draft recreation reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...forest service (fsm...

1

Draft Recreation Report Ursus Vegetation and Fuels Management Project

Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest September 26th, 2014 Ginelle Heller

DRAFT

2

Table of Contents NO TABLE OF FIGURES ENTRIES FOUND. ..................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

REPORT COMPLETED: SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2014 ......................................................................................................... 4

3.7 RECREATION AND LAND USES ................................................................................................................................ 4 3.7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

3.7.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Forest-wide Land and Resource Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 4 Trail System Management .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Specially Designed Trails: Metolius-Windigo Recreation Trail ..................................................................................... 5

Land and Resource Management Plan Management Areas ........................................................................................... 5

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum .................................................................................................................................. 6

Forest Plan Consistency ................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.7.3 RECREATION – ANALYSIS METHODS ........................................................................................................................... 9 Analysis Methods – Recreation Resources ..................................................................................................................... 9

Recreation Resources –Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Recreation Resources –Scenery .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recreation Resources –Safety ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recreation Resources –Access ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recreation Resources –Recreation Use, Experience ..................................................................................................................... 9 Recreation Resources –Revenue ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Analysis Methods – Land Uses ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Land Uses—Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Land Uses—Access ......................................................................................................................................................................10 Land Uses—Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................................10

4. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE FOLLOWING RECREATIONAL RESOURCE PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA WOULD BE UTILIZED (TABLE 1). ............................................................................................... 10

3.7.4. Existing Condition- Summer and Winter Trails .................................................................................................. 12 Existing Condition -- Dispersed Recreation .................................................................................................................................17 Existing Condition – Land Uses ...................................................................................................................................................17

3.7.5 Desired Future Condition .................................................................................................................................... 17

3.7.6 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................................... 18 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Infrastructure ...........................................18 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Scenery ......................................................................18 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Access........................................................................18 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Public Safety ..............................................................18 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Use, Experience, and Revenues ...............18

DRAFT

3

Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation .............................................................................................19 Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation—Infrastructure ....................................................................19 Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation—Safety ...............................................................................19 Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation—Recreation Use, Experience and Revenue ........................19 Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Infrastructure ....................................................................................20 Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Safety ...............................................................................................20 Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Access ..............................................................................................20 Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Revenue ...........................................................................................20 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails ..............................................................................20 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Infrastructure ..................................23 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Scenery .............................................................23 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Access ...............................................................24

TIMING OR SEASON WHEN RECREATIONAL ACCESS MAY BE AFFECTED .............................................................................. 24 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Safety ................................................................25 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Use and Experience ........................25 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Revenue ............................................................25

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternatives 2 and 3– Dispersed Recreation .................................................................... 26

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternatives 2 and 3– Land Uses ...................................................................................... 26 Direct and Indirect Effects—Alternatives 2 and 3—Land Uses—Infrastructure .........................................................................26 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3—Land Uses—Safety ........................................................................................26 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3—Land Uses— Access ......................................................................................27 Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3—Land Uses— Revenue ....................................................................................27

3.7.5 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Cumulative Effects –Alternatives 2 and 3 – Summer and Winter Trails ......................................................................................27 Cumulative Effects –Alternatives 2 and 3– Dispersed Recreation ...............................................................................................28 Cumulative Effects–Alternatives 2 and 3– Land Uses .................................................................................................................28

LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................................................ 29 APPENDIX– GUIDANCE FOR TRAIL DEFINING TREES ......................................................................................... 30

DRAFT

4

Report Completed: September 26th, 2014

Report Completed By: Ginelle Heller

3.7 Recreation and Land Uses 3.7.1 Introduction The following report specifically addresses the effects of the proposed Ursus Vegetation Management Project on the existing social character and condition (setting), as well as on recreation opportunities and experiences for the area.

Within the 5,969 acre Ursus Project Area there are no developed recreation areas or facilities. The majority of the area receives only light dispersed recreation use, and the majority of this use is on the Mrazek and Farewell Trails. The public utilizes the Ursus planning area primarily for camping (dispersed), hiking, mountain biking, OHV driving, snowmobiling, and gathering firewood. Other activities include, but are not limited to, big-game hunting, driving for pleasure, snowshoeing, and wildlife viewing. Of the dispersed activities the most popular use is mountain biking the Mrazek Trail and Farewell Trail as well as snowmobiling the Triangle Hill Trail #88 and snowmobile Trail #8. The project area also encompasses a very small portion, a half mile, of the Metolius-Windigo Trail, which is used primarily by equestrian and mountain bike visitors. This area of the Deschutes National Forest has not seen the dramatic increase in use that other areas of the Bend-Fort Rock District have seen. This is likely due to the lack of facilities and water bodies, location, and amount/variety of recreation opportunities available. The area also supports outfitter/guide and recreation event operations for mountain biking, hiking, running, backpacking, and snowmobiling. There is also one communication site on Bear Wallow Butte within the project boundaries.

