issued (36 CFR 212).” (LRMP p. IV-83). The Oregon State Motor Vehicles Division has strict rules for operating non-highway legal motor vehicles on roads, and the mixing of highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821 specifically addresses off-highway vehicles (OHV) and establishes vehicle classes, driver requirements, equipment requirements and where various classes of vehicles may and may not operate. Forest Service law enforcement personnel enforce Oregon traffic rules and regulations on Forest Development Roads and are assisted by state and county law enforcement through multi-jurisdictional cooperative enforcement agreements.

The Forest Plan provides the current direction for off road vehicle use on the Forest and that use is monitored and enforced by Forest Service law enforcement personnel. Citations are generally issued only for damage to Forest resources. Title 36 CFR 261.15(h) states, “It is prohibited to operate any vehicle off National Forest System, State or County roads in a manner which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources.”

Currently, Forest Service officials are somewhat limited in the effectiveness of enforcing off road vehicle use rules and regulations. With the 91% of the Forest being open unless closed by special order, and officers being concentrated near high use recreation areas, often times resource damage caused by unlawful off road vehicle use goes undetected for long periods of time. Additionally, Forest visitors complain it is not clear to the public where mixed use by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles is allowed. Consequently, unlawful and unmitigated mixed use is occurring, creating the potential for a serious operator safety issue.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the existing condition would continue. Roads, trails and areas that are currently open to motorized use would continue to be open unless special closure orders were developed. Resource damage would continue to be an issue off-road, and where mixed use traffic may occur would continue to remain unclear and be a safety issue.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The non-significant Forest Plan amendment, the implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, improved signing, and the issuance of the MVUM would all work together to improve the ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce travel management designations and promote sustainable OHV opportunities. Restricting motorized use to a system of designated routes and

distribution of the MVUM would clarify motor vehicle use regulations to Forest users and reduce violations. The MVUM, as the enforcement tool, would provide forest managers the ability to protect resources currently being damaged by off road vehicles and would provide a safer driving situation for forest visitors by designating and illustrating where motorized mixed use is and is not allowed.

Cumulative Effects In addition to the Forest Plan amendment, implementation of the final rule, improved signing, and the issuance of the MVUM, the Forest continues to implement site-specific management actions that protect riparian areas, meadows and other sensitive areas from impacts associated with motorized use. The continual improvement/revision of travel management designations, signage and public education would improve the ability of law enforcement personnel to prosecute people who knowingly break the law and cause damage to natural resources.

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

Currently there are approximately 57 miles of motorized trails within potential wilderness/IRA’s. The use or presence of motor vehicles does not affect whether an area meets the criteria for inventory as potential wilderness nor does it preclude it from consideration for congressional designation as wilderness. The use of motor vehicles on trails would not affect these area’s classification, but may affect some Forest visitor’s expectations for solitude and quiet in these areas. Neither the No Action Alternative nor any of the action alternatives would degrade existing undeveloped/inventoried roadless/potential wilderness characteristics since no new roads are proposed. The 1990 Forest Plan

recognized the continued motorized use of these trails within Inventoried Roadless Areas. Under all of the action alternatives the amount of motorized trails within these areas would be reduced by approximately 19 miles. This would result in a positive effect on some Forest visitor’s expectations for quiet and solitude within potential wilderness and IRA’s. A negative effect for motorized users would be the reduction of motorized trail opportunities (19 mi.) on the Forest.

Air Quality Motor vehicles produce exhaust emissions and create air-borne dust when operated on dry road, trail, or soil surfaces. These effects are generally localized in extent, short-lived, and well dispersed within a large airshed. Because the no action and action alternatives are not expected to change the number of vehicles operating on the Forest, there are no anticipated impacts to air quality.

Economics Participation in motorized and non-motorized activities has the potential to impact local economies. The No Action Alternative would continue current management and there would be no economic impact to local communities since there would be no Forest Plan amendment or designation of a system of motorized routes. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would restrict motorized use to the designated system and eliminate motorized cross-country travel, resulting in a reduction of motorized recreation opportunities. Because of the steep terrain and dense vegetation over most of the Forest, opportunities for motorized travel off existing roads and trails are limited, and the prohibition on motorized cross- country travel is not expected to have effects on motorized recreation use patterns. It is not expected to have any meaningful effect on how many people use the National Forest or how many days they spend recreating on the Forest. There would be no meaningful economic impact to local communities associated with the Forest Plan amendment or the designation of a system of motorized routes.

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE In terms of the proposed Forest Plan Amendments, the Forest Supervisor will make a Determination of Significance of Change to the Forest Plan in the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. In order to make that determination, Forest Service Land Management Planning Handbook outlines the factors to be used to determine whether a proposed change to the LRMP is significant or not significant, based on National Forest Management Act requirements. A discussion of each of the proposed amendments (refer to Appendix 2: Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan for more detail) under the action alternatives and the four factors follows.

Amendment 1: Amending the Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines for Recreation and Transportation to allow motor vehicle use only on a designated system of roads and trails, as identified on a Motor Vehicle Use Map, by type of vehicle and time of year.

Amendment 2: Amending Management Area 5 to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system of roads and trails.

Amendment 3: Amending multiple Management Prescriptions to prohibit the use of motorized vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM.

Amendment 4: Amending Appendix E: Oregon Cascades Recreation Area Management Plan to prohibit the use of motorized vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM.

Amendment 5: Amending Appendix F: Recreation Travelway Management Guide to reflect the intent of the 2005 Travel Management Rule and comply with current federal regulations pertaining to travel management.

1. Timing. Determine whether the change is necessary during or after the plan period. In most cases, the later the change, the less likely it is to be significant for the forest plan.

The proposed amendments are necessary now in order to bring the Forest Plan into compliance with current travel management regulations (36 CFR 212 Subpart B – Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use). The LRMP is 20 years old and is scheduled for revision in 2013. The plan is currently at the end of the planning cycle. Therefore, timing is not considered to be a significant factor related to the amendments.

2. Location and Size. Define the relationship of the affected area to the overall planning area. In most cases, the smaller the area affected by the change, the less likely it is to be significant for the forest plan.

Currently, the Forest Plan allows cross-country travel on over 426,600 acres with no seasonal restrictions, and seasonally restricts cross-country travel on an additional 197,800 acres. However, naturally occurring limitations such as steep terrain and dense vegetation currently restrict the feasibility of motorized cross-country travel on vast majority of the Forest, including much of the area currently open year round or seasonally. The result is a natural closure of the Forest to cross-country motorized use. The amount of area that would realistically be affected by the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel in the proposed amendments is

negligible. The proposed amendments would close approximately 624,400 acres (the acres open year round and seasonally) or about 63% of the Forest to motorized cross-country travel by requiring visitors to use the designated system of roads and trails. Therefore, location and size are not considered to be a significant factor for these amendments.

3. Goals, Objectives, and Outputs. Determine whether the change would alter long-term levels of goods and services projected by the forest plan.

The proposed amendments would not change any forest resource management goals or objectives described in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan projects a total (output) of 174,500 acres closed to off road vehicle use (motorized cross-country travel) by 2010 and maintained at that level into the future. Currently, 358,800 acres (37%) of the Forest are closed to off road vehicle use. An additional 197,800 acres (20%) are closed December thru April. When the natural limitations of terrain and vegetation are considered along with the current seasonal restrictions, the proposed changes regarding cross-country motorized use are minor. The Forest Plan projects a Forest Road System total (output) of 5,400 miles with 1,200 miles closed to public use (highway legal vehicles) by 2010 and maintained at that level into the future. The current Forest Road System totals 4,800 miles with 1,200 miles closed to public use. The proposed amendments would not change the Forest Road System; it would designate a system of routes for motorized use, by vehicle type and time of year, within the existing Forest Road System. Therefore, the goals, objectives, and outputs are not considered to be a significant factor related to the proposed amendments.

4. Management Prescriptions. Determine whether the change in a management prescription is only for a specific situation or whether it would apply to future decisions throughout the planning area.

The proposed amendments would change the Standards and Guidelines for Recreation and Transportation, one Management Area and multiple Management Prescriptions. Management direction for all or portions of six Management Areas would be changed to prohibit motorized use off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM. The proposed changes regarding cross-country motorized use throughout the plan would be minor, when the natural limitations of terrain and vegetation are considered. As described in Appendix 2, the amendments are primarily word changes and application of consistent language that would bring the Forest Plan into compliance with the Travel Management Rule. The proposed amendments would apply to future

decisions throughout the Forest; however, the proposed amendments would not eliminate any future opportunities to achieve Forest goals and objectives. Therefore, the word and language changes in management prescriptions and standards and guidelines are not considered to be a significant factor related to the proposed amendments.

The changes proposed in this project will not substantially alter the relationship between levels of multiple use goods and services projected in the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, nor will they affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area, given the limited area available (due to naturally steep terrain) for cross-country travel.

The No Action Alternative would not amend the Umpqua LRMP and would not comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES Based on the Interdisciplinary Team’s evaluation of effects, it was the conclusion that:

 This EA is tiered to the Umpqua Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and is consistent with those plans and their requirements. Implementation of any of the alternatives would not conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including Tribes. None of the action alternatives would conflict with any other policies, regulations, or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. The No Action Alternative would not comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.  No pre-disturbance surveys or management of known sites are necessary for any rare species, including threatened, endangered, sensitive or other rare or uncommon species, since no alternative proposes any new habitat disturbing activities.  None of the proposed alternatives would affect known prehistoric or historic sites. As outlined in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, no effects are anticipated on American Indian social, economic, subsistence rights, or sacred rights.  No adverse effects on unique habitats, wetlands and floodplains, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers are anticipated; and no prime farmlands, rangelands, forestlands, or parklands would be affected because none are present on the Forest. See Appendix 7 (Wetlands and

Floodplains Declaration) for the complete Wetlands and Floodplains Declaration prepared by the Forest Hydrologist.  No potential or unusual expenditures of energy or adverse impacts to potential development of energy sources are associated with the implementation of any of the alternatives because all of the action alternatives represent administrative action only.  None of the proposed alternatives would affect minority groups, women, and consumers differently than any other groups. None of the alternatives adversely affect civil rights, as no contracts are to be awarded as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives.  On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to address environmental justice by identifying and disclosing the effects of the proposed activities on minority and low-income populations. The effects of alternatives on the human environment (including minority and low-income populations) are expected to be minor, as the majority of the forest is currently unavailable for cross- county travel and use, due to natural terrain features such as steep slopes. Any impacts would be similar for all human populations regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income. No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations are expected as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives, due to the limited impacts expected. No impacts to environmental justice would occur under the no action alternative, as no actions would be taken that would change current or future use.

CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS

INTRODUCTION As described in Chapter 1, comment on the Proposed Action was solicited through letters, brochures, newspapers, open houses, presentations to organizations and the Forest website. The following is a summary of Forest Service consultation with Federal, state and local agencies and tribes and interested publics during the development of this Environmental Assessment.

AGENCY CONSULTATION Forest Service - The Umpqua National Forest coordinated with the Willamette, Deschutes and Rogue River National Forests to assure that roads connecting the Forests are designated consistently across Forest boundaries. Bureau of Land Management - The Bureau of Land Management’s Eugene, Roseburg and Medford Districts were consulted to ensure the compatibility of travel management across jurisdictional boundaries and avoid any differences that may be confusing to public land visitors. US Fish and Wildlife Service - The US Fish and Wildlife Service was informed of the project during initial scoping. The Biological Evaluation determination was “May effect, not likely to adversely affect”. Informal consultation is ongoing. US Congressional Representatives - Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden and Representative Peter DeFazio were informed of the project during initial scoping. Comments and inquires were received from Representative DeFazio. Tribes - The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians were informed of the project during initial scoping. Comments were received from the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians regarding access to traditional use areas. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) was informed of the project during pre-scoping. ODFW became a Cooperating Agency early in the project and were played an integral role in the development of the proposed actions and environmental assessment. State Historic Preservation Office - The State Historic Preservation Office was informed of the project’s proposed actions during the initial public scoping process. Consultation on the effects of designating camping corridors under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is ongoing. County Commissioners - County Commissioners of Douglas, Lane and Jackson counties were notified of the proposed actions during initial scoping. Consultation with Douglas county commissioners continued throughout the planning process.

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM The members of the interdisciplinary team involved in the preparation of this environmental analysis are:

Miles Barkhurst Forest Road Manager, Qualified Engineer Debra Barner Heritage Program Manager Bill Blackwell Recreation Program Manager Jeff Bohler Forest Wildlife Biologist Lori Depew Recreation/Wilderness Program Manager Jeff Dose Forest Fisheries Biologist Scott Elefritz Natural Resource Specialist, IDT Leader Debra Gray Hydrologic Technician Richard Helliwell Forest Botanist Justin Hadwin Wildlife Technician Mike Kinney Transportation Manager Melissa Swain Recreation Technician

Other team members involved in the project are: Cheryl Caplan Public Affairs Officer Cliff Dils Forest Supervisor, Deciding Official Karen Gamble GIS Specialist Mike Gebben GIS Specialist Ed Hall GIS Analyst Javier Masiel Law Enforcement Officer

REFERENCES

Oregon Regulatory Statues. 2008. Off- Road Vehicles; Snowmobiles; All-Terrain Vehicles. Chapter 821. Salem, OR.

USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume 1. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 86 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Travel Management Directives; Forest Service Manual 2350, 7700, and 7710 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55; Final Directives. Federal Register, Volume 73, Number 237, Tuesday December 9, 2008, pages 74689 – 74703.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 216, Wednesday November 9, 2005, pages 68264-68291.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System. FS-643. Washington DC. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 119 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Road Analysis Report. Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads. EM-7700-30. Washington DC. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 23 p.

APPENDIX 1 CURRENT TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (1990)

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION OF THE FOREST (P. IV-5 THRU IV-10)

The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act, the implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. The Forest Plan sets forth the direction of land and resource management of the Umpqua National Forest and guides all natural resource management activities on the Forest. Desired future conditions defined in the Forest Plan emphasize public participation and a collaborative approach in multiple-use management by blending the needs of resource-dependant communities and people with environmental values to ensure that forest ecosystems are diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable. The Forest Plan states, “The Umpqua National Forest will continue to play a major role in the economic vitality and stability of surrounding communities by providing stable harvest of high-value timber and a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities and by working with other government agencies, local businesses, and the communities themselves in a spirit of interdependency and cooperation that has always existed at the local Ranger District level.” (p. IV-7).

The Forest Plan describes the overall desired future condition as “... Areas with no timber harvest, such as wilderness, research natural areas, and dedicated areas, remain essentially unchanged except for the effects of fire storm, and the slow process of natural succession. Areas with programmed timber harvest will be a mosaic of stands of various sizes and ages. The desired condition of this available commercial forest land is that of a regulated forest where the stands exist in age and size class proportions and grow at rates such that a high level of timber yield can be sustained. A completed road system will ensure easy access to the vast majority of the forest. Because of the continuing need to protect watershed conditions, provide for wildlife needs, and control costs, a portion of the road system will be managed in a self-maintaining condition, with no vehicle traffic planned. Viewsheds and vegetation patterns within the general Forest will be formed primarily by cultural activities and not by nature. Only areas excluded from timber harvest will retain their natural appearances. Cultural resource sites, especially historic, are inventoried and protected….and/or developed as visitor interpretative centers or sites. High quality forage and habitat will be available for big game….Snag patches and unique wildlife habitats will be available to provide a distribution of wildlife species throughout the Forest. Habitat for threatened

and endangered species will be provided and managed to meet the requirements of recovery plans. Stream habitat for resident and anadromous fish will be maintained at or near potential Forestwide…. Anadromous fish populations will be maintained at or near maximum in all streams on the Forest. Water yield and quality will not be significantly reduced or degraded as a result of human activity. More intensive use of all of the resource opportunities on the Umpqua National Forest will result in much broader economic contributions to the primary economic influence area (Douglas, Lane, and Jackson Counties)….timber harvest will consist of a stable supply of wood fiber to support local area mills….economic dependence on the Umpqua for its recreation, fishing, and wildlife opportunities will increase significantly. Each community will have capitalized on its uniqueness and involved its citizens in the development of a desired future.” (p. IV-7 thru 10)

FORESTWIDE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS (P. IV-11 THRU IV-95) 1. To provide a broad spectrum of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities to all segments of society. 2. Manage Forest landscapes for their scenic values commensurate with other resource values. 3. To protect and enhance identified outstandingly remarkable values and free- flowing conditions of designated and potential wild, scenic and recreation rivers on the Forest. 4. To provide for the identification, management, preservation, restoration, maintenance and enhancement of prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and objects of archaeological, historical, and architectural significance. 5. To preserve the natural conditions and outstanding opportunities for solitude represented in the three wildernesses on the Forest. Manage activities on lands outside the wilderness so as not to seriously detract from the quality of the desired wilderness experience. 6. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the productivity of fish habitat to provide for the populations of resident and anadromous fish for scientific, recreational and commercial uses, both on and off the Forest. 7. To provide for present and future habitat needs of wildlife species which are present on the forest. 8. To provide for present and future habitat needs to contribute to the recovery of all threatened or endangered species in accordance with approved recovery plans. 9. To manage the forage resources for an upward or stable vegetative trend, and utilize suitable range in a manner that is compatible with other resources. 10. To provide for efficient production of wood fiber to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies consistent with multiple resource objectives.

11. Provide fuelwood (firewood) for personal and commercial uses. 12. To maintain of enhance water quality, quantity, and timing of streamflow, for the beneficial uses of human and aquatic life on the National Forest System lands and downstream. 13. Land management activities shall be planned and conducted to maintain and enhance soil productivity and soil stability. 14. To conduct basic and applied research on the function and operation of forest ecosystems in both natural and disturbed states. 15. To provide for natural ecological areas designated for research on the Umpqua National Forest as part of a National network. 16. Foster and encourage the prospecting, discovery, exploration, development and extraction of locatable minerals, gas, oil, and geothermal leases, and common variety minerals within the limits of applicable laws. 17. To provide for the use and occupancy of the Forest by private individuals or Federal, State and local governments when such use is consistent with Forest management objectives, is in the public interest and cannot be reasonably served by development on private land. Facilitate land ownership adjustments which meet the demand for sound, effective resource management and administration, and provides for benefits in the public interest that cannot be provided or assured by private ownership. Maintain a program of landline location that physically identifies and documents public lands administered by the Forest Service. 18. To develop and manage an economical and safe Forest transportation system that is responsive to land and resource management goals. 19. Permit corridors and rights-or-way for highway and roads under the jurisdiction of public road agencies, and utility transmission lines that are compatible with the Forest resource protection and management, and are in the public interest. 20. Provide and manage administrative sites and facilities which meet organizational needs through the most beneficial means possible. 21. Provide and execute a fire management program that is cost efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives. 22. Protect Forest resources from unacceptable losses due to destructive forest pests. 23. To ensure compliance of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to the Forest while providing protection for Federal property and resources and the safety of the Forest user. 24. To provide all persons equal opportunity for employment and use of the Forest regardless of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, physiological condition or origin. To promote community stability within the zone of influence of the Forest.

FORESTWIDE MULTIPLE-USE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: RECREATION (P. IV-16) Dispersed Roaded and Unroaded Recreation

3. The Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) shall be jointly managed by the Deschutes, Willamette and Umpqua National Forests as directed by the management plan shown in Appendix E, and semi-primitive motorized (SPM) no harvest and semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) no harvest. 4. Unroaded recreation management areas (URMA – MA1) shall be managed in accordance with SPM no harvest, SPNM no harvest and unroaded concentrated direction.

Off-Road Vehicles

1. Provide opportunities for ORV use on appropriate National Forest System lands. The use of off-road vehicles on the Forest shall conform to guidance in EO 11644 as amended by EO 11989 (FSM 2355.01) and Appendix F. 2. Manage ORV use to minimize: a) disturbance to wildlife habitat, b) recreation use conflicts, c) damage to soil and water resources, and d) damage to vegetation. 3. Site specific recreational vehicle use will be in accordance with Appendix F, titled Recreation Travelway Management Guide. This document is a summary of prescriptive direction for motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Also see the Facilities (Transportation) standards and guidelines for additional discussion of road use, including licensing requirements. 4. A travel management plan will be prepared within three years of signature of the Forest Plan and will specify closures and restrictions of the use on non-roaded areas, roads, and trails based on the broad direction summarized in Appendix F in the Forest Plan. 5. Vehicle travel off roads is prohibited in the Layng Creek municipal watershed.

ORV opportunities will be directed towards blocked roads, developed trails, the OCRA, and dispersed unroaded recreation management areas. ORV use will be managed to assure that significant resource damage and/or conflicts with non- motorized users do not occur.

FORESTWIDE MULTIPLE-USE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: TRANSPORTATION (P. IV-81) Transportation System Management and Maintenance

1. All Forest development roads will be maintained to protect the resources, perpetuate the intended road management objective, and to protect the investment in the facility. These roads will be maintained in accordance with maintenance standards in FSH 7709.15, Transportation System Maintenance Handbook. Road maintenance planning and priorities should emphasize the maintenance of: a. Drainage and erosion control structures and features, including bridges, on all Forest development roads. b. Signs and traffic control devices. c. Arterial and collector roads. d. Trailhead and recreation site access roads, and campground roads. 2. Management of roads will be in accordance with the Highway Safety Act on roads intended to be used by the public for travel with normal passenger cars (normally roads in Maintenance Levels 3 through 5). 3. Road ditches that show no sign of erosion, i.e., grassed-in, rocky, etc., should not be disturbed by road maintenance unless necessary to maintain drainage. 4. Forest development roads will be managed with a mix of traffic management strategies to accomplish road management objectives and to reduce road user conflicts. Traffic management guidelines are: a. Roads may be available for different user groups at different times, or otherwise restricted. All Forest development roads are subject to short-term traffic restrictions and/or closures, due to seasonal or unusual weather conditions, safety hazards, emergency traffic, or when necessary to permit reconstruction and maintenance. b. Roads will not be used if their use causes irreparable damage to the road or unacceptable impacts to adjacent resources (36 CFR 261). Damage is exclusive of normal wear, involves a reduction in the ability of a road or roadway structure to carry traffic, and cannot be corrected by normal maintenance practices. c. Vehicle load, weight, height, length, and width limitations may be imposed (36 CFR 212.7). Variance from these limitations will require a permit or other written authorization. d. All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on all open Forest development roads (roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5). 5. Road entrance management information that visually communicates to Forest visitors the road conditions and purpose of the road, such as mixed traffic, passenger car use, high clearance vehicles only, of logging use only, will be provided for each Forest development road. Emphasis will be on providing this information at the entrance of roads not maintained for passenger cars. 6. Assure short-term (temporary) roads are closed within one year of when the timber purchaser has completed contractual requirements for the portion of the timber sale served by the road. Re-establish vegetation cover to put land back into production within ten years of contract, lease,

or permit termination on roads not remaining a permanent part of the Forest transportation system. 7. Forest development roads will generally be open to use by vehicles licensed for highway travel, except when closed for one of the following reasons: a. The mode of access causes unacceptable damage to, or negates adequate protection and management of Forest resources. b. Safety hazards to the road user exist. c. Prescriptions in this Forest Plan recommend closures. d. To provide security to contractors/cooperators, special use Permittees, private land owners, and Forest Service administrative facilities. e. Road maintenance costs to keep a road open are high compared to existing or expected use of the road. Roads closed for one of the above reasons may be closed seasonally or year-around. Seasonal closures are preferred over year-around closures, wherever feasible, consistent with Forest Plan prescriptions, and if the objectives of the closure can be met. The Forest Supervisor, under the authority of 36 CFR 261, may enter into cooperative road closures during hunting season with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for protection of Forest resources. 8. Some open roads will only be maintained for high clearance vehicle use (Maintenance Level 2). Roads with seasonal road closures will be maintained in accordance with Maintenance Level 2 through 5 standards. Roads closed for one year or more (year-around closure) will generally be maintained to Maintenance Level 1 standards, except for those closed to provide security to administrative facilities, which may be maintained to a higher level. 9. During development and subsequent review of District Travel Management Plans (Appendix F), existing road closures will be evaluated as to the specific objectives to be accomplished by the closure, the type of closure device used, and the need to continue the closure. Prior to blocking or closing an existing Forest development road the following will be documented: a. Reason or objective for the closure. b. The closure period (seasonal or year-around). c. Exceptions to the closure; i.e., who or what type of vehicle may use the road, and under what circumstances. d. The type of closure device (physical barriers, signing, natural barrier, or locked gate). Law enforcement needs and prescriptions will be identified prior to issuing regulatory closures. Advisory devices and natural barriers (earth berms, rocks, brush, etc.) are preferred over regulatory road closures and locked gates where it is necessary to close roads. Use an advisory sign (or poster) near locked gates to describe the reason for the closure. Notify the public before closing an existing open road with a locked gate (except for emergencies). Give sufficient lead time in the notice. Use advisory signs in advance of

road closures where adequate turnarounds for public traffic is not available at the closure or where significant inconvenience to the public may occur. 10. Various road management techniques and strategies may be used to accomplish land and resource management goals and prescriptions in this plan. Following their development, the travel management plans will be reviewed annually and updated every two years, if necessary. Guidelines for travel management planning are in Appendix F. 11. Some closed roads (Maintenance Level 1) may be converted to other uses such as all-terrain vehicle (ATV) routes, and special purpose trails. Some roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5 may be closed to highway legal vehicle use during the winter, when sufficient snow depth exists, for use as winter sports trails (Nordic skiing, snowmobiles, etc.). See Forestwide standards and guidelines for dispersed recreation, and Appendix F, for additional guidelines for use of closed roads. 12. Existing airfields or heliports are to be operated and maintained using existing direction documented in appropriate Forest Service manuals and Handbooks. 13. Input and comment will be requested from facility users, the FAA and the Oregon Aeronautics Division of the Department of Transportation on any proposed closure of an airfield or heliport. Closure of any aviation facility will be in conformance with Forest Service and FAA standards.

OREGON CASCADES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (APPENDIX E) The Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) was established as part of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-328). Management direction for the nonwilderness portion of the OCRA is to increase opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation as well as to facilitate wildlife and other resource enhancement, The OCRA is divided into seven zones, four of which lie within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest.

Management Direction by Zone

Zone 3 - Calamut Lake Goal – Emphasize opportunities for semiprimitive motorized recreation.

Recreation Management – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) direction is semi-primitive motorized (SPM). Motorized use on and off roads and trails may be allowed in designated areas. Trails should be located to meet established objectives, and will not necessarily follow existing roads or trails. Trail Maintenance Levels 1 through 3 are typical. Trail length and difficulty will vary. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

Facilities – Existing roads will be managed to Maintenance Level 2 (high clearance), or they may be improved to access new recreation facilities. No new roads will be constructed unless needed to access recreation facilities. Design trails for multiple uses including, but not limited to, ATV use, trail biking, mountain bicycling, snowmobiling, hiking, horse riding, nordic skiing, and use by the physically challenged. Emphasize construction and maintenance of trails for motorized use. Emphasize construction of loop trails for day use.

Zone 5 – North Umpqua Goal – Improve wildlife habitat. Improve opportunities for nonmotorized summer use, and both motorized and nonmotorized winter use. Redistribute existing nonconforming motorized use to Zones 3 and 6.

Recreation Management – ROS direction is semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM). Motorized use is prohibited, with the exception of over-the-snow use. Special orders will specify the terms of area and seasonal closures to motorized use. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

Zone 6 – Thirsty Point Goal – Emphasize opportunities for semiprimitive motorized recreation. Improve wildlife habitat.

Recreation Management – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) direction is semi-primitive motorized (SPM). Motorized use on and off roads and trails may be allowed in designated areas. Winter vehicle use may be allowed on and off roads and trails. Trails should be located to meet established objectives, and will not necessarily follow existing roads or trails. Trail Maintenance Levels 1 through 3 are typical. Trail length and difficulty will vary. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

Zone 7 – West Thielsen Goal – Provide a variety of opportunities for nonmotorized uses, in close proximity to the Diamond Lake Composite. Serve as a transition between the concentrated developed recreation use at Diamond Lake and the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness.

Recreation Management – ROS direction is semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM). Motorized use is prohibited year-round, and the zone will be closed to such use by special order. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

RECREATION TRAVELWAY MANAGEMENT GUIDE (APPENDIX F) -Objectives- The objectives of this guide are:

1) To provide broad direction for travel management of vehicles used for recreation specific to each prescription and identified by vehicle type. 2) To summarize National direction dealing with recreation travel management. 3) To provide general Forest guidelines for preparation and implementation of travel management plans for the purpose of assigning specific access management goals and objectives to individual routes, trails, and land areas.

-National Direction- In 1977 Executive Order 11644 was amended by Executive Order 11989. This Order has the purpose of “…establishing policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of these lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands.” This Executive Order requires that each National Forest look for opportunities for off-road vehicles that are compatible with resources, provide safety for all users and minimize conflicts between different user groups. It has left the decision on how much land to allow off-road vehicle use to the public land agencies. 1) If the use of one or more vehicle types off roads is expected to cause considerable adverse effects on the resources or other Forest visitors, use of the affected areas and trails by the vehicle type or types will be restricted or prohibited until such time as the adverse effects can be eliminated. (36 CFR 295.2) [the final rule removed part 295-Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads and integrated it’s requirements, except for the annual review under 295.6, into part 212] 2) Information and maps will be published and made available to the public, describing (36 CFR 295.4) [the final rule removed part 295-Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads and integrated it’s requirements, except for the annual review under 295.6, into part 212] a) the regulation of vehicle use, b) time periods when use is allowed, restricted or prohibited, and c) the type of vehicle regulated.

3) Traffic on Forest development roads is subject to State traffic laws where applicable except when in conflict with rules established under Federal orders. (36 CFR 212.7) 4) Provide a diversity of off-road vehicle recreational opportunities (FSM) when: a) the use is compatible with established land and resource objectives, b) the use is consistent with the capacity and suitability of the resources, c) the type of off-road vehicle opportunity is an appropriate National Forest Recreation activity, and d) there is demonstrated demand which cannot be satisfied elsewhere. 5) Use the monitoring activities established in the Forest LRMP and the management review procedures to monitor and evaluate off-road vehicle use, its effects, and enforcement of restrictions and closures. (FSM 2355)

-State Direction- The Oregon State Motor Vehicles Division has strict rules for operating non- highway legal motor vehicles on roads, and the mixing of highway legal and non- highway legal motor vehicles.

The State of Oregon has established rules for two classes of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles. Class 1 ATVs are defined as a motorized off-highway recreational vehicle that is 50 inches or less in width having a dry weight of less than 600 pounds which travels on three or more low-pressure tires and having a saddle. Class 2 ATVs are defined as a vehicle weighing more than 600 pounds and less than 8,000 pounds, able to travel cross-country on or over land, water sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland or other natural terrain, and actually being operated off a highway. Many Class 2 ATVs are registered as passenger cars or street legal vehicles.

It is illegal to operate Class 1 ATVs, Class 2 ATVs that are not licensed as passenger cars, and snowmobiles on roads and highways open to street-legal vehicles. This eliminates use of Class 1 and many Class 2 ATVs on all Maintenance Level 2,3,4 and 5 roads unless a Federal order is issued to eliminate all traffic except Class 1 and 2 ATVs.