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework The Ursus project is within the Deschutes National Forest and is therefore subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in compliance with the regulations as adopted by the National Forest Service (FSM 1950). The preparation of this report to be included in the Environmental Assessment is in accordance with the requirements for the environmental analysis of the project area (36 CFR 220.7).

The Forest Plan for the Deschutes National Forest provides forest-wide standards and guidelines, and it also provides standard guidelines for an array of land uses referred to as Management Areas. These standards and guidelines provide direction on providing, maintaining, and protecting recreation infrastructure and experience during management activities. The Forest Plan also defines the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for areas across the Forest. ROS is a method for classifying types of recreation experiences available, or for specifying recreation experience objectives desired in certain areas.

Forest-wide Land and Resource Management Plan The following forest-wide standards and guidelines related to the recreation experience inform how management activities proposed in the Ursus project area would be implemented:

Trail System Management Goal: To maintain the existing trail system and provide additions or modifications to the system which will meet the increasing and changing demands in dispersed recreation. To the extent possible this system will provide trails of all difficulty levels, trails in visually appealing settings, and trails for those modes of travel appropriate for the Forest in both winter and/or summer.

DRAFT

5

TR-3: Trails will be located or relocated whenever possible where they will not be disrupted by developmental activities such as logging or road building. Where disturbance of a trail cannot be avoided cleanup should be concurrent. Reassurance markers and signing will be maintained to avoid inconveniencing trail users. TR-6: Volunteer groups and individuals will be encouraged to maintain and construct parts of the trail system. TR-21: In addition to winter use of OHV’s, the Forest will provide additional opportunities for summer use of OHV’s and other OHV’s such as motorcycles. Part of the Forest service road system that is not maintained for public use and that is not involved in logging operations may be opened for this use. TR-25: The trail will coexist in harmony with all other uses and activities of the land as determined through the land management process. TR-26: When resource activities occur immediately adjacent to or across the trail, the integrity of the trail proper will be protected by modified management practices as needed.

Specially Designed Trails: Metolius-Windigo Recreation Trail RE-35: The intent of this trail was to not add additional constrains on other resource management activities. Management practices for a variety of resources will be encountered along the trail.

Land Uses

To provide for the use and occupancy of the National Forest system by individuals or Federal, state, and local governments when such use will not detract from specific management area direction, is in the public interest, and cannot reasonably be served by development on non-National Forest System land. There are no forest-wide standards and guidelines for Deschutes National Forest that specifically inform how management activities proposed in the Ursus project area should be implemented for land uses.

Land and Resource Management Plan Management Areas The following Management Areas and standards and guidelines related to the recreation experience inform how management activities proposed in the Ursus project area would be implemented (Figure 1).

Winter Recreation – MA-13

Goal: To provide quality winter recreation opportunities within a forest environment that can be modified for visitor use and satisfaction. M13-1: The emphasis is to manage the area for dispersed, winter-type, recreational activities. Dispersed recreation use in the summer is compatible but not emphasized. M13-5: Timber management will be designed to provide suitable conditions for winter recreation; however, timber will not be scheduled as part of the chargeable program. Rotation ages and silvicultural prescriptions can vary to meet recreation objectives. Clearcuts are acceptable to provide opening for snow play areas or to open up vistas for visual purposes. Firewood cutting is permissible. Timber harvesting activities will normally be conducted outside of the winter recreation season. Timber harvesting is also permitted to address catastrophic situations such as fire or insect and disease damage but the primary objective even in these situations will be to improve winter recreation opportunities. M13-15: Fuel treatment other than prescribed fire: The lowest cost option which meats the recreation, soil, water and fire objectives should be used.

DRAFT

6

Old Growth – MA-15

Goal: To provide naturally evolved old growth forest ecosystems for (1) habitat for plant and animal species associated with old growth forest ecosystems, (2) representations of landscape ecology, (3) public enjoyment of large, old-tree environments, and (4) the needs of the public from an aesthetic spiritual sense. M 15-2: Vegetative manipulation to maintain the old growth character of some areas may conflict with recreation use, but such occurrences should be limited in size and number.