[The State Direction listed above is an excerpt from the Recreation Travelway Management Guide (Appendix E). It is important to note that Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821.055; Operation of all-terrain vehicles on certain highways, states…”Class 1, 2, and 3 all-terrain vehicles may operate on any highway in this state that is open to the public and is not maintained for passenger car traffic.” This provides an exemption for use of non-highway legal vehicles on ML 2 roads. ORS 821.200; Exemptions from general prohibition on

operating on highway or railroad, provides a further exemption for ATV use on paved roads “Where the highway is posted to permit snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.” This allows the Forest Service to designate certain paved roads, or segments of paved roads, as open to non-highway legal vehicles and be in compliance with state statutes.

The State of Oregon now recognizes three classes of ATVs: Oregon State Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Classes: Class I ATV - (quads, 3-wheelers): 50” wide or less, 800 lbs or less, has a seat, and travels on three or more tires. Class II ATV - (Jeeps, Sand rails, SUV’s, etc.): wider than 50”, and more than 800 lbs. Class III ATV - (motorcycles): travels on two tires, and less than 800 lbs.]

-Forest Guidelines- 1) To provide enhanced experiences for four-wheel-drive (4 X 4) vehicles, some Forest development roads will be moved from Maintenance Level 1 status to Maintenance Level 2 status and will be maintained to minimal standards in the maintenance level 2 classifications. Maintenance of these routes will have the objective of protecting adjacent resources and by performing only maintenance items that will directly improve the recreational experience for the four-wheel-drive vehicle users. This may include brushing to allow passage ….and other items consistent with enhancing the experience to four-wheel-drive vehicles. 2) Individual travel management plans will be prepared by each District, and approved by the Forest Supervisor, using the table in this appendix as a guide. The plans will propose and identify site specific opportunities for off-road vehicles and street legal vehicles, i.e. four-wheel-drive vehicles, involving participation by public interest groups and individuals, and in coordination with Federal and State agencies that administer lands adjacent to the Umpqua National Forest. 3) Direction for vehicle use for the Oregon Cascade Recreation Area …. Can be found in the OCRA Management Plan. 4) All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on Umpqua National Forest roads, except where Federal Orders under 36 CFR 261 have been issued. 5) The travel management plans, when established, will be reviewed annually and modified every two years, if necessary. 6) As new recreation vehicles are used on the forest, they will be evaluated as to resource and visitor protection needs and managed accordingly.

ACCESS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS (ATM)

The Umpqua NF LRMP (1990) directed the development of District travel management plans (Chapter IV and Appendix F) and provided prescriptions for management of road, off-road vehicle and trail access and travel. District level ATM Plans were developed and implemented in 1994. These ATM Plans changed the maintenance levels for certain National Forest System roads and included both permanent and seasonal road closures. Seasonal closures for wildlife protection (i.e., elk winter range, calving areas) were established as well as permanent closures for resource protection (i.e., , Unique Wildlife or Mosaic Habitats, Resource Natural Areas, Non-Motorized Semi-Primitive Areas, etc.).

In 1998 the ATM Plans were updated to identify the primary and secondary road system essential for public access and travel throughout the Forest. This was done to match road maintenance budgets with the priorities and standards for road maintenance. Historically, the Umpqua National Forest emphasized access for timber management and recreation. With the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994 and the listing of the Coho salmon as threatened, the amount of timber harvested on the Umpqua NF decreased by 80 percent. An indirect effect of this harvest reduction was a drastic decrease in the Forest’s ability to maintain roads. Traditionally, timber sale purchasers preformed local road maintenance and deposited funds towards cooperative road maintenance. About two-thirds of the road maintenance on the Umpqua NF was accomplished through timber sales, with the remaining from appropriated funding. The reduction in timber harvest meant there would be insufficient funds to maintain all the roads in service. Without maintenance, roads erode and become unsafe for travel. The intent of the updated District ATM Plans was to wisely allocate limited funds to the highest priority roads first. Primary Roads would get highest priority for funding followed by Secondary Roads and then “Other” roads. Copies of District ATM Plans are available upon request at District offices and the Supervisor’s Office.

The ATM Plans included the creation and distribution of travel maps for use by the public. These maps were completed and published by 2000 and show roads maintained for both passenger car and high clearance vehicle use. Trails are shown on the maps highlighted by the recommended method of travel, with prohibited uses identified. The ATM map for the North Umpqua Ranger District was completed and published, but never distributed to the public. The other three ATM maps are currently available to the public at the Umpqua NF Headquarters and Ranger Stations. Generally, all Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) and ML2 roads are open to non-street legal ATV use unless signed otherwise. Oregon State Vehicle Code prohibits the use of non-street legal OHVs on roads maintained for passenger car traffic (i.e., ML 3-5 roads).

FOREST ORDERS

Orders are forest level regulations issued by the Forest Supervisor which close or restrict the use of described areas, National Forest System roads or trails within the area over which he has jurisdiction. (36 CFR 261.50) The following is a list of Forest Orders pertaining to motor vehicle use on the Umpqua National Forest.

Table A1.1 Forest Orders pertaining to motor vehicle use Order Date of District - Remarks Number Order Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor vehicles off of Forest 3 4/22/1986 Development Roads (Diamond Lake Recreation Area) when snow depth is less than two feet. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor vehicles off of specific 5 10/4/1977 Forest Development Roads yearlong, seasonally (12/1 - 4/30), and when snow depth is less than two feet. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor vehicles off of Forest 9 6/8/1984 Development Roads (Lemolo Lake Recreation Area) seasonally (4/1 - 10/31). Cottage Grove - Prohibits use of motor vehicles on road 1700- 14 2/15/1996 420 (Rujada Campground) seasonally (11/15 - 5/15). Cottage Grove - Prohibits use of motor vehicles on specific 24 9/28/1988 Forest Development Roads (Layng Creek Municipal Watershed) yearlong and seasonally (10/1 - 5/31). Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of non-highway legal motor vehicles on Forest Development Roads 4795-000 (Diamond 51 3/18/1983 Lake loop) and 2610-000 (Lemolo Lake loop) when managed as public roadways under state law. North Umpqua - Prohibits use of motor vehicles on specific 60 9/28/1988 Forest Development Roads seasonally (12/1 – 4/30). Cottage Grove - Prohibits use of motor vehicles on Forest 69 3/15/1988 Development Trail 1403 (Brice Creek), 1403.1 (Cedar Creek spur), and Cedar Creek bridge. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor vehicles, other than 123 5/24/2002 aircraft, on Toketee Airstrip. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor vehicles off road in Big 124 5/24/2002 Camas Meadow. Forest Wide - Prohibits the use of motor vehicles on any road 125 5/28/2002 where entry is restricted by a closed or locked gate, barricade, or road closed sign. Tiller - Prohibits motorized and nonmotorized traffic on Rocking 169 9/5/2002 R Ranch Bridge. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor vehicles on Forest 195 12/1/2003 Development Road 4795-380 (Hemlock Nordic Trail) seasonally (12/1 – 4/1). Diamond Lake - Prohibits the use of motor vehicles on Forest 203 3/16/2005 Development Winter Trails and specific Forest Development Roads when posted on the ground.

Order Date of District - Remarks Number Order Forest Wide - Prohibits the use of motor vehicles on specific 204 4/1/2005 Forest Development Trails and Roads when posted on the ground.

APPENDIX 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FOREST PLAN

Table A2.1 Proposed changes to the Forest Plan by citation EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Recreation IV-16 Provide opportunities for ORV use Wheeled motorized travel is allowed on appropriate National Forest only on designated roads, trails and System Lands. The use of off-road areas and will be identified on the vehicles on the Forest shall Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map conform to the guidance in EO (MVUM) by type of vehicle and time of 11644 as amended by EO 11989 year. Travel off of the designated (FSM 2355.01) and Appendix F. system of routes by any type of motorized vehicle is prohibited.

The following vehicles and uses are exempt from these designations: • Aircraft • Watercraft • Over-snow vehicles • Limited administrative use by the Forest Service • Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes. • Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes. • Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit. • Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations. • Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county or other local public road authority.

Motorized travel off the designated system for other government entities on official business, contractors, leasees, permittees, and others with

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE valid access rights will require written authorization from the Forest Supervisor or District Rangers in their respective Districts. This may be in the form of a contract, lease, permit, or other type of waiver as required to recognize valid rights of access.

An exception is allowed for the limited travel off of the designated system by motor vehicles solely for the purpose of dispersed camping on existing routes only within 300 feet of certain designated routes as displayed on the MVUM. This exception may be administratively applied in appropriate locations within any Management Area unless specifically noted or unless all motorized access is prohibited. IV-18 ORV opportunities will be directed Omit towards blocked roads, developed trails, the OCRA, and dispersed unroaded recreation management areas. Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Transportation IV-84 Some closed roads (Maintenance Some closed roads (Maintenance Level 1) may be converted to other Level 1) may be converted to other uses such as all-terrain vehicle uses such as off-highway vehicle (ATV) routes. (OHV) routes. Management Area 5: Oregon Cascades Recreation Area IV – 116 Motorized use, both summer and Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the winter, are encouraged on and off designated system or inconsistent trails in the areas assigned to A1- with the designations displayed on the IV. MVUM is prohibited. Management Prescriptions A1-I Offroad vehicles are prohibited. No Change A1-IV ORV use is encouraged on roads Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the and trails designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A1-V Summer ORV use is not permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A3-I ORV use is accepted consistent Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the with other, more restrictive designated system or inconsistent 100

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE prescriptions. with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A4-I Within developed sites, ORV use Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the will be restricted to designated designated system or inconsistent routes except as noted in with the designations displayed on the applicable CFR. MVUM is prohibited. A4-II Motorized use over snow only, No Change otherwise non-motorized. A4-III ORV use will normally be limited to Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the access purposes except as designated system or inconsistent stipulated in appropriate CFRs. with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A4-IV ORV use will normally be limited to Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the access purposes except as designated system or inconsistent stipulated in appropriate CFRs. with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A4-V Not Addressed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A5-II ORV use will be restricted to roads Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the and parking areas. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. B1-II Mechanized equipment, including No Change mountain bikes, is not allowed. B1-III Mechanized equipment, including No Change mountain bikes, is not allowed. C1-I ORV use is not allowed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C1-II Do not permit ORV use off trails Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the year-round; discourage ORV use designated system or inconsistent on roads and trails April 1 to August with the designations displayed on the 15. MVUM is prohibited. C2-I ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-II ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-III ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited.

101

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE C2-IV ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-V ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-VI ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2VII ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-VIII ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-IX ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-X ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated, hardened trail prisms. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C3-I ORV use closed during January 1 – Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the July 31. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C3-II Not Addressed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C4-I No ORV use December 1 – April Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the 30. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C4-II No ORV use December 1 – April Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the 30. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C4-III No ORV use December 1 – April Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the 30. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited.

102

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE C5-I ORV use permitted in unroaded Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the dispersed recreation and OCRA designated system or inconsistent management areas consistent with with the designations displayed on the the direction for these management MVUM is prohibited. areas. ORV use not permitted in other areas. C5-III ORV use permitted in unroaded Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the dispersed recreation and OCRA designated system or inconsistent management areas consistent with with the designations displayed on the the direction for those management MVUM is prohibited. areas. C5-V ORV use permitted, consistent with Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the soils standards and guidelines. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-VI ORV use permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-VII ORV use is permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-VIII ORV use is permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-IX ORV use is permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-X ORV use permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-I ORVs permitted except when Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the closed by Forest order. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-II ORVs permitted except within Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the plantations or other sensitive areas, designated system or inconsistent or when closed by Forest order. with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-IV ORVs permitted except when Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the closed by Forest order. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-V ORVs permitted except when Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the

103

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE closed by Forest order. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E2-I ORVs are allowed for Motor vehicle use off the designated administrative purposes only, as system is allowed for administrative approved by the Forest Supervisor. purposes only, as approved by the Forest Supervisor. E2-II ORVs are allowed for Motor vehicle use off the designated administrative purposes only, as system is allowed for administrative approved by the Forest Supervisor. purposes only, as approved by the Forest Supervisor. E3-I Not Addressed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. F1-II Vehicle travel off roads should be Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the prohibited. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited.

J1-II ORVs will generally be permitted, Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the except in Hardesty Mountain Area. designated system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. Appendix E: Oregon Cascades Recreation Area Management Plan OCRA Motorized use on and off roads and Use of wheeled motor vehicles off E - 13 trails may be allowed in designated the designated system or areas. inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited.

OCRA Motorized use is prohibited, with Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the E - 18 the exception of over-the-snow use. designated system or inconsistent Special orders will specify the terms with the designations displayed on the of area and seasonal closures to MVUM is prohibited. motorized use. OCRA Motorized use on and off roads and Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the E - 19 trails may be allowed in designated designated system or inconsistent areas. with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. OCRA Motorized use is prohibited year- Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the E - 21 round, and the zone will be closed designated system or inconsistent to such use by special order. with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. Appendix F: Recreation Travelway Management Guide RTMG Use of Table F – 1, “Recreation Omit Section

104

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE F – 3 Travelway Management Guide RTMG Terms, Definitions and Methods for Omit Section F - 4 Accomplishment as Shown in Table F - 1 RTMG Table F -1 Recreation Travelway Wheeled motorized travel is allowed F- 5 thru Management Guide only on designated roads, trails and F - 8 areas and will be identified on the Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) by type of vehicle and time of year. Travel off of the designated system of routes by any type of motorized vehicle is prohibited.

Motorized travel off the designated system for other government entities on official business, contractors, leasees, permittees, and others with valid access rights will require written authorization from the Forest Supervisor or District Rangers in their respective Districts. This may be in the form of a contract, lease, permit, or other type of waiver as required to

105

EXISTING FOREST PLAN PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CITATION LANGUAGE LANGUAGE recognize valid rights of access.

106

APPENDIX 3 MAPS

Due to the large size, the maps for this project are located on the Umpqua National Forest website; http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/projects/travel/index.shtml

Hardcopies of the maps are available for viewing at all Ranger District offices as well as the Umpqua National Forest Headquarters in Roseburg, Oregon.

Current Condition

Cottage Grove Ranger District

North Umpqua Ranger District

Diamond Lake Ranger District

Tiller Ranger District

Alternative A

Cottage Grove Ranger District

North Umpqua Ranger District

Diamond Lake Ranger District

Tiller Ranger District

Alternative B

Cottage Grove Ranger District

North Umpqua Ranger District

Diamond Lake Ranger District

Tiller Ranger District

107

Alternative C

Cottage Grove Ranger District

North Umpqua Ranger District

Diamond Lake Ranger District

Tiller Ranger District

108

APPENDIX 4 MOTORIZED MIXED USE ANALYSIS

Motorized Mixed Use of NFS Roads A highway-legal vehicle is any motor vehicle that is licensed or certified under state law for general operation on all public roads in the state. Operators of highway-legal motor vehicles are subject to state traffic law, including requirements for operator licensing. Off-highway vehicles that are licensed, certified, or registered under a state recreation fee or green sticker program are not highway-legal motor vehicles because they are not licensed or certified under state law for general operation on all public roads in the state. Motorized mixed use occurs when a national forest system (NFS) road has been designated for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles. (FSM 7705 and 7710)

On the Umpqua National Forest, existing district Access and Travel Management Plans have established the allowance of non-highway-legal traffic on NFS roads open to the public, but not maintained for passenger cars. However, non- highway-legal traffic is disallowed on NFS roads, gravel or otherwise, that are maintained for passenger cars.

An engineering analysis was conducted in accordance with FSM 7709.55 Ch. 30, addressing all roads identified for motorized mixed use in Alternative A (the Proposed Action), Alternative B, and Alternative C. This motorized mixed use analysis (MMUA) was guided by the Forest Service publication Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads (EM-7700-30). The purpose of the MMUA is to identify public safety risks that may be incurred as a result of allowing motorized mixed use on designated roads or road segments. The MMUA is a technical evaluation with recommendations,

109

including mitigation measures, presented to the responsible official for consideration in decisions reflected on the motorized vehicle use map (MVUM).

Roads Proposed for Motorized Mixed Use and Categorization for Assessment Purposes In this Travel Management Plan assessment, some roads open to the public, maintained at varying maintenance levels and in different management categories, have been proposed for motorized mixed use in either the proposed action or an action alternative to the proposed action. The following two paragraphs describe two ways of generally categorizing NFS roads on the Umpqua National Forest. That is followed by a description of how roads were categorized for the purpose of assessing risk where allowed motorized mixed use has been proposed.

One common and useful categorization of NFS roads on the Umpqua National Forest is based on a maintenance level (ML) number system, with levels 1 through 5. ML 1 roads are closed for extended periods exceeding one-year, not open to public travel, and only opened for intermittent land management project access needs. ML 2 roads are typically open to public travel, but not maintained for passenger cars. Some ML 2 roads are closed to public travel, used only for administrative access needs. ML 3, 4, and 5 roads are open to public travel and maintained for passenger car use. ML 2 roads are typically single-lane, with no surfacing or gravel surfacing, though some are paved with asphalt. ML 3 roads are typically single-lane and graveled, though some are paved with asphalt. ML 4 roads are typically single-lane and paved with asphalt, though some are double-lane, and some are graveled. ML 5 roads are typically double-lane and paved with asphalt.

Another general categorization of roads on the Umpqua National Forest identifies roads as Primary, Secondary, or “other”. Primary roads are the ML 3, 4, and 5 roads that are maintained for passenger car use and are the highest priority for routine, annual maintenance. Primary roads are subject to management in accordance with the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-564). Secondary roads are a subset of ML 2 roads (approximately one-third) that receive maintenance as budget and scheduling allow, but often are not maintained on an annual basis, and may be inaccessible from blowdown and slides for extended periods of time. Secondary roads are not subject to management in accordance with the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Primary and Secondary roads together form the Umpqua National Forest’s “Key Road System”. These are the only NFS roads displayed within the Umpqua National Forest boundaries on the forest-wide “Land of Umpqua” public map, (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Recreation Map Series, 2007). The portion of ML 2 roads not identified as Secondary (approximately two-thirds) typically do not receive scheduled routine maintenance, but are maintained in conjunction with and at the time of specific land management project access needs, as are ML 1 roads. These “other” ML 2 and ML 1 roads are not displayed on the Land of

110

Umpqua public map, but are displayed on individual Ranger District public maps (USDA Forest Service, Cottage Grove R.D. 2005, North Umpqua R.D. 2005, Tiller R.D. 2009, and Diamond Lake R.D. pending 2010).

For purposes of this assessment, roads (or segments of roads) proposed to allow for motorized mixed use were grouped into two categories, A and B. Category A consists of Primary roads and asphalt paved Secondary roads. Category B consists of Secondary roads that are not asphalt paved and ML 2 “other” roads.

Category A contains a total of 203 miles of Primary roads (out of 521 miles of forest-wide Primary roads) and all 25 miles of forest-wide asphalt paved Secondary roads. Category A roads (or road segments) were individually analyzed based on a variety of assessment factors, with information obtained from field surveys, historical information, and the knowledge of Umpqua National Forest road management personnel. The individual assessment factors, suggested mitigation, and resulting risk ratings (crash ratings) are compiled in Table 4.1.

Category B contains all the approximate1052 miles of forest-wide Secondary roads that are not asphalt paved and all the approximate 1903 miles of ML 2 “other” roads open to public travel. Each of the roads in Category B are considered to have a low crash rating probability (see definition below), based on typical low traffic volumes combined with lower standard maintenance conditions that cause vehicle operators to expect hazards to exist. These roads were not individually surveyed for this analysis.

Allowing motorized mixed use on any of the roads in Categories A or B by designation the MVUM would be consistent with state and local laws.

Crash Ratings Crash ratings are a combination of probability of an incident occurring combined with the degree of severity of the associated outcome. Ratings are based on the assumption that suggested mitigation measures are implemented. The Umpqua National Forest historically only has a small amount of motorized mixed use. There are no records of accidents occurring related to motorized mixed use. The ratings assigned to Category A roads in Table 4.1 are based on an assumption that some increased level of mixed use will occur on each road, if allowed as a result of designation on the MVUM. The extent of that estimated increase is included in the engineering judgment applied for each road.

Probability: An assessment of the likelihood of a crash resulting from exposure to factors associated with motorized mixed use affecting traffic safety. Individual roads or road segments are rated separately – probability of occurrence may be greater for a group of roads if considered cumulatively.

111

Low: Indicates that over an extended period of several years, for a given road segment, it is unlikely a crash incident will occur on that segment. Changing status to mixed use from no mixed use may result in an incident, but the increase in probability is considered insignificant for the individual segment rated.

Moderate: Indicates that over an extended period of several years, for a given road segment, a significant increase in probability of a crash incident is incurred by changing status to mixed use from no mixed use. However, it remains unlikely that it will occur.

High: Indicates that over an extended period of several years, for a given road segment, a significant enough increase in crash probability is incurred by changing to mixed use status, that an incident may be considered as likely to occur as not.

Severity: An assessment of the probable degree of property damage and personal injury resulting from a crash on the road - in particular, a crash involving an OHV.

Low: Indicates the probable crash outcome will have minor consequence (typically only minor property damage).

Moderate: Indicates a crash will likely result in significant property damage or personal injury, but not likely critical injury or fatality.

High: Indicates that a crash would have a likelihood of major property damage, critical injury, or fatality.

Rating Assessment Factors

Factors common to all roads assessed: One significant consideration in rating probability and outcome severity of mixed use accidents is the age and experience of an off-highway-vehicle (OHV) operator. In Oregon, there is no age restriction on the use of Class I vehicles (such as four- wheelers less than 50-inches wide), if the operator is accompanied by someone at least 18 years of age. Class III vehicles (motorcycles) may be operated by children as young as 7 years-old if accompanied by someone at least 18 years of age. Children at least 12 years-old may operate a Class III vehicle unaccompanied. Other considerations are that OHV operators may be engaged in a variety of recreational activities, including hunting and scenic viewing, when they may be focused on their activity rather than the road. It is also likely that some OHV operators will be traveling at fairly high speeds, at least as fast as the highway-legal vehicles sharing the road.

112

Operational Maintenance Level (ML): Assigned maintenance level itself is not used as a rating factor, but is an indicator of other factors, such as traffic volume, speed, road surface condition, and presence of hazards on the road.

Segment Length: The length of the road segment assessed does affect the probability rating. For a given daily mixed use traffic volume, the exposure (number of encounters) increases with the length of the road segment.

Traffic Volume: The traffic volumes shown in Table 4.1 are estimates of highway-legal vehicle traffic only. Historic non-highway-legal vehicle traffic volumes are typically very low or non-existent on most of the roads assessed. It is assumed that an increased amount of use will occur if allowed as a result of designation on the MVUM. The increase in use will vary by location, with the greatest use on roads near concentrated recreation areas. These variations are considered in the engineering judgment used to establish probability crash ratings. The average daily traffic (ADT) counts shown below are estimates of typical use during the highest level seasons of use for a road. That may be mid-summer for roads accessing or near campgrounds, or it may be the fall months for some roads in hunting season. The average does not include periods of non-use where snow levels preclude traffic. Peak use on certain days may greatly exceed the ADT, especially during holiday weekends near concentrated recreational use areas or on some roads subject to intermittent commercial haul. The ADT ranges used in Table 4.1 are as follows:

Low: < 15 ADT

Moderate: 15-75 ADT

High: >75 ADT

Speed: The speeds listed in Table 4.1 are those estimated for an experienced, safe driver, accustomed to driving on forest roads, on the high end of a range of speed for the road segment. At these speeds, some evasive action is expected when encountering head-on traffic on single-lane roads. Travel speed affects both probability and outcome of a crash incident. Greater speeds increase the probability of loss of control and decrease the ability to safely come to a stop or avoid a hazard. Greater speeds also lessen the ability to escape from the traveled way of a single-lane road when necessary to avoid another vehicle. The extent of property damage and personal injury correlate with speed in an accident.

113

Traveled Way Conditions:

Surface Type: Surface type can indirectly affect travel speed as well as the ability for an operator to control a vehicle. Operators of highway-legal vehicles tend to drive faster on asphalt paved surfaces, however sliding and tire drift are greater on gravel roads, increasing stopping distances. Some Class I vehicles may handle differently on paved surfaces, with tighter steering and an increased risk of roll-over at higher speeds compared to gravel surfaces.

Width: Most of the roads assessed have traveled way widths of 14 feet or greater, allowing room for a standard full-sized highway- legal vehicle, such as a four-wheel drive pickup, and an OHV traveling in the opposite direction to pass each other safely. However, typical driving behavior on single-lane roads is to drive down the center of the road, and head-on vehicle encounters often require quick, evasive maneuvering to avoid collision. Wider traveled way widths have lesser risk of an accident. A special concern exists on double-lane paved roads. With mixed use traffic on paved roads, OHV operators may sometimes be traveling at a substantially lower speed than highway-legal vehicles traveling in the same direction. On double-lane roads, the highway-legal vehicle operator may decide to pull-out into the opposite lane to pass, increasing exposure to oncoming traffic, and thereby increasing the probability of an accident.

Maximum Grades: Steeper road grades lead to greater stopping distances for downhill traffic, and greater risk for loss of vehicle control when an operator must take evasive action. Gravel surfaces have a tendency to develop washboard conditions on steeper roads, substantially increasing the problems of vehicle control. Generally, grades less than 5% have only minor effects, while grades over 10% may have very substantial effects.

Roadside Conditions:

Escape Potential: This factor is rated as poor, fair, or good. Wide shoulders beyond the traveled way width may allow good opportunity for vehicle operators to avoid hazards or encounters within the traveled way. The same can be said for ditch lines. However, if the shoulders and ditches are not routinely cleared or maintained, boulders, logs, trees and other obstacles may render the shoulders unusable or hazardous themselves. Likewise, narrow or non-existent shoulders, and deep or steep-sloped ditches provide poor escape potential. These conditions vary greatly

114

among the roads assessed, and are evaluated relative to the estimated travel speed for the road.

Impact and Roll-Over Hazards: This factor addresses the potential consequences if a motorized vehicle and operator leave the traveled way and are not able to safely stop the vehicle, or are simply unable to escape the traveled way in an encounter with another vehicle or obstacle. Ratings are low, moderate, or high, and directly correlate with the definitions (and ratings) assigned for crash rating severity. As with escape potential, this factor is rated relative to the estimated travel speed for the road. Steep, long embankments with trees, boulders or other objects are obviously worse than open flat ground. Steep cut slopes and deep ditches with culvert inlet basins are worse than gentle cut slopes, and wide, shallow ditches. Conditions that are likely to lead to roll-over of a Class I OHV are rated highest.

Special Conditions: Some of the Category A roads assessed in Table 4.1, and most of the roads in Category B are subject to periods of increased use due to commercial haul of timber or rock products. Without mitigation, the associated mixed use involving large truck traffic on single- lane roads could increase crash rating factors substantially. Prior to commencement of the permitted commercial use, consideration should be given to mitigate the risks by temporarily restricting or prohibiting OHV use. As a minimum, adequate warning signing should be in place to alert all users of any allowed mixed use. On some roads, private entities hold easements to access private lands, including the right to haul commercial products, and some of those roads are under shared maintenance agreements. None of the easements or maintenance agreements precludes the Forest Service from designating the roads to allowed motorized mixed use.

Mitigation Mitigation by use of signing is recommended as described in Table 4.1. If motorized mixed use is allowed on those road segments with a high probability crash rating, further preventive mitigation should be considered. The additional measures may include monitoring of the amount and nature of motorized mixed use through traffic counts, visual recording of vehicle types, and increased law enforcement focus, all overlaid with an adaptive management approach. Further measures should be designed in response to the use that develops. As the extent of use and associated risks are further understood, public education and more specific signing may be adequate. If the potential risk develops to an unacceptable level, restrictions or prohibition of motorized mixed use may be warranted. Similarly, on road segments with a moderate probability crash rating, especially those with a high severity rating, use should be monitored and

115

mitigation adapted accordingly. Assumptions regarding traffic volume used in this analysis and the extent to which OHV use may grow are uncertain enough that analysis of changing conditions will be important where motorized mixed use is allowed.

Statement and Signature of Qualified Engineer I have considered the applicable driver, traffic and roadway factors; applicable state and local laws and USDA Forest Service regulations, directives, and guidelines pertaining to motorized mixed use on the roads described in this report. I have determined there to be a range of risk to public safety associated with the proposed designations for motorized mixed use. Risks associated with Category A roads listed in Table 4.1 range from low to high and are indicated by the associated Crash Rating factors specific to each road. For the Category B roads described in this report, it is my engineering judgment that there would be a low risk to public safety by designating them for motorized mixed use.

Forest Road Manager Umpqua National Forest

116

Table 4.1 - Documentation of Engineering Judgment for Group A Roads Proposed for Motorized Mixed Use on Umpqua National Forest p 1 of 4 Road Termini Crash Rating Traveled Way Traffic Roadside Conditions Segment Oper. Max. Shoulder and Impact and Surface Width Speed Comments and Mitigation No. Name Length Mntc. Begin End BMP EMP Probability Severity Grades Volume Ditch Escape Roll-Over Type (feet) (mph) (miles) Level (%) Potential Hazards This segment of road links 2212 with 2213 for an OHV loop opportunity. 0.66 4 2212 intersection 2213 intersection 12.040 12.700 Moderate High Asphalt 14+ <5 M 30 Fair High Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted signs at segment ends. 22 Brice Creek This segment of road links 2216 with the 5850, proposed for mixed use on 1.40 3 2216 5850 15.480 17.180 Moderate High Asphalt 16+ 5-10 M 25 Poor High the Willamette NF. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use at both ends and place OHV restricted sign at segment beginning. Trailhead Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of 3.70 3 22 (Noonday Wagon 0.000 3.560 Moderate High Gravel 16+ <10 M 25 Good High OHV use and place OHV restricted sign at road 22. Road) Trailhead 2212-767 Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of 2212 Noonday 3.08 3 (Noonday Wagon 3.670 6.750 Moderate High Gravel 14+ <10 M 20 Poor High intersection OHV use. Road) Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Ties into Lane County Road 2212-767 Lane County Road 2.00 3 6.750 8.750 Moderate High Gravel 14+ <5 M 25 Poor High 2460. Coordinate with Lane County for appropriate signing at entrance to intersection 2460 2460. Grass Creek - 2212-767 Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of 2213 4.73 3 22 0.000 4.730 Low High Gravel 18+ <12 L 25 Good High Fairview intersection OHV use and place OHV restricted signs at road 22 and at end of segment.

Martin Creek 2.33 3 BLM Road 23 0.693 3.024 Moderate Moderate Gravel 15 <5 M 25-30 Good Moderate This aggregate segment of FS Road 23 ties into single lane paved BLM crossing Road 23 at each end. Traffic volume on the high end of the "moderate" China Creek - Martin Creek Saddle Camp range, and includes BLM access. Route serves as primary access between 23 1.34 3 3.024 4.365 Moderate High Gravel 14- <10 M 25 Fair High Canton Creek crossing Creek crossing Sharps Creek and lower Steamboat Creek. Should mitigate with signs Saddle Camp warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted signs (coordinate with BLM) 2.85 3 BLM Road 23 4.365 7.210 Moderate High Gravel 14- <10 M 25 Fair High Creek crossing at each end.