Front Country – MA-18

Goal: To provide and maintain a natural appearing forested landscape on the slopes of the northeast Three Sisters and Tam McArthur Rim while providing high and sustainable levels of timber production. M18-2: Openings resulting from vegetative management activities in areas viewed from significant viewer locations will be designed to follow natural topographic features, to avoid geometric shapes and straight lines, and to be sized to simulate naturally occurring openings. For management activities which may result in visible openings in the forest canopy, a landscape architect will be consulted on the location, size, and configuration for treatment units. M18-4: Two years after management activities are concluded, they will not be obvious when viewed from significant viewer locations. M18-21: Traditional informal campsites, hunter camps, or areas where concentrated recreation use occurs will be recognized as being significant in producing and utilizing dispersed recreation opportunities. Prescriptions for harvesting, cleanup, site preparation, and thinning will consider the environmental setting that contributes to the attraction of these sites for recreation purposes. The attempt will be made to maintain this attractive character during and after treatments. M18-22: Recreation use can be discouraged or prohibited: in areas where timber harvesting activities are occurring or when public safety is being threatened.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a description of various attributes that contribute to a particular recreational setting. The ROS describes recreational settings in terms of the “combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place” (Clark and Stankey 1979). Figure 2 shows the ROS settings for the project area. The ROS settings that apply to the Ursus project include:

• Roaded Natural – This is the setting for the majority of the project area. “The area is characterized by predominately natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction among users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities. Large mammals tolerant of humans may be present; those not tolerant present infrequently. There is a prevalence of smaller species (Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Appendix 2-1).”

• Semi-Primitive Motorized (Winter Only) – This is the setting for a small area in the southwestern corner of the project area. “The area is characterized by a predominately natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a sway that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is permitted. Wildlife species mid-range between those tolerant of human presence and those not (Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Appendix 2-1).”

DRAFT

7

When resource activities occur immediately adjacent to or across from the trails, the integrity of the trail proper will be protected by modified management practices.

Forest Plan Consistency The standards and guidelines are being met through project design criteria.

Figure 1 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Management Area Allocations for the Ursus project area.

DRAFT

Recreation Report Ursus EA

8

Figure 2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications for the Ursus project area.

DRAFT


9

3.7.3 Recreation – Analysis Methods Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to recreation resources were analyzed by determining the degree of disturbance directly associated with the different types of proposed activities, any secondary effect indirectly associated with the proposed action, and the cumulative effects of all actions affecting the resource within the area of potential effect. The analyses of environmental effects to recreational resources and permitted land uses included in this report are based on the following assumptions:

Detailed descriptions of the proposed action and alternatives are included in Chapter 2 of the Ursus Project Environmental Assessment and are not repeated in this report. Effects of the alternatives are based on those descriptions.

Analysis Methods – Recreation Resources Recreation resources: damage and/or change to recreation infrastructure, scenery (as it affects the recreational setting), public access, public safety, recreation use/experience, and revenues generated by the recreational special uses (outfitter guides and events), and tourism are the attributes most affected by the proposed action and alternatives.

Recreation Resources –Infrastructure This report analyzes the potential for damage and or changes to infrastructure. Damage and/or change to recreation infrastructure owned by the US Forest Service or privately owned and authorized under special use permit. This includes improvements such as buildings, signs, and trails.

Recreation Resources –Scenery • Short, mid-term, and long-term effects to scenic values including views, the physical recreational

setting, and to people’s perception of the “natural” quality of their recreational experience. Effects to scenery resources are fully documented in the Scenery Resources section of the EA.

Recreation Resources –Safety • Effects to public’s safety including ingress and egress to recreation areas and safety during the use of

facilities and areas.

Recreation Resources –Access • Type and scope of access affected. • Timing or season when recreational access may be affected.

Recreation Resources –Recreation Use, Experience • Effect on recreation use and experience in affected area. • Effect on recreation use and experience in other area (e.g., displacement).

Recreation Resources –Revenue • Effects on revenue including permitted special uses (outfitter/guides and events) and tourism.

Analysis Methods – Land Uses Permitted Land Uses: Change to access, safety, and revenue generated by permitted land uses (communication site land leases) are the attributes that may be affected by the proposed action and alternatives.