The 3.4 mile portion of this segment between Canton Point and Shane Lane County Road Saddle has lesser grades. Ties into Lane County Road 2460 on the north 2358 Canton Point 10.70 3 23 0.000 10.700 Low High Gravel 14+ <15 / <5 L 20-25 Poor / Fair High 2460 end of the segment. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Coordinate with Lane County for appropriate signing at entrance to 2460. 2610-590 Double lane paved. Good visibility. High traffic volume includes PacifiCorp intersection / 1.74 5 2614 intersection 3.053 4.792 High High Asphalt 24 <5 H 40-50 Fair Moderate commercial vehicles, and recreation traffic accessing both Poole Creek Lemolo Lake Campground and Lemolo Lake Resort. Resort entrance 2610-590 This double lane paved road segment includes a single lane section crossing intersection / the Lemolo Lake dam with no shoulders. High traffic volume includes 0.32 5 2612 intersection 4.792 5.110 High High Asphalt 24 / 14 <12 H 20-40 Poor High Lemolo Lake significant amount of PacifiCorp commercial vehicles. Should mitigate with Resort entrance signs warning of OHV use. Lemolo Lake - 2610 Bird's Point This single lane paved road segment accesses the newly constructed 2610-680 Lemolo 1 Forebay site. High traffic volume includes significant amount of 3.10 4 2612 intersection intersection / 5.110 8.208 High High Asphalt 14 <5 H 30-35 Poor High PacifiCorp commercial vehicles. Road closely parallels canal located at Lemolo 1 Forebay base of fill slope. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use.

2610-680 Ties into Willamette NF road 2154 on the north end of the segment. Willamette NF Moderate / 8.83 4 intersection / 8.208 17.034 High High Asphalt 14 <10 M 25-30 Poor / Fair Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Coordinate with Road 2154 High Lemolo 1 Forebay Willamette NF for appropriate signing at entrance to 2154.

2612 Lemolo Lake 4.22 5 2610 60 0.000 4.220 Moderate High Asphalt 24 <7 M 40-50 Fair Moderate Double lane paved. Good visibility.

2614 Lemolo Loop 2.74 5 2610 2612 0.000 2.740 High High Asphalt 24 <7 M 30-50 Fair Moderate Double lane paved. Fair visibility.

117

Table 4.1 - Documentation of Engineering Judgment for Group A Roads Proposed for Motorized Mixed Use on Umpqua National Forest p 2 of 4 Road Termini Crash Rating Traveled Way Traffic Roadside Conditions Segment Oper. Max. Shoulder and Impact and Surface Width Speed Comments and Mitigation No. Name Length Mntc. Begin End BMP EMP Probability Severity Grades Volume Ditch Escape Roll-Over Type (feet) (mph) (miles) Level (%) Potential Hazards

Double lane paved. High traffic volume includes commercial haul from End of Douglas 3.10 4 End of pavement 0.000 3.100 High High Asphalt 24 <5 H 30-40 Fair / Good High private timber lands. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and County road 17C place OHV restricted sign at Douglas County road 17C. 2700-290 High traffic volume includes commercial haul from private timber lands. 5.83 4 End of pavement 3.100 8.931 High High Gravel 17+ <5 H 25-35 Fair / Good High intersection Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of 2700-290 2.28 4 4714 intersection 8.931 11.212 High Moderate Gravel 19+ <12 H 20-25 Good Moderate OHV use. Place OHV restricted sign at the entrance to Lake in the Woods intersection Campground (Road 2700-418). Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of 0.80 3 4714 intersection 2715 intersection 11.212 12.007 High Moderate Gravel 19+ <12 H 20-25 Good Moderate OHV use. Little River - 2715-510 27 Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of Quartz Mtn. intersection / OHV use. Place OHV restricted signs at the entrances to Hemlock Lake 2.41 3 2715 intersection Hemlock Lake 12.007 14.421 High High Gravel 15+ <10 H 20-25 Fair High Campground (Road 2700-495) and Hemlock Meadows Campground / Boat Boat Launch Launch ( Road 2700-510). access 2715-510 intersection / 2700-625 Moderate / 2.89 3 Hemlock Lake 14.421 17.310 Moderate High Gravel 15+ <10 M 15-25 Fair Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. intersection High Boat Launch access Potential for future heavy private commercial rock haul from Quartz 2700-625 Moderate / 12.29 3 28 17.310 29.600 Moderate High Gravel 15+ <10 M 15-25 Poor / Fair Mountain. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV intersection High restricted sign at 28. 2715-225 / Moderate / Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted 3.67 3 27 Youklut Pillars 0.000 3.665 Moderate High Gravel 14+ <10 M 15-25 Fair High sign on 2715-225. access 2715 Snowbird 2715-225 / Moderate / Moderate / 14.99 3 Youklut Pillars 28 3.665 18.650 Low Gravel 14+ <10 L 15-35 Fair / Good Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. High High access 3701 int. (start of Moderate / Moderate / Significant traffic volume, including commercial and FS equipment 6.74 4 2715 intersection 39.010 45.750 Moderate Gravel 14+ <10 M 15-25 Fair / Good movement, as primary connector between upper South Umpqua area and South Umpqua - pavement) High High 28 Hwy. 138 / N. Umpqua Corridor. Should mitigate with signs warning of Copeland Creek 3701 int. (start of 7.00 4 State Highway 138 45.750 53.022 High High Asphalt 14+ <10 M 20-30 Poor / Fair High OHV use and place OHV restricted side at end of segment at French pavement) Junction. Moderate / Moderate / 2.84 3 End of pavement 2947 intersection 14.640 17.480 Moderate Gravel 14+ <5 M 25-35 Good High High Jackson Creek - Road has tendency to washboard. Should mitigate with signs warning of 29 8.77 3 2947 intersection 2830 intersection 17.480 26.250 Moderate High Gravel 14+ <10 L 20-25 Fair High Buckeye Creek OHV use and place OHV restricted signs at segment ends. Moderate / Moderate / 10.26 3 2830 intersection 2838 intersection 26.250 36.510 Moderate Gravel 14+ <10 M 25-35 Good High High 2925 Black Canyon 0.30 3 29 0.296 0.000 0.296 Low Moderate Gravel 14+ <5 L 25 Good Moderate Bridge and paved bridge approaches included. Staging area before bridge.

2950 Squaw Creek 1.00 3 2925 End of ML 3 0.000 1.000 Low Moderate Gravel 14+ <5 L 25 Fair Moderate 3114-645 Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted 3114-600 Whiskey Camp 1.93 3 2925 0.590 2.516 Low Moderate Gravel 12+ <5 L 20-25 Fair Moderate intersection sign at 2925.

118

Table 4.1 - Documentation of Engineering Judgment for Group A Roads Proposed for Motorized Mixed Use on Umpqua National Forest p 3 of 4 Road Termini Crash Rating Traveled Way Traffic Roadside Conditions Segment Oper. Max. Shoulder and Impact and Surface Width Speed Comments and Mitigation No. Name Length Mntc. Begin End BMP EMP Probability Severity Grades Volume Ditch Escape Roll-Over Type (feet) (mph) (miles) Level (%) Potential Hazards

Double lane paved. High traffic volume includes access to Watson Falls End of pavement / Moderate / 7.03 5 State Highway 138 0.000 7.030 High High Asphalt 22 <8 H 30-50 Poor / Fair recreation site. Possible commercial haul of 50,000 cubic yards of rock for 3703 intersection High Hwy. 138 project in 2012. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. 37 Fish Creek Possible commercial haul of 50,000 cubic yards of rock for Hwy. 138 End of pavement / RR/Sis NF project in 2012. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Ties into 7.89 3 7.030 14.920 Moderate Moderate Gravel 15+ <12 M 25-35 Fair / Good Moderate 3703 intersection Boundary Rogue R. / Siskiyou NF Road 6560. Coordinate with Rogue R. / Siskiyou NF for appropriate signing at Forest boundary. Moderate / Moderate / 6.33 3 28 37 intersection 0.000 6.328 Moderate Gravel 14+ <10 M 20-35 Fair / Good Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. High High 3701 Big Camas 5.35 3 37 intersection State Highway 138 6.328 11.680 Moderate Moderate Gravel 15+ <7 M 25-35 Fair / Good Moderate Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. 3703-100 3.77 3 37 0.000 3.770 Moderate Moderate Gravel 15+ <8 M 25-35 Fair / Good Moderate Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. intersection 3703 Three Lakes 3703-100 Moderate / Moderate / 10.82 3 State Highway 230 3.770 14.590 Moderate Gravel 14+ <12 L 20-35 Fair Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. intersection High High Double lane paved. This short segment of road links 3816 with 3817 for an OHV loop opportunity. Adjacent dispersed recreation area used as Moderate / 38 Steamboat Creek 0.16 4 3816 intersection 3817 intersection 9.620 9.780 Low Moderate Asphalt 25 <5 M 25-35 Good industrial campsite may incur use as staging area. Should mitigate with High signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted signs at ends of segment. This single lane paved road segment is included in an OHV loop 3816 Reynolds Creek 0.92 2 Start of pavement 3850 7.720 8.640 Low Moderate Asphalt 14 <5 L 15-30 Poor / Fair Moderate opportunity. A standing NEPA decision ideintified the road for decommissioning, and future pavement maintenance is not anticipated. This single lane paved road is included in an OHV loop opportunity. Should Moderate / 3817 Bend Creek 2.08 2 38 3850 intersection 0.000 2.080 Moderate Asphalt 14 <8 M 15-25 Fair / Good High mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted sign at High road 38. Pavement on some areas of this single lane road is in severe and hazardous Homestead deteriorating condition and no future asphalt maintenance is planned, but 3818 5.64 2 38 End of pavement 0.000 5.640 Moderate High Asphalt 14 <8 L 15-25 Poor / Fair High Creek will be opportunistically converted to gravel. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted sign at road 38. Bulldog - Moderate / Moderate / This single lane paved road is included in an OHV loop opportunity. Should 3850 0.90 2 3817 3816 intersection 0.000 0.900 Moderate Asphalt 14 <8 M 15-25 Poor / Fair Reynolds High High mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. This isolated section of single lane pavement is in deteriorating conditon 4713-100 Jack Point 2.43 2 Start of pavement End of pavement 3.230 5.660 Low Moderate Asphalt 14 <5 L 20-25 Poor / Fair Moderate and future asphalt maintenance is not anticipated. Single lane ML 2 paved road is under consideration for conversion to ML 3. Significant traffic volume, including commercial and FS equipment movement, as primary connector between upper Little River area and Hwy. Moderate / Moderate / 4714 Panther Creek 5.99 2 State Highway 138 4714-330 0.000 5.990 High Asphalt 14 <10 M 15-30 Fair / Good 138 / N. Umpqua Corridor. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. High High Consider not starting mixed use until after bridge and paved approaches over N. Umpqua River. Panther Creek Trailhead may incur use as staging area.

4714-355 Single lane ML 2 paved road is under consideration for conversion to ML 3. 1.07 2 4714 0.000 1.070 High High Asphalt 14 <10 M 20-30 Poor High intersection Significant traffic volume, including commercial and FS equipment 4714-300 Up Panther movement, as primary connector between upper Little River area and Hwy. 4714-355 2.87 2 2703 1.070 3.940 Moderate Moderate Asphalt 14 <10 M 20-30 Good Moderate 138 / N. Umpqua Corridor. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use intersection and place OHV restricted sign at 2703.

119

Table 4.1 - Documentation of Engineering Judgment for Group A Roads Proposed for Motorized Mixed Use on Umpqua National Forest p 4of 4 Road Termini Crash Rating Traveled Way Traffic Roadside Conditions Segment Oper. Max. Shoulder and Impact and Surface Width Speed Comments and Mitigation No. Name Length Mntc. Begin End BMP EMP Probability Severity Grades Volume Ditch Escape Roll-Over Type (feet) (mph) (miles) Level (%) Potential Hazards This single lane road segment is included in an OHV loop opportunity. Grassy Ranch - Low / Good visibility. Traffic includes access to Steamboat Falls Campground. 4760 0.77 3 Start of pavement 4713 intersection 18.280 19.045 Low Moderate Asphalt 14 <5 M 25-35 Fair / Good Singe Creek Moderate Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use and place OHV restricted sign at beginning of segment. 4775 Medicine Creek 3.96 2 38 End of pavement 0.000 3.960 High High Asphalt 14 <10 M 20-30 Poor / Fair High Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use.

Double lane paved to access for inactive dump site. Staging area near 0.37 4 State Highway 138 End of pavement 0.000 0.366 Low Moderate Asphalt 24 <5 M 40-50 Good Moderate Highway 138 intersection. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use.

60 Windigo Pass 4.15 3 End of pavement 2612 intersection 0.366 4.520 Low Moderate Gravel 21 <5 M 40-50 Good Moderate Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Ties into Deschutes NF Deschutes NF 7.69 3 2612 intersection 4.520 12.210 Low Moderate Gravel 16+ <8 L 20-25 Fair Moderate Road 60. Coordinate with Deschutes NF for appropriate signing at Forest boundary boundary. RR/Sis NF 6800-500 Moderate / Should mitigate with signs warning of OHV use. Ties into Rogue R. / 8.69 3 12.760 21.450 Low Gravel 14+ <10 L 20-25 Fair High Boundary intersection High Siskiyou NF Road 68. Coordinate with Rogue R. / Siskiyou NF for 68 Huckleberry Gap appropriate signing at Forest boundary. Place OHV restricted sign before 6800-500 Moderate / 7.21 3 29 21.450 28.660 Low Gravel 14+ <10 L 20-25 Fair High 29 road. End mixed use at staging area (MP 28.60) south of bridge to intersection High exclude bridge and paved approaches.

6800-500 Cowhorn Arch 0.25 3 68 End of ML 3 0 0.25 Low Moderate Gravel 14+ <5 L 15 Fair Moderate

120

APPENDIX 5 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION: TERRESTRIAL SPECIES

Terrestrial Species

I. INTRODUCTION

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to "ensure" that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Endangered, Threatened or Proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. Also, the Forest Service established direction (Forest Service Manual 2672.4) to guide habitat management for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Sensitive species to ensure that these species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

This Biological Evaluation (BE) analyzes the effects of the proposed Travel Management Plan for the Umpqua National Forest on terrestrial wildlife species listed as Threatened, Endangered or Proposed by the USDI-Department of Fish and Wildlife and those listed as Sensitive by the USDA-Forest Service (most recent Regional Forester's Lists of Sensitive Species for Region 6 dated January 2008 for animals). The Regional Forester's List of Sensitive Species includes species documented or suspected of occurring on each National Forest. The analysis for fish and plant species is conducted under separate documents.

II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The project area is comprised of the federal lands managed by the Umpqua National Forest in Douglas County, located in southwestern Oregon. As directed by the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the Umpqua National Forest proposes to designate a system of roads and trails for wheeled motor vehicle use and to non-significantly amend the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; 1990) to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system. This amendment would change travel management direction on the Forest from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed,” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.” To meet this national direction, the Umpqua Forest is evaluating four alternatives of managing non-winter use by wheeled motor vehicles:

1. The No Action alternative - Although this alternative would not fully implement the 2005 Travel Rule, it is included in the analysis to comply with National Environmental Policy Act regulations. The No Action Alternative establishes a baseline from which other alternatives may be compared. Information on current conditions is based on road and trail mapping prepared at the Forest level following management direction.

121

2. Alternative A - This alternative was prepared to implement the 2005 Travel rule and establishes a road and trail system on which motorized use is authorized. Alternative A is a revision of the Proposed Action which the Umpqua Forest used as a tool to accomplish public interaction and comment. 3. Alternative B - Like alternative A, this alternative implements the 2005 Travel Rule by establishing an authorized motor vehicle use network of roads and trails. This alternative expands upon Alternative A with additional road and trail segments within the motorized network requested in public comments. 4. Alternative C – This alternative also establishes a motorized use network of roads and trails, but reduces the roads and trails open to motorized use based on public comments.