Land Uses—Safety • Effects to human safety including ingress and egress to areas accessed by the permit holder and safety

during the use of facilities and areas.

DRAFT


10

Land Uses—Access • Type and scope of access affected. • Timing or season when access may be affected.

Land Uses—Revenue • Effects on revenue generated by permitted land uses.

4. Effects of the action alternatives are based on assumptions that the following recreational resource project design criteria would be utilized (Table 1).

Table 1 Recreational and Land Use Resource Project Design Criteria for Alternatives 2 and 3

Trai

ls

Disp

erse

d

Recr

eatio

n

RECREATION ACCESS

X X

Avoid creating vegetative conditions that would facilitate the creation of unauthorized trails or that would facilitate unauthorized motorized access from a designated route. Ensure that temporary roads used for project administration do not become future unauthorized roads and trails by effective obliteration after use. Utilize opportunities during operations to obliterate unauthorized routes. Leave vegetation or slash at access points. Where additional controls are necessary, burry large rocks (2-3 feet in diameter) one-third of the way up the rock and/or scattered over the first 100 yards of road.

All Treatment Units

X

To the extent possible, implementation of treatments will be designed to minimize the duration of closures to the trail system. If possible, schedule treatments that require closure of trails to minimize closure time. Ideally treat units with summer trails in the same season and year to minimize the duration of closures.

All Summer Trail Units: 34, 35, 37, 38, 65, 66, 71, 76, 119, 123, 125, 154, 161, 163, 164, 165, 168, and 170

X X Travel routes to recreation sites also identified as haul routes are signed to inform the public of the shared corridor.

All Treatment Units with Winter and/or Summer Trails. Summer Trail Units: 34, 35, 37, 38, 65, 66, 71, 76,119, 123, 125, 154, 161, 163, 164, 165, 168, and 170

Winter Trail Units (mostly along Forest Service Road 4601 and 4602): 23, 45, 52, 54, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 76, 91, 93, 94, 102, 119, 140, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 170, 172, and 200,

DRAFT


11

X

Treatments will be conducted outside winter recreation season dates of December 1st to March 30th to comply with standard M13-5 unless otherwise negotiated with the Bend-Fort Rock District Recreation staff.

Winter Trail Unit: 170

Trai

ls

Disp

erse

d

Recr

eatio

n

SAFETY and INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE

X

Emphasize retention of trail defining vegetation, including snags, living trees (Appendix – Guidance for Trail Defining Trees), and in some areas brush. Maintain trees along trails that will help to define the trail within lodgepole stands with harvest regeneration prescriptions and stands with overstory (salvage) removal where understory stands are not tall enough to define the trail. This vegetation is part of the trail infrastructure and should be protected. Incorporate specific components into the silvicultural prescription that will retain these features and use trained Forest Service marking crew to mark trail-defining trees. Coordinate with trails staff prior to treatment design and implementation to define site specific goals.

All Summer Trail Units: 34, 35, 37, 38, 65, 66, 71, 76,119, 123, 125, 154, 161, 163, 164, 165, 168, and 170

X

To minimize trail damage by machinery, to the extent possible, cross trails with machinery at intervals no closer than 200 feet apart along the length of the trail. Guard the trail tread with slash where crossing must occur. Minimize use of machinery in muddy trail conditions on or across trails. To the extent possible, landings should not be placed on the trail and should be placed away from the trail.

All Summer Trails Units: 34, 35, 37, 38, 65, 66, 71, 76,119, 123, 125, 154, 161, 163, 164, 165, 168, and 170

X Snow berms created by treatment activities which conflict with winter recreation routes or create hazards will be leveled immediately where standards are recognized in Road Use Permit stipulations.

All Overstory and Understory Treatment Units with Winter Trails.

Winter Trail (mostly along Forest Service Road 4601 and 4602) Units:

23, 45, 52, 54, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 76, 91, 93, 94, 102, 119, 140, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 170, 172, and 200

X

Ensure signs and reassurance markers are restored to original location/condition if damage occurs during operations. Where possible, retain trees that hold signs (including diamonds that act as reassurance markers on trails). Because trail direction is hard to follow due to numerous snags with reassurance markers falling, resign trail after operations have been completed.


Winter Trail Units (mostly along Forest Service Road

DRAFT


12

3.7.4. Existing Condition- Summer and Winter Trails There are approximately 15 miles of national forest system trails within the Ursus project area (Table 2). The following analysis characterizes trails based on ‘trail designed use’, which is the use of a trail that requires the most demanding design, construction, and maintenance parameters. Other trail uses are permitted on all trails unless prohibited. For example, the Mrazek Trail designed use is mountain bike; however, hiking is also permitted on the trail. The ‘managed uses’ of a trail are those uses for which the trail is actively managed and maintained.

4601 and 4602):

23, 45, 52, 54, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 76, 91, 93, 94, 102, 119, 140, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 170, 172, and 200

X

For any cut vegetation within 6 feet of either side of the trail, cut vegetation flat and less than 4 inches to the ground to prevent creating a "pungi stick" and other hazards to trail users. At a minimum, following completion of all treatment activities, review and evaluate the trail conditions to ensure that they meet safety standards.


Winter Trail Units (mostly along Forest Service Road 4601 and 4602): 23, 45, 52, 54, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 76, 91, 93, 94, 102, 119, 140, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 170, 172, and 200

Trai

ls

Disp

erse

d

Recr

eatio

n

RECREATION USE/ EXPERIENCE

X X

Clean-up activities in treatment areas within view of trails including landings, skid trails, slash piles or staging and removal of flagging and unit boundary tags and other markings will be completed after implementation.

All Summer Trail Units: 34, 35, 37, 38, 65, 66, 71, 76,119, 123, 125, 154, 161, 163, 164, 165, 168, and 170

LAND USE ACCESS

Day Wireless Systems will be notified before operations are to occur in the treatment units 207 and 207 so that activities can be coordinated

to minimize delays and access issues to the communication site.

Treatment Units: 206 and 207

DRAFT


13

Table 2 Trails within the Ursus project area.

TRAIL DESIGNED USE MILES

HIKE 0

MTN. BIKE 5.7

EQUESTRIAN 0.5

SNOWMOBILE 8.9

TOTAL 15.1

Table 3 and Figure 3display the type and mileage of the trails with the Land and Resource Management Plan Management Areas for summer trails. The project area encompasses much of the Mrazek and Farewell Trails as well as a small section of the Metolius-Windigo Trail. Trails in the area are maintained under volunteer agreement by Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA), Central Oregon Equestrian Trails (OET), and individual volunteers.

Hiking Trails: There are no trails in the project area open only to hikers/pedestrians.

Mountain Bike Trails: Trails characterized as mountain bike trails are also open to hikers. The trail systems falling within the project area include:

Mrazek Trail: Includes the western half, 4.6 miles, of the Mrazek mountain bike trail. Locals know that the best riding conditions are in the spring and fall months when there is more moisture and the trails are not dry and dusty, however, the trails are popular with mountain bikers throughout the spring, summer, and fall.

Farewell Trail: Encompasses the northern portion of this trail, which rises out of the popular Tumalo Falls recreation area. Approximately 1.1 miles of the trail system falls within the project area. The trails are used primarily by mountain bikers and hikers.

There is a growing amount of use on these trail systems, especially by mountain bikers. ‘Shuttling’ is also popular for mountain bikers, as riders either receive a ride to the western-most parts of the trail system or use two vehicles to shuttle, and ride back into or towards Bend.

Equestrian Trails: There are approximately 0.5 miles of equestrian trails, the Metolius-Windigo Trail, within the project area. Trails characterized as equestrian trails are also open to hikers and mountain bikers.

Table 3 Summer Trails within the Ursus project area by Land and Resource Management Plan Management Area.

SUMMER TRAILS

TRAIL DESIGNED USE MANAGEMENT AREA MILES

MOUNTAIN BIKE

Front Country – Seen 4.6

Old Growth Management Area 1.1

Total Miles Within Project Area 5.6 miles

DRAFT


14

EQUESTRIAN


Winter Recreation 0.5

Total Miles Within Project Area 0.5 miles

DRAFT


15

Figure 3 Summer and Winter Trails by Land and Resource Management Plan Management Area

DRAFT


16

Table 6 and Figure 3 display the type and mileage of the trails with the Land and Resource Management Plan Management Areas for winter trails. The project area encompasses a small portion of snowmobile Trail #8 much of the snowmobile Triangle Hill Trail #88. Trails in the area are maintained under volunteer agreement by Sisters Sno-G-Fers (a local snowmobile club under Oregon State Snowmobile Association) and individual volunteers.