It should be noted that none of these alternatives is intended to alter current regulations for over-the-snow motorized (snowmobile) travel during the winter months. Additional information on alternative specifics can be found in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment prepared for this project.

III. ANIMAL SPECIES SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE LISTED SPECIES

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Status: Threatened

The northern spotted owl utilizes mature forests for both nesting and foraging and is considered to be an old growth obligate species. Land management activities to maintain adequate habitat for this species are guided by Recovery Plan for the Spotted Owl (USDI 2008) and the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Key elements in these conservation strategies are Late Successional Reserves (LSR's), designated Recovery Habitat (MOCA's) and buffer areas around spotted owl activity centers.

The following definitions were used to prepare this analysis:

Suitable Habitat - Nesting/roosting/foraging (NRF) habitat that is capable of supporting a reproductive pair of spotted owls. In general, these are multi-storied old stands with average overstory trees in excess of 30 inches in diameter at breast height. Large snags and down wood elements are common.

Dispersal Habitat - Forested areas which can support individuals as they disperse across the landscape, but lack the large diameter trees needed as nesting sites. These stands may provide for some foraging as well as roosting and protection from predators. For this analysis, dispersal habitat is based upon FEMAT mapping, and stands 80 years of age or older, but

122

not classified as “suitable habitat” are generally considered to be dispersal habitat.

Unsuitable Habitat - Those areas which are capable of developing into either suitable or dispersal habitat but which do not currently meet the definition of either.

These habitat types can be impacted in the following ways:

Habitat Removal - When a stand of suitable or dispersal habitat is converted to unsuitable habitat.

Habitat Degradation - When components of suitable or dispersal habitat are removed from a stand, but the stand is expected to continue to function in the same habitat classification.

Habitat Downgraded - When suitable habitat is altered sufficiently such that it is expected to function as dispersal habitat after treatment.

Management activities may also have an effect to resident nesting owls resulting from disturbance. If these activities are above ambient noise levels and are reoccurring and frequent, or of long duration, they may alter breeding and reproductive activities. Disturbance activities within 60 meters of historic nest stands or computer predicted occupied habitat between March 1 and July 15 may cause effects likely to adversely effect the owl, while disturbance activities in these locations conducted from July 16 to September 30 may result in effects that are not likely to adversely effect owls. Activities conducted after September 30th but prior to March 1 will have no effect resulting from disturbance to owls.

The Travel Management Plan Umpqua National Forest evaluates four different alternatives for future management of non-commercial motor vehicle use for the Umpqua National Forest. Since none of the alternatives propose creation of new roads or trails, no adverse impacts to the availability of spotted owl habitat are anticipated. No alternative will remove, downgrade or degrade available habitat. Existing levels of suitable and dispersal habitat will remain. All alternatives will have “No Effect” to designated recovery habitat. Potential impacts are limited to disturbance related to motor vehicle use.

Established effects analysis procedures developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have identified an assumed disturbance zone averaging 60 meters from motorized vehicles. This distance was used to evaluate the potential impacts to reproductive sites resulting from each of the five alternatives.

123

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C # of sites with 482 49 49 43 authorized motorized vehicle access Acreage of motorized 1,345 42 42 34 disturbance within 60m of reproductive site

The No Action alternative is the existing condition in which off-road/trail vehicle use is legal. With this alternative all Forest reproductive sites (compilation of historic and computer generated activty centers) are legally accessed by motor vehicle. With action alternatives (Alternatives A, B and C), off-road/trail is is prohibited and the reduction in disturbance potential is displayed.

The No Action alternative represents current conditions. It would have “No Effect” to spotted owl recovery habitat, the availability of suitable or dispersal habitat, or the potential for reproductive disturbance when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all result in a reduction in the number and acreage of potential disturbance to spotted owl reproductive sites. The motor vehicle use management plan implemented with any of these alternatives “May Effect” the degree to which reproductive spotted owls may be disturbed by motorized vehicles adhereing to Forest policy. Since these alternatives reduce the potential for disturbance, they are “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” spotted owl reproductive efforts or recovery objectives.

All alternatives are compliant with the 34 Recovery Actions and identified critical habitat (MOCA’s) identified in the current (2008) Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. Likewise, all alternatives are compliant with the previous draft recovery plan (1992) and critical habitat (CHU’s) identified at that time.

North American Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Status: Threatened

Lynx occupy the boreal forests of North America, and in the west half of the U.S. are found most frequently in subalpine fir forests. Survey efforts utilizing DNA methodology were conducted in 1999, 2000 and 2001 across the Umpqua National Forest and throughout the Cascade mountain range. None of these surveys have detected lynx anywhere in the Oregon Cascades.

In July of 2000, an interagency team of lynx biologists ( the Lynx Biology Team) met to evaluate lynx distribution records and to make recommendations regarding habitat mapping and the application of the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (January 2000). This group determined that the available information did not warrant including the area west of the Cascade Crest as potential lynx habitat. It also recommended that land management guidelines in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy not be applied west of the Cascade Crest. These

124

recommendations were accepted by the Lynx Steering Committee and formalized in regional direction (9-19-2000). Given that the area west of the Cascade Crest is not lynx habitat, all alternatives will have “No Effect” to lynx.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium), Salamander slug (Gliabates oregonius), Oregon shoulderband (Helminthoglyta hertleini), Oregon megomphix (Megomphix hemphilli), Chace Sideband (Monadenia chaceana), Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma articum crateris)

These mollusk species are found in riparian areas (Evening fieldslug, Crater Lake tightcoil), mature conifer forest (salamander slug and Oregon megomphix), near forest openings (Oregon shoulderband), or near talus or rock outcrops (Chace sideband). Each of these mollusk species have low mobility and have small home ranges areas as a result. Riparian areas, mature conifer forest near openings and rocky outcrops can all be found on the Umpqua National Forest. Of these suitable habitat types, only riparian areas are mappable at the Forest scale. The amount of riparian habitat which may be legally impacted by motorized use is illustrated in the table below:

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of riparian habitat 226,936 1,445 1,448 1,341 with authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative would continue the present policy of permitting off-road/trail motorized use. This alternative would have “No Effect” to current conditions because it is the current condition. Alternatives A, B and C all restrict off-road/trail motorized use which will lessen motorized recreational use impacts to suitable habitat. These alternatives will have a “Beneficial Impact” to suitable habitat for these species.

Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) Preferred habitat is late successional and old-growth coniferous forests that contain mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium (dwarf mistletoes). The Johnson’s hairstreak is considered to be the only old-growth obligate butterfly. The species lays its eggs on the mistletoe and the larvae feed on all exposed parts of the host plant. Adults feed on flower nectar (including Oregon grape, Pacific dogwood, ceanothus, pussy paws, and Rubus species) and nectar of the mistletoe. This species is believed to spend most of its time high in the canopy, only occasionally coming down to the forest floor. Range is local and scarce throughout Pacific Northwest. A detailed summary of habitat associations, life history traits, range/distribution etc. are documented in a species fact sheet on the Forest Service-Bureau of Land Management Pacific Northwest Interagency Special Status /Sensitive Species Program website:

125

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050906-fact-sheet- johnsons-hairstreak.doc.

All alternatives utilize currently existing roads and trails. None of the alternatives would alter existing levels of old growth with mistletoe. All alternatives will have “No Effect” to this species.

Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon) and Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper (Chloealtis aspasma) The Mardon skipper (Polites mardon) is a small, tawny-orange butterfly currently found at only four geographically disjunct areas in northwest California, southwest Oregon, the southern Washington Cascades, and one population in the south Puget Sound region of western Washington. Populations in southern Oregon occupy small (0.5 to 10 ac), higher-elevation (4,500 to 5,100 ft) grasslands within mixed conifer forests. They are usually associated with a water source (USDA Forest Service 2007).

The Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper occurs in grassland/herbaceous habitats (i.e. high elevation meadows and clear-cuts, grassy hilltops). It is distributed in two general areas in the state, one in Southern Oregon (Jackson Co.) and the other in Benton Co. The species appears to be associated with blue elderberry plants (Sambucus caerulea). Females lay eggs in the pith of elderberry stems in the summer. Eggs hatch the following year. Juveniles forage in open meadows near the ground. The species feeds on grasses and forbs. Additional life history information and habitat associations are documented in a species fact sheet: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050906-fact-sheet- chloealtis-aspasma.doc

Herbaceous openings identified from satellite imagery in the 4,500 foot to 5,100 foot elevation band are considered as potential habitat for these two species for this analysis. The amount of mapped suitable mardon skipper/Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper habitat impacted by motorized vehicles is displayed in the table below.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable mardon 6,694 27 27 21 skipper/Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper habitat with authorized motorized use

Currently off-road/trail OHV use is allowed, and such activity has the potential to adversely impact higher elevation grasslands that may be suitable for the mardon skipper and Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper. The No Action alternative continues to authorize this recreational use. Because this is the current condition, Alternative A will have “No Effect” when compared to the status quo. Alternatives A, B and C all prohibit off-road/trail motorized use during the summer months. These alternatives would

126

lessen any chance of adverse impact to suitable habitats. Alternatives A, B and C will have a “Beneficial Impact” on potential habitat for the mardon skipper and Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper.

Coronis fritillary (Speyeria coronis coronis) Habitat associations described by Pyle (2002) are lower elevation canyons and grasslands as well as mid-montane meadows and forest margins and openings. Eggs are laid on species of violets (Viola) late in the summer and overwinter before emerging the following spring to begin foraging on host plants. Adults are nectar-feeders often foraging on thistle plants. For this analysis, suitable habitat is considered to be the available herbaceous forest openings below the 4,500 elevation. The amount of mapped suitable coronis fritillary habitat impacted by motorized vehicles is displayed in the table below.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable coronis fritillary 13,198 53 53 43 habitat with authorized motorized use

Off-road/trail motorized use would remain authorized under the No Action alternative. This alternative would have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and C) all prohibit off-road/trail use and instead focus these activities to existing roads and trails. These alternatives will have a “Beneficial Impact” to suitable coronis fritillary habitat.

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)

This species is an aquatic salamander found in or very close to cold seeps and streams. Typically, they occur in the splash zone where rocks are covered by a thin film of water, but in wet weather they may move a short distance into the surrounding vegetation. The distribution of this species is generally in the Coast Range, but a small isolated population has been documented in the Steamboat area of the Umpqua National Forest (Leonard, et al 1993). Suitable habitat for this analysis is considered to be riparian areas within the Steamboat Creek watershed. The amount of suitable southern torrent salamander habitat impacted by motorized vehicles is displayed in the table below.

No Action Alt B Alt B Alt C Acres of Steamboat Basin 25,263 157 157 148 riparian habitat with authorized motorized use

lessen motorized recreational use impacts to suitable habitat. These alternatives will have a “Beneficial Impact” to suitable habitat for the southern torrent salamander.

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) and Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus)

Corkran and Thoms (1996) describe suitable habitat for yellow-legged frogs as low gradient streams with exposed bedrock or rock substrates. The northwestern pond turtle also inhabits ponds, swamps and slow moving rivers. The common kingsnake is rare in the Pacific Northwest and habitat descriptions are based on relatively few records. The little information available indicates common kingsnakes prefer thick vegetation along major streams and rivers. Suitable habitat for these species for this analysis is riparian areas associated with standing waterbodies and major streams at lower elevations of the Forest.

The amount of suitable foothill yellow-legged frog/northwestern pond turtle/common kingsnake habitat impacted by motorized vehicles is displayed in the table below.

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Acres of suitable habitat 9,366 126 126 119 with authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative would continue the present policy of permitting off-road/trail motorized use. This alternative would have “No Effect” to suitable habitat when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all restrict off-road/trail motorized use which will decrease impacts to suitable habitat. Alternatives A, B and C will all have a “Beneficial Impact” to suitable habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle and common kingsnake.

Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa)

The spotted frog is more dependent upon aquatic environments than other frogs. Preferred habitat is wetlands with slack water dominated by grasses or non-woody vegetation (Leonard, et al 1993). It was once common west of the Cascade Crest, but recently populations have shown a marked decline. The introduction of exotic species and urban development are believed to be the chief causes of this decline. Populations may still occur in higher elevation lakes and wetlands. Suitable habitat for this species in this analysis is the area within 200 feet of waterbodies at higher elevations of the Forest. The table below displays the amount of suitable habitat impacted by alternative.

128

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Acres of suitable habitat 1,573 5 5 5 with authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative would continue the present policy of permitting off-road/trail motorized use. This alternative would have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all restrict off-road/trail motorized use which will lessen motorized recreational use impacts to suitable habitat. These alternatives will have a “Beneficial Impact” to suitable habitat for the Oregon spotted frog.

Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)

Yellow rails are secretive birds that inhabit wetlands and meadow areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The majority of the species breeds in the far northeast portions of Canda and winters along the Gulf Coast, but an isolated population has been recorded in Oregon. Breeding locations are often in sedge areas, and rarely in cattail stands (Bookout 1995). Suitable habitat is limited to large (greater than 50 acres) herbaceous meadows with perennially damp soil and dominated by sedges, cattails or other marsh vegetation. Motorized use may impact suitable habitat through direct degradation from rutting and vegetation damage. Additionally, motorized use may impact resident yellow rails through disturbance. The table below displays the amount of suitable habitat impacted by motorized use for each alternative.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable habitat 393 10 10 4 with adverse impacts from authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative would continue the present policy of permitting off-road/trail motorized use. This alternative would have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all restrict off-road/trail motorized use which will lessen motorized use impacts to suitable habitat. These alternatives will have a “Beneficial Impact” to suitable habitat for the yellow rail.

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Horned grebe (Podiceps auritis) and red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena)

The bufflehead is a small diving duck that nests in northern latitudes of Canada. It winters along the coast. During migration it can be found on large bodies of water. Gauthier (1993) records a year-round population occuring in the Willamette Valley. On the Umpqua National Forest, this species is considered to be a migrant, with seasonal use occurring on large

129

waterbodies. Horned grebes have been reported breeding on large wetland and lakes in Oregon in the Klamath Marsh area. In our area, both grebe species occurrence would be expected to be limited to periods of migration (Stedman 2000) (Stout and Nuechterlein. 1999).

For this analysis, suitable habitat for these three species is comprised of larger (greater than 5 acre) waterbodies. Motorized use may disturb these species within these waterbodies. The impacts of this disturbance is identified in the table below.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable habitat 3,469 30 30 28 with adverse impacts from authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative would continue the present policy of permitting off-road/trail motorized use. This alternative would have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all restrict off-road/trail motorized use which will lessen motorized use impacts to suitable habitat. These alternatives will have a “Beneficial Effect” to suitable habitat for the bufflehead, horned grebe and red-necked grebe.

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

Peregrine falcons are rather large birds of prey which forage primarily upon other bird species. Habitat elements needed by peregrines include large cliff faces for nesting and areas with abundant bird populations for foraging sites. On the Umpqua National Forest 14 active peregrine falcon nests have been identified. Each nest has an identified nest management zone. Together, these nest management zones total 218, 571 acres. Given the inaccessible location of falcon nests, the only anticipated impact from motorized use is through disturbance.

Currently, road management policy around these nesting areas incorporates seasonal restrictions to minimize potential disturbance. However, since off- road/trail motorized use is not prohibited with the No Action alternative any such use during the nesting period has the potential to disturb falcons at the nest. The No Action alternative would have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all prohibit off-road/trail motorized use. These alternatives also incorporate seasonal use restrictions to minimize disturbance at known falcon nest locations. Alternatives A, B and C will all have a “Beneficial Effect” to peregrine falcons.