Snowmobile Trails: Approximately 8.2 miles of snowmobile Triangle Hill Trail #88 is located within the Ursus project area. This trail follows Forest Service roads 4601 and 4602. Due to the lower elevation, snow conditions on the trail can be poor and the trail receives relatively low use compared to Trail #8 and the snowmobile trail system leaving from Dutchman Sno-Park. There are 0.6 miles of snowmobile Trail #8 located within the Ursus project area.

Table 4 Winter Trails within the Ursus project area by Land and Resource Management Plan Management Area

WINTER TRAILS

TRAIL DESIGNED USE MANAGEMENT AREA MILES

SNOWMOBILE

Front Country – Seen/ Unseen 8.0


Winter Recreation 0.7

Total Miles Within Project Area 8.9

Table 5 Recreation events and outfitter/guides that have been permitted to operate within the Ursus project area

Season of Use Permit type Permit Holder Event Name Permitted Uses

TRAIL SYSTEM

Mra

zek

Fare

wel

l

Met

oliu

s-W

indi

go

Trai

l 8 &

Tria

ngle

Hi

ll Lo

op 8

8 Spring/

Summer Outfitter/Guide

Oregon State University- Cascades n/a

Backpacking/winter camping

X

Summer Event Mudslinger Events High Cascade

100 Mt. Bike Race X X X

Summer Event Bend Racing Adventure Race Running/ Biking X

Summer Outfitter/Guide

Bend Metro Parks and Recreation

District n/a Mtn. Biking and Hiking X X X

Summer Outfitter/Guide Central Oregon n/a Mtn. Bike classes and X X X

DRAFT


17

Season of Use Permit type Permit Holder Event Name Permitted Uses

TRAIL SYSTEM

Mra

zek

Fare

wel

l

Met

oliu

s-W

indi

go

Trai

l 8 &

Tria

ngle

Hi

ll Lo

op 8

8

Community College Hiking

Summer Outfitter/Guide Cog Wild Bicycle

Tours, LLC n/a Mountain Bike Tours and

shuttles X X X

Winter Outfitter/Guide

Central Oregon Adventures n/a Snowmobile Rides X

Existing Condition -- Dispersed Recreation Dispersed recreation includes recreation activities that take place outside of sites or areas that are developed or managed to concentrate recreation use. Use of forest roads is important for access to dispersed recreation sites and trails, hunting, and other activities like wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, gathering forest products (firewood and mushrooms) and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Driving for pleasure and motorcycle/ dirt bike riding is a recreation activity that mainly occurs on two regularly traveled forest roads, FS-4601 and FS-4602, which run through the project area. User created (unauthorized) roads and trails are illegal, but do occur within the project area. Use of these unauthorized roads and trails is prevented or discouraged with the use of boulders and signs and by pulling material (e.g., logs and brush) over the route. Firewood cutting along roads FS-4601 and FS-4602 is the most popular dispersed activity. Hunting occurs in limited amounts and mainly from spillover use in the adjacent Bear Wallows Inventoried Roadless Area to the west. Dispersed camping use is also low throughout the project area. Due to the lack of water, there are few of these sites and camping serves as a secondary activity to trail use. Two of the more popular dispersed camping sites are located on Triangle Hill and Bear Wallow Butte.

Existing Condition – Land Uses One communication site is located within the project are at Bear Wallow Butte. Day Wireless Systems is authorized to utilize this site through a special use permit. Permits are required for the gathering of special forest products such as firewood, cones, mushrooms, transplants, and rock/minerals.

3.7.5 Desired Future Condition The project area will remain a place where people can explore and experience the excitement of adventure and discovery. Opportunities for primitive recreation experiences associated with enjoying the forests and mountain views will persist and emphasize mountain biking, snowmobile riding, dispersed camping, and other dispersed recreational activities. Recreation access will be maintained, as trails for equestrians, hikers, mountain bikers, and snowmobiles will enter and cross the corridor in certain areas. It will be safer for visitors to enjoy the area and maintenance of the area’s trails will be improved.