130

Northern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

The bald eagle is a raptor that preys largely upon fish and is most often associated with rivers or lakes. Primary habitat components include clean water with abundant populations of fish and large wolfy perch trees and roost sites located nearby. Nest and roost trees are often the biggest trees available with stout limbs capable of supporting large nesting structures. Nest trees must also have suitable flight paths into the nest and offer good visibility of the surrounding terrain. On the Umpqua National Forest, bald eagle nests have been verified at Diamond Lake, Lemolo Lake and Toketee Lake.

The No Action alternative retains current policy of allowing off-road/trailmotorized use. Such activity has potential to disturb nesting eagles. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) recommend managing motorized recreation use within 330 feet of nest sites. There are 289 acres (dry land) on the Umpqua Forest where this potential disturbance might occur with the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative would have “No Effect” to bald eagle nest disturbance when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all prohibit off-road/trail motorized use and incorporate use restriction designed to eliminate this potential disturbance. Alternatives A, B and C all have a “Beneficial Effect” to potential disturbance at bald eagle nest sites.

Harlequin Duck (Histronicus histronicus)

Harlequin ducks utilize high elevation turbulent, mountain streams during the breeding season and then migrate to rocky ocean shorelines for the winter months. Little is known about the breeding habitat requirements, but based on the few available records; nest locations appear to be on the ground under overhanging vegetation, rocks or stream debris. Nest locations are adjacent to rapids or other turbulent water. The species feeds mainly on animal matter including mollusks, crustaceans, insects and fishes. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1991) lists the Umpqua River Basin above Roseburg as one of five main potential habitat areas within the state. Potential habitat for this species occurs in moderate gradient streams across the Forest, although they are not mappable with current computer mapping information.

The No Action alternative retains current policy of allowing off-road/trail motorized use. Should this activity occur along streams with harlequin duck use, it has the potential to disturb these birds. The No Action alternative has “No Effect” to harlequin duck habitat when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all prohibit off-road/trail motorized use and would reduce potential disturbance. Alternatives A, B and C have a “Beneficial Effect” to harlequin duck habitat.

131

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) and White-headed woodpecker ( Picoides albolarvatus)

The Lewis’ woodpecker is found in open habitats, favoring open canopies forest with brushy understories. This woodpecker is found most often in open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodlands dominated by cottonwood and pine forest that has been logged or burned. It may also inhabit oak or oak/dry coniferous forests. Food items include free-living (not wood boring) insects, acorns, other nuts and fruits (Tobalske 1997). The white-headed woodpecker is most often associated with large diameter, old growth pines and open canopies. In our area it favors ponderosa pine and sugar pine due to the high value seed production of these species. (Garret, Raphael and Dixaon 1997). Suitable habitat for these species is identified using vegetation mapping conducted by the Forest Wildlife Biologist which identified oak, ponderosa pine and sugar pine opportunity areas. There are 165, 995 acres of this suitable habitat. The potential impact of motorized use is the disturbance of resident woodpeckers. For this analysis a disturbance distance of 100 feet is assumed. The degree of this disturbance is identified in the table below.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable habitat 165,995 17,877 18,015 15,364 with disturbance from authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative continues to authorize continued off-road/trail travel. This alternative will have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all result in a reduction in potential disturbance and would have a “Beneficial Effect” to Lewis’ and white-headed woodpeckers.

Purple martin (Progne subis)

This species ia a common and well known backyard species in the eastern US, but in our area it has a patchy and irregular distribution. Preferred habitat includes lowland areas such as agricultural fields, wetlands, lakes, and shrublands that provide suitable flying insect forage base. The purple martin is a secondary cavity nester, requiring suitable woodpecker created cavities for successful reproduction (Brown 1997). Suitable habitat is identified as large (greater than 100 acre) non-forested areas including meadows, wetlands and shrublands. For this analysis a disturbance distance of 100 feet is assumed. The degree of this disturbance is identified in the table below.

132

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable habitat 1,539 59 59 59 with disturbance from authorized motorized use

Black Swift (Cypseloides niger)

The black swift is an insect-eating bird, foraging while on the wing. This species is a summer migrant, coming to the area to nest and rear young. Very few nest locations are known, owing to the relative inaccessibility of the nests and little inventory work to document the presence of the species. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Sensitive Species at Risk (1996) identifies 5 key ecological features required for black swift nesting locations:

1. The presence of some degree of flowing water 2. The presence of a high degree of relief, such that swifts exiting the nest can immediately be at a foraging altitude 3. An inaccessible site tom prevent nest harassment and predation 4. A nesting location such that sunlight does not reach the nest 5. The presence of an unobstructed flyway in front of the nest location.

Most documented black swifts nests have been behind active waterfalls that meet the above criteria.

The remote locations of known black swift nests are essentially inaccessible by motorized vehicle. All alternatives will have “No Effect” to black swift nest locations.

Pacific shrew (Sorex pacificus cascadensis)

Habitat information for this species is limited. Verts and Carraway (1998) describe suitable habitat simply as “moist wooden areas with fallen decaying logs and brushy vegetation”. Suitable shrew habitat is considered to be forested stands at least 10 years of age. Given the broad description of potential habitat, most of the forested areas of the Umpqua Forest is considered to be potential habitat. Motorized use has the potential to adverse impact suitable habitat or cause disturbance within the road or trail prism. The amount of suitable habitat impacted by motorized vehicles is displayed in the table below.

133

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable habitat 989,606 7,720 7,773 6,542 impacted by authorized motorized use

The No Action alternative would continue to authorize off-road/trail travel. This alternative will have “No Effect” when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all result in a reduction in potential disturbance and would have a “Beneficial Effect” to the pacific shrew.

Pacific pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus pacificus) and Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

The pacific pallid bat is usually associated with desert areas. On the west side of the Cascades, they are restricted to the dry, interior valleys (Verts and Carraway 1998) at lower elevations. Documented roost locations of this species include cliffs, caves, buildings, trees and bridges. The fringed myotis has been classified as a cave dweller, but records also exist of it utilizing human structures.

Roost locations for these bat species are unlikely to be adversely affected by motorized use of the Forest. Disturbance from motorized use is also considered to be unlikely as these nocturnal animals are active during periods where motorized use is lowest. All alternatives are expected to have “No Effect” to the pacific pallid bat and fringed myotis.

Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Important habitat elements for wolverine are an adequate forage base and large areas free from human disturbance. Winter surveys for wolverine were conducted on the Umpqua National Forest during the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. No verified wolverine sightings, tracks or dens were ever located. Wolverines can occupy a wide variety of habitat types, including all areas of the Umpqua National Forest. Important habitat characteristics are areas free from disturbance and an adequate forage base. Motorized use would impact potential wolverine use primarily through displacement and disturbance caused adverse impacts to the large ungulate forage base.

For this analysis, seclusion habitat is considered to be those areas greater than a quarter mile from a road or trail open to motorized vehicles. The amount of available wolverine seclusion habitat is displayed in the table below.

134

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of available seclusion 0 304,281 302,009 358,356 habitat

The No Action alternative would continue the present policy of authorized off- road/trail motorized use. This alternative would offer no areas of wolverine seclusion and would continue to allow off-road/trail disturbance to the ungulate forage base. The No Action Alternative would have “No Effect” to current wolverine habitat characterisitics when compared to current conditions. Alternatives A, B and C all prohibit off-road/trail motorized use. This regulation of motorized use would provide seclusion areas free from motorized disturbance and reduce disturbance to the ungulate forage base. Alternatives A, B and C would have a “Beneficial Effect” on wolverine habitat conditions.

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti)

Fishers are relatively large forest carnivores of boreal forest regions of the U.S. Generally they are reported to occupy lower elevational areas, but in the western Cascades of Oregon they have also been reported in higher elevations including the area around Crater Lake National Park (Verts and Carraway 1998). Deep, fluffy snow packs may limit movements and distribution. Important habitat elements include mature forests with high canopy closures and abundant down wood. Fishers appear to have a wide variety of prey species including snowshoe hares, squirrels, voles, mice, and porcupines. For this analysis, suitable fisher habitat is considered to be mature forests greater than 80 years of age as identified in satellite imagery. The amount of suitable habitat impacted by motorized vehicles is displayed in the table below.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of suitable habitat impacted 740,809 414,380 416,121 371,973 by authorized motorized use

______Jeff Bohler Wildlife Biologist

135

Literature Cited

Bookout, T.A. 1995. Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). In The Birds of North America, No. 139 (A.Poole and F.Gills, Eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Brown, Charles R. 1997.Purple Martin (Progne subis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/287

Corkran, C. C. and C. R. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing. 175 pp.

Garrett, Kimball L., Martin G. Raphael and Rita D. Dixaon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252

Gauthier, G. 1993. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). In The Birds of North America, No. 67 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D. C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Leonard, P. L. et al. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 168 pp.

Nussbaum R.A., E.D. Brodie and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID. 332 pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1991. Sensitive Vertebrates of Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Species at Risk, Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Vertebrates of Oregon.

Pyle, R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. A Field Guide to all the Species of Washington, Oregon, and Surrounding Territories. Seattle Audubon Society. 420 pp.

Stedman, Stephen J. 2000. Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/505

136

Stout, Bonnie E. and Gary L. Nuechterlein. 1999. Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/465

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’ Woodpker (Melanerpes lewis). In The Birds of North America, No. 284 (A. Poole and F.Gill, eds). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Conservation Assessment for the Mardon Skipper. 43 pp.

USDI. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 121 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2007. Methodology for estimating the number of northern spotted owls affected by proposed federal actions. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 25 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Oregon. Xii + 142 pp.

Verts, B.J. and L.Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, CA. 668 pp.

Travel Management Plan for the Umpqua National Forest Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Interest

The Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains 8 Management Indicator Species: Northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, pine marten, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, and “cavity nesters”. The northern spotted owl is a federally listed species and the bald eagle and peregrine falcon are Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive species. Agency direction requires that Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species receive special consideration in land management decisions. The analysis for these TES wildlife species is accomplished under a separate document: the wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for this project. This analysis also considers potential impacts to another set of wildlife species, identified as rare and uncommon species. These rare and uncommon species are: Chace sideband, Oregon shoulderband, Oregon megomphix, evening fieldslug, Crater Lake tightcoil, great grey owl, white-headed woodpecker,

137

black-backed wodpecker, pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl. Taken together, these two groups (non-TES Management Indicator Species and rare and uncommon terrestrial wildlife species) are analyzed in this document and referred to as “terrestrial wildlife species of interest”.

Umpqua Forest Plan Management Indicator Species (Except TES species which are evaluated in the project’s Biological Evaluation)

Pileated woodpecker and pine marten Pileated woodpeckers may forage in forests as young as 40 years of age, but require stands at least 70 years of age for roosting and nesting. Pine marten are often found in lodgepole pine and mountain hemlock forest types, they are not limited to these areas. Mature forest stands with high canopy closures and abundant and complex forest floor structure is frequently cited as important components of pine marten habitat. Such habitat conditions provide an abundance of small animals and suitable conditions for marten to successfully pursue them. For this analysis, suitable habitat for both pileated woodpeckers and pine marten is considered to be mature forests greater than 80 years of age.

The amount and potential impacts to suitable habitat for pileated woodpecker and pine marten are essentially the same as those described for the pacific fisher in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation prepared for this project. In summary, the No Action alternative would continue to allow off-road/trail motorized use while Alternatives A, B and C all restrict non-winter motorized use to designated roads and trails. Alternatives A, B and C would all result in reductions to potential disturbance of suitable habitat. All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction in regards to pileated woodpeckers and pine marten.

Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus) and Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) Due to their high recreational value, elk and black-tailed deer are included as Forest Management Indicator Species. Habitat assessment for these species often uses an analysis process with forage, cover and road density as habitat model elements. The Umpqua Forest Travel Plan project would not alter any of the existing cover or forage habitat conditions. The only anticipated change in elk and deer habitat conditions would be to changes in motorized use.

The changes in disturbance for three subsets of the Umpqua National Forest are included: winter range, summer range and calving/fawning areas. For this analysis, winter range is defined as those areas identified in the Umpqua Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) as Management Area 11; with additional areas of concentrated winter use determined from Oregon Department

138

of Fish and Wildlife telemetry research. Summer range is identified as those areas of the Forest not included in winter range. Calving/fawning areas were identified from telemetry research and from Forest Service personnel knowledge of districts. All alternatives include some level of seasonal restrictions for both winter range and calving/fawning areas.

Research at the Starkey Experimental Forest established a mean flight distance of 137 meters for all-terrain vehicles. The extent of disturbance from authorized motorized activity on these habitat components is displayed in the table below.

No Action Alt A Alt B Alt C Winter Range 406,738 95,077 95,305 86,836 disturbance Summer 624,847 216,707 217,09 182,65 Range disturbance Calving/fawnig 139,618 54,437 55,737 52,104 disturbance

The No Action alternative continues to allow off-road/trail motorized use; this alternative has the greatest negative impacts to elk/deer habitats from motorized disturbance. Alternatives A, B and C all prohibit off-road/trail motorized use and would decrease potential disturbance from current conditions. Of these, Alternative C results in the least amount of motorized vehicle disturbance. All alternative comply with Forest Plan direction for Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer.

Cavity nesters As a group, “cavity nesters” were identified as a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species to ensure adequate amounts of standing dead trees for all wildlife species. The administrative authorization or restriction of existing roads and trails is not expected to yield changes in standing dead tree levels across the Forest. All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding cavity nesters.

Rare and Uncommon Species

Terrestrial mollusks Rare and uncommon mollusk species (including Oregon shoulderband, Oregon megomphix, evening fieldslug, Crater Lake tightcoil, and Chace sideband) are included in the Biological Evaluation prepared for this project. In summary, the No Action alternative would continue to allow off-road/trail motorized use while Alternatives A, B and C all restrict non-winter motorized use to designated roads and trails. Alternatives A, B and C would all result in reductions to potential

139

disturbance of suitable habitat. All alternatives are consistent with Forest Service objectives and direction in regards to rare and uncommon mollusk species.

Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) Red tree voles are found in mature forests, spending most of their time inhabiting Douglas- fir trees. The administrative changes in motorized use proposed by all alternatives will have no impact to suitable red tree vole habitat. All alternatives are consistent with Northwest Forest Plan objectives and direction for the red tree vole.

Great grey owl (Strix nebulosa) Great grey owls are large raptors most often associated with edges of meadows, riparian zones and openings. They have also been documented to forage in created openings including clearcuts and heavily thinned forest stands. They were included as rare and uncommon species due to concerns for modifications to large diameter (30 inch) nesting trees. None of the project alternatives would result in losses to existing suitable nest trees. All alternatives are consistent with Northwest Forest Plan objectives and direction for the great grey owl.

White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) Each of these species is a cavity nester. They were included as rare and uncommon species to ensure retention of adequate amounts of snag habitat. As identified earlier in the “Cavity Nesters” section, none of the project alternatives will impact standing snag levels. All alternatives are consistent with Northwest Forest Plan objectives and direction for the white-headed-woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl.

______

Jeff Bohler Wildlife Biologist

140

APPENDIX 6 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION: AQUATIC SPECIES

AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

For the TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Umpqua National Forest

December 2009

Prepared by:

______Date:___17 December 2009______Jeff Dose Fisheries Biologist Umpqua National Forest Roseburg, Oregon

141

Introduction As a consequence of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212) the Forest has been directed to produce a Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) that identifies and designates motorized routes; including roads, trails, and areas, where motorized vehicular traffic is allowed.

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to evaluate the effects of the project on Oregon Coast (OC) Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), OC Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), OC Steelhead (O. mykiss), Pacific Coast Chum salmon (O. keta), Umpqua Chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti), Oregon Chub (O. crameri), Western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) and Rotund Lanx (Lanx subrotunda) listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Magnusson-Stevens Act (MSA) - including designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and/or as Sensitive by the USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester in December of 2007 (Regional Forester 2007).

Project Location The project is located Forest-wide on existing roads, trails, and areas. The extent of authorized motorized routes varies by alternative. Under the current (existing) condition, motorized use (all vehicle classes) is authorized on 4,616 miles of roads, 149 miles of trails, and 624,359 acres.

Construction Activities No new construction is proposed under any alternative, but changes in vehicle class use; such as allowing OHV’s on existing snowmobile trails and designating camping corridors, are proposed in some alternatives.

Project implementation is expected to occur in spring, 2010 with the signing of the Record of Decision and subsequent publication of the MVUM.

Affects to Aquatic Species - General Affects to ESA-listed, MSA-EFH designated and Regional Forester-designated Sensitive aquatic species from the designation of certain existing roads, trails and areas are expected to be somewhat beneficial (unquantified) because all Action Alternatives would reduce the amount of authorized motorized use relative to the existing condition. This reduction in use could allow for vegetative regrowth which would reduce erosion and improve soil stability. In particular, the elimination of nearly all off-road use and closure of ML-1 roads that have significant aquatic resource values (perennial stream crossings) are features of all Action Alternatives.

Oregon Coast (OC) Coho Salmon (ESA Threatened and MSA-EFH Designated) OC Coho salmon are found throughout the Umpqua River basin portion of the project area below impassable natural and man-made barriers. Adult coho return to Forest streams in the fall and early winter to spawn in most small and medium-

142

sized tributaries to both the North and South Umpqua Rivers in lower gradient stream reaches on deposits of small to medium-sized gravel. Juveniles emerge the following spring and rear for one year in tributaries and mainstem reaches before out migrating to the ocean. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: No direct impacts should occur as no actions are proposed within the channels, or that would directly affect the channels, of any stream reaches which may be inhabited by this species. Indirect impacts may occur due to project related sediments entering streams during spawning and early rearing life history stages. The probability of significant sediment delivery to fish bearing streams is discountable due to project design features common to all alternatives.

Pacific Coast (PC) Chum Salmon (MSA and RF sensitive) Unconfirmed reports indicate that chum salmon occurred in the South Umpqua River on the Tiller Ranger District in the 1930’s and 40’s within the Elk Creek drainage. Currently, chum salmon have been occasionally reported in lower Umpqua River, approximately 180 miles downstream of the National Forest boundary. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: This project will have no affect to chum salmon.

Oregon Coast (OC) Chinook (MSA-EFH and RF sensitive) Nearly all the Chinook salmon returning to Forest waters are spring-run fish that leave the ocean and migrate upstream in late spring and spend the summer in the deep pools of the mainstems and larger tributary streams of the North and South Umpqua Rivers. They spawn in the low to moderate gradient reaches utilizing larger spawning substrate than the other salmonids. Temperature requirements are similar to the other species. Juvenile spring Chinook use the mainstems and lower ends of some tributaries as a thermal refuge during the low flow, warm water period. Juvenile outmigration times are variable, with peaks in spring and fall months at ages ranging from a few months to one and one-half years. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: No direct impacts should occur as no actions are proposed within the channels, or that would directly affect the channels, of any stream reaches which may be inhabited by this species. Indirect impacts may occur due to project related sediments enters streams during spawning and early rearing life history stages. The probability of significant sediment delivery to fish bearing streams is discountable due to features common to all alternatives.

Oregon Coast (OC) Steelhead Trout (ESA Candidate) Steelhead, which are anadromous rainbow trout, are the most abundant and widespread salmonid species in the Umpqua River basin. Two races are present within Forest streams, summer-run and winter-run, based on their timing of return from the ocean. The North Umpqua River basin has both types while only winter-run fish are found in the South Umpqua basin. Spawning occurs over an

143

extended period running from December until May, resulting in steelhead eggs and/or alevins that may be present in gravels from December until mid-July. Upon emergence from their spawning gravel, juveniles take up residence in pools and lateral channel margins. As they grow, juveniles move into deeper and faster waters, and increasingly use areas with cover (large wood, surface disturbance, bubble curtains) in these waters. OC Steelhead over-winter in deep, low velocity pools, and backwater areas along the mainstem and larger tributaries. Freshwater rearing for juvenile steelhead in the Umpqua basin is commonly two or three years, with the peak of outmigration in the spring. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: Impacts are the same as for OC Coho salmon above.

Umpqua Chub (sensitive) This chub is endemic to the Umpqua basin (mainstem Umpqua, South Umpqua, and to a lesser extent North Umpqua river systems). Habitat selection by the chub is moderate to slow flowing water (runs and channel margins). Collections conducted in 1987 showed the occupied sites to range in temperature from 17-26 degrees C with an average of 21.5 degrees C. Spawning occurs in May and June on rocky substrate. Observations in aquaria reveal they are a bottom-oriented fish, which will surface to grab prey items then return to the bottom. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: This project will have no affect on Umpqua Chub.

Oregon Chub (ESA Threatened) This chub, which closely related to the Umpqua chub, is endemic to the Willamette River basin (Coast Fork, Middle Fork, mainstem Willamette, Row, McKenzie, and Santiam Rivers). Within the Forest, only one occupied site for this species exists, within the Row River basin on the Cottage Grove District. Habitat selection by the chub is moderate to slow flowing water (runs, side channels and channel margins) with extensive aquatic vegetation. Summer water temperatures at occupied sites range from 17-26 degrees C with an average of 21.5 degrees C. Spawning occurs in May and June over rocky substrate. Observations in aquaria reveal they are a bottom-oriented fish, which will surface to grab prey items then return to the bottom. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: This project will have no affect on Umpqua Chub.

Western Ridged Mussel (sensitive) Western ridged mussels occur in streams of all sizes and are rarely found in lakes or reservoirs. They are found mainly in low to mid-elevation watersheds, and do not often inhabit high elevation headwater streams where western pearlshells can be found. They are more tolerant of fine sediments than western pearlshells and occupy depositional habitats and banks. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with unstable or very soft substrates. Mussels spend their first few years buried in the sediment. During this time, they grow fast to protect against predators and the

144

crushing and erosive force of rocks and water. Once mature, they spend most of their lives partially buried, with their posterior end sticking above the surface of the sediment. Freshwater mussels are confined to permanent water bodies, including creeks, rivers, ponds, and lakes. They are often absent or sparse in high-gradient, rocky rivers where the erosive forces of rocks and water may be too strong for juveniles to become established. Creeks and rivers usually support the greatest diversity of mussels, perhaps because they provide a variety of habitat conditions, reliable flow, good water quality, and diverse fish communities. Species that live in flowing water usually prefer mud, sand, gravel, and cobble; flow velocities adequate to keep the water and sediment well oxygenated; and depths that are not prone to dewatering during dry periods. Recent research has shown that mussels may concentrate in areas with stable flow and substrate conditions.

Freshwater mussels are unique among bivalves in that they require a host fish to complete their life cycle. The female mussel carries the fertilized eggs in the gills until they develop into a parasitic stage called glochidia. Female mussels then release the glochidia into the water column where they must come into contact with a suitable host fish species. Once the glochidia are released they will survive for only a few days if they do not successfully attach to a host fish. After successfully attaching to the host fish, glochidia metamorphose and drop to the substrate to become free-living juveniles. Suitable substrates include those that are firm but yielding and stable. In general, shifting sands and suspended fine mud, clays and silt are considered harmful to both juvenile and mature mussels. Although considered fairly sedentary, adult mussels may move in response to abnormal or transient ecological events. A 2006 mussel survey of the South Umpqua found a single specimen 5 miles upriver from Tiller. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: This project will have no affect on this specie.

Rotund Lanx (sensitive) The rotund lanx is a small freshwater limpet (length 10-20 mm) with a patelloid shell that is slightly convex with a height about 2/3 of length, and the width slightly exceeding length. The midline of apex is displaced distinctly posteriorly with a complete muscle scar, a reddish-brown to yellowish shell and growth rings in concentric circles from apex, base horizontal, flat. The type locality is on the Umpqua River in Douglas County, OR. Current distribution appears to be scattered and local in portions of the Umpqua River below the confluence with Little River, all of Little River, portions of the South Umpqua and major tributaries above Roseburg, and Cow Creek. The rotund lanx is found in unpolluted rivers and large streams at low to moderate elevations, in highly oxygenated, swift- flowing, cold water on stable cobble, boulder or bedrock substrates where aquatic macrophytes and epiphytic algae are generally rare to absent. The lanx is not found in pools or slow water locations with sediment or silt deposition, or in sites that are exposed during low water conditions. A 2006 aquatic mollusk

145

survey found this species in the mainstem North Umpqua, but not in the South Umpqua. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: No direct impacts should occur as no actions are proposed within the channels, or that would directly affect the channels, of any stream reaches which may be inhabited by this species. Indirect impacts may occur should significant project-related sediments reach suitable habitat. Feeding/foraging success could be adversely impacted due to sediments smothering prey species. The probability of significant sediment delivery to streams is discountable due to project design features.

146

APPENDIX 7 WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS DECLARATION

WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS DECLARATION For the TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Umpqua National Forest

December 2009

Prepared by:

______Date:___21 December 2009______Debra Gray Hydrologic Technician Umpqua National Forest Roseburg, Oregon

147

Construction Activities No new construction is proposed under any alternative, but changes in vehicle class use; such as allowing OHV’s on one existing snowmobile trail and designating camping corridors, are proposed in some alternatives.

Project implementation is expected to occur in spring, 2010 with the signing of the Record of Decision and subsequent publication of the MVUM.

Wetlands and Floodplains Floodplains are associated with perennial streams and vary from only a few feet to much larger areas, depending on the size of the stream and the topography of the stream banks and surrounding area. No new occupancy of floodplains would occur due to actions in any of the proposed Action Alternatives.

The environmental effects of the activities within the floodplain have been evaluated and would be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and declared in the associated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS March, 1990). Since the activities in this project follow those Standards and Guidelines, this activity would not be declared separately.

Umpqua Basin TMDL This analysis incorporates recommendations of the 2007 Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Order.

148

APPENDIX 8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY VEHICLE TYPE AND SEASON OF USE

Tables A8.1 through A8.8 compare alternatives by vehicle type and season of use. Proposed designations are presented in relation to existing roads, trails and areas so the reader can distinguish between ML 1 roads (proposed motorized trails) and trails (existing trails). Table A8.1 – Season of Use Dates by Alternative SEASON OF USE EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED (All Alternatives) Winter Range (5/1 – 11/30) Winter Range (5/1 – 11/30) Cottage Grove District Calving (7/1 – 11/30) Calving/Fawning (7/1 – 11/30) Tiller District Calving (6/15 – 2/28) Peregrine (8/1 – 12/31) Raptors (8/16 – 12/31)

Table A8.2 – Season of Use by Maintenance Level: Existing Condition EXISTING CONDITION Winter Calving Peregrine Open Total Range Yearlong miles (ML1) 416 0 0 635 1052 (ML 2) 811 14 11 2119 2955 (ML 3-5) 10 0 0 511 521

Total 1238 14 11 3265 4528 ML 1 = Vehicles 50” or less in width ML 2= Mixed Use ML 3-5 =Highway legal vehicles

Table A8.3 – Proposed Motorized Routes by Vehicle Type and Season of Use: Alternative A ALTERNATIVE A Winter Calving/ Raptors Open Motorized◊ Non- Total Range Fawning Yearlong Motorized◊◊ miles 50” or 131 69 6 351 557 495 1052 Less* Mixed 828 40 16 2268 3152 0 3152 Use** Hwy 0 0 0 324 324 0 324 Legal***

Total 959 109 22 2943 4033 495 4528 * Existing ML 1 roads, does not include existing trails proposed for motorized use ** ML 2 roads and those ML 3-5 roads proposed as open to non-highway legal vehicles *** ML 3-5 roads proposed as open to highway legal vehicles only ◊ Roads proposed for motorized use (i.e., seasonal + open yearlong = motorized) ◊◊ Roads not proposed for motorized use (i.e., total miles – motorized = non-motorized)

149

Table A8.4 – Proposed Motorized Routes by Vehicle Type and Season of Use: Alternative B ALTERNATIVE B Winter Calving/ Raptors Open Motorized◊ Non- Total Range Fawning Yearlong Motorized◊◊ miles 50” or 142 75 6 347 570 482 1052 Less * Mixed 827 40 16 2209 3092 0 3092 Use** Hwy 2 0 0 382 384 0 384 Legal***

Total 971 115 22 2938 4056 482 4528 * Existing ML 1 roads, does not include existing trails proposed for motorized use ** ML 2 roads and those ML 3-5 roads proposed as open to non-highway legal vehicles *** ML 3-5 roads and those ML 2 roads proposed as open to highway legal vehicles only ◊ Roads proposed for motorized use (i.e., seasonal + open yearlong = motorized) ◊◊ Roads not proposed for motorized use (i.e., total miles – motorized = non-motorized)

Table A8.5 – Proposed Motorized Routes by Vehicle Type and Season of Use: Alternative C ALTERNATIVE C Winter Calving/ Raptors Open Motorized◊ Non- Total Range Fawning Yearlong Motorized◊◊ miles 50” or 1 0 0 1 2 1050 1052 Less * Mixed 827 40 16 2208 3091 0 3091 Use** Hwy 2 0 0 383 385 0 385 Legal***

Total 830 40 16 2592 3478 1050 4528 * Existing ML 1 roads, does not include existing trails proposed for motorized use ** ML 2 roads and those ML 3-5 roads proposed as open to non-highway legal vehicles *** ML 3-5 roads and those ML 2 roads proposed as open to highway legal vehicles only ◊ Roads proposed for motorized use (i.e., seasonal + open yearlong = motorized) ◊◊ Roads not proposed for motorized use (i.e., total miles – motorized = non-motorized)

150

Table A8.6 – Proposed Motorized Roads by Vehicle Type and Season of Use, by Alternative ROADS Vehicle Season of Current Alternative Alternative Alternative Type Use Condition A B C Open to highway Yearlong 511 324 382 383 legal Winter Range 10 0 2 2 vehicles Calving/Fawning 0 0 0 0 only Raptors 0 0 0 0 Non-Motorized 0 0 0 0 Open to all Yearlong 2119 2268 2209 2208 vehicles Winter Range 811 828 827 827 Calving/Fawning 14 40 40 40 Raptors 11 16 16 16 Non-Motorized 0 0 0 0 Open to vehicles Yearlong 635 351 347 1 <50” in Winter Range 416 131 142 1 width and Calving/Fawning 0 69 75 0 < 800 lbs. Raptors 0 6 6 0 Non-Motorized 0 495 482 1050

Total Motorized 4528 4033 4046 3478 Total Non-Motorized 0 495 482 1050

Total Roads 4528 4528 4528 4528

151

Table A8.7 – Proposed Motorized Trails by Vehicle Type and Season of Use, by Alternative TRAILS Vehicle Season Current Alternative Alternative Alternative Type of Use Condition A B C Open to all classes Yearlong 7 7 7 7 Seasonal* 0 0 0 0 Open to vehicles Yearlong 41 0 0 0 <50” Seasonal* 33 18 91 73 Open to Motorcycle Yearlong 52 46 46 0 only Seasonal* 16 18 18 0

Total Motorized 149 89 162 80 Total Non-Motorized 624 684 611 693

Total Trails 773 773 773 773 * Season of Use = Winter Range (5/1 – 11/30)

Table A8.8 – Areas Open and Closed to Motorized Cross-Country Travel by Alternative MOTORIZED CROSS-COUNTRY EXISTING PROPOSED AREA RESTRICTIONS CONDITION (All Alternatives) acres acres Closed to motorized cross-country 358,784 983,153 travel Open to motorized cross-country travel 426,589 0 Open seasonally (5/1-11/30) to 197,780 0 motorized cross-country travel TOTAL 983,153 983,153

152