DRAFT


18

3.7.6 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Infrastructure Dead lodgepole pine stands would continue to fall at a high rate due to the high quantity of snags, resulting in trail obstructions and increased trail maintenance needs. Recreation infrastructure including trail tread, bridges, puncheons, fords, waterbars, and other drainage features, signs, fences, and other improvements related to the trail system would not be affected other than from potential impact with a falling snag. These improvements would be subject to normal wear and tear over time. Unexpected events such as wildfire, severe thunderstorms, accidents, and vandalism may cause damage or change these improvements. The greatest threat to trail infrastructure would be from wildfire. The existing high risk of wildfire that exists within the area will not be reduced if no treatments are conducted. Wildfire could damage or destroy trail infrastructure including site identification signs and trail markers. See the Fire and Fuels section of the analysis for further discussion of wildfire effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Scenery The lodgepole pine forests would continue to experience mountain pine beetle infestations and higher than normal mortality rates unless the area experiences a wildfire event. Unsightly dead lodgepole pine stands would continue to border much of the recreational trails and roads. Wildfire could cause the greatest effects to recreational scenery, as it could greatly alter the vegetation and simultaneously the scenery within the viewshed of scenic areas along the trails and other recreational sites. The existing high risk of wildfire within the area will not be reduced under the No Action alternative since no treatments would be conducted (see the Fire and Fuels section).

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Access In the event of a wildfire in the area, access to trails may be disrupted or eliminated during the fire and after the fire to maintain public safety. Wildfire could also damage or destroy trails which could have a longer-term effect on access. Trails may need to be reconstructed or rerouted with improved drainage to prevent resource damage and maintain the trail. Effects may include disruption of services (e.g. outfitter and guide operations and ability to maintain trails), reduced access or closure access of trailheads, and/or closure of trails. Effects to recreation activities may include restriction of the trail activity within the area, requirement to access the trail activity in the area via a different trailhead, requirement to participate in the same trail activity in the area at a different time, requirement to participate the same trail activity in another area, or the inability to participate in the desired trail activity during the access disruption. The public may avoid areas not under a managed access restriction due to smoke and undesirable post-wildfire conditions. Under the No Action alternative, there would also be no change in access for the public to the current Forest Service road system in regards to the administrative road closures that would take effect with Alternatives 2 and 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Public Safety Under the No Action alternative, no treatments would be conducted which would reduce the existing high risk of wildfire that exists within the project area (see Fire and Fuels section). Safe ingress and egress along roads and trails would not be improved or created, creating increased public safety concerns in the event of a wildfire. The removal of dead, standing lodgepole pines would not occur, increasing the risk of a snag falling on a mountain biker, hiker, or other recreationist.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 1 – Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Use, Experience, and Revenues Visitors, businesses, and central Oregon residents would not gain from the long term benefits of healthy forests and improved safety that are expected from those actions proposed in alternatives 2 and 3. These benefits are expected to include forests that are more resilient to catastrophic wildfire and large scale insect infestation providing for improved scenery and recreation experience, consistent economic base for a growing outdoor-recreation and tourism economy, and provision of recreation opportunities that enhance community livability.

DRAFT


19

In the event of a wildfire, during and following the event, recreation use, experience and revenues could be affected due to restriction of access to maintain public safety, avoidance of the area due to smoke, and undesirable post-wildfire conditions. Areas without vegetation and fuels treatment as proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 are likely to experience larger and/or more intense wildfires (see the Fire and Fuels section) and greater effect to recreation use and revenue. According to Englin et al., Loomis et al., Hesseln et al., and Brown et al. visitation to areas that have been affected by a fire, either prescribed or wild, generally decreases immediately after a fire (particularly severe fire), but gradually increases as the forest recovers (as cited by McCaffrey et. al, 2013, p. 19). Hesseln et. al. (2004) found that demand for hiking and biking decreases as the burned area increases; with hiking demand decreasing from 1% at 1,000 acres to 7% at 100,000 acres and greater and biking demand decreasing from 1% at 1,000 acres to 17% at 100,000 acres and greater. As the percentage of burn increased from zero to 50%, hiking demand declined 1.5%, and biking demand declined 4.7%. The 2012 Bend Area Summer Visitor Intercept Survey completed by Visit Bend reported that 33 percent of respondents reported their main purpose for visiting Bend was outdoor recreation and 40 percent reported their main purpose as leisure and sightseeing. Fifty-three percent reported participating in hiking/trail running, 15% participated in mountain biking and 18% in road biking (RRC Associates, Inc., November 2012). While they would not have to modify their activities in the short-term to accommodate logging operations, these users would not benefit from the positive long-term effects to recreation use, experience and revenues that improved forest health is expected to contribute toward (see direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2 & 3). Many special use permit holders (Table 4), outdoor recreation based businesses, and central Oregon’s outdoor recreation and tourism based economy may lose revenue.

Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation See the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1 to scenery, access, public safety, recreation use/experience and revenue for winter and summer trails, which are similar for dispersed recreation.

Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation—Infrastructure Infrastructure is not developed for dispersed recreation except to maintain public safety or protect resources and generally includes signs, fences, and boulders. These features would not be affected. These improvements would be subject to normal wear and tear over time. Unexpected events such as wildfire, severe thunderstorms, accidents, and vandalism may cause damage or change these improvements.

The greatest threat to recreation infrastructure would be from wildfire. No treatments would be conducted to reduce the existing high risk of wildfire that exists within the area. Wildfire could damage or destroy recreation infrastructure.

Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation—Safety Dead lodgepole pine trees would continue to cover much of the area, creating an increased probability that a dead tree could fall on a dispersed campsite. The public would continue to experience increased safety risks since the potential for injury or death by a falling tree would not decrease from the removal of snags.

Direct and Indirect Effects— Alternative 1– Dispersed Recreation—Recreation Use, Experience and Revenue While management actions are taken to prevent and discourage the use of unauthorized roads and trails, without the action of obliterating (using machinery to de-compact soils) and additional boulder placement use of some well-established routes may continue.

No treatments would occur in the project area. Mountain bikers and hikers on the Mrazek and Farewell Trails would not gain the additional benefits of treatment. Unsightly, dead snags and downed would not be removed. Scenic views would not be opened up.

DRAFT


20

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Infrastructure Infrastructure for a communication site is located on Bear Wallow Butte. These features would not be affected. These improvements would be subject to normal wear and tear over time. Unexpected events such as wildfire, severe thunderstorms, accidents, and vandalism may cause damage or change these structures. The greatest threat to the communication site infrastructure would be from wildfire, which could damage or destroy it. Wildfire risk would not be reduced as a result of treatments proposed with the Ursus project. Conditions of the Special Use Permit for the communication tower on Bear Wallow Butte, require Day Wireless to mitigate hazards within the permit area in consultation with the Forest Service. This includes fuels management (brush and grass removal) and hazard tree removal. The permittees conducted needed road maintenance to the access road under a Road Use Permit in 2014 and is working with the Forest Service on a maintenance plan to reduce brush, grass and other fuels sources within the permit area to reduce the risk to their infrastructure in the case of wildfire.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Safety No treatments would be completed. Employees accessing the site would continue to experience increased safety risks since the potential for injury or death by a falling tree or wildfire would not decrease from the removal of snags.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Access Infrastructure for a communication site is located on Bear Wallow. The ability to access these structures would not be affected by delays from operations while the project is being carried out. However, the improvements to access from the project would also not be realized. The

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 – Land Uses—Revenue No treatments would be completed and the communication site would continue to operate in the same manner as it currently does.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails The proposed treatments that may affect trails within the Ursus project area are largely similar in alternatives 2 and 3 and vary slightly only in the type of treatments that are proposed. In regards to trails within the project area, only 0.6 miles of the Mrazek Trail crosses units (specifically units 34 and 125) which differ in the type of treatments proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3. The treatments proposed for Alternative 2 include ladder fuel reduction, harvest thinning, and salvage of units 34 and 125, while the proposed treatment for these units in Alternative 3 is solely ladder fuel reduction. The Mrazek Trail also borders unit 123, which has the same proposed treatments as units 34 and 125 for Alternatives 2 and 3. DRAFT


21

Figure 4 Trails that may be affected by the Alternative 2 proposed treatments

DRAFT


22

Figure 5 Trails that may be affected by the Alternative 3 proposed treatments

DRAFT


23

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Infrastructure Recreation infrastructure including trail tread, bridges, puncheons, fords, waterbars, and other drainage features, signs, fences, and other improvements related to the trail system would be protected to the extent possible or repaired under all of the action alternatives as described in the resource protection measures. These protection measures were developed in coordination with trail stakeholder groups and groups that build and maintain trail under volunteer agreements. The measures include protection of trail defining trees and protection of the trail tread by limiting trail crossings for heavy machinery. If damage or destruction of a recreation improvement should occur due to project operations, the extent and cause of the damage would be assessed and the proper laws and policies would be followed to determine if and how the improvement would be repaired or replaced and if reimbursement is required. Protection of recreation improvements as shown on the sale area map is required as part of standard timber sale contract provisions. Implementation of either of the action alternatives would create a more open landscape with increased visibility and line of sight. This expanded line of sight for forest visitors may unintentionally give rise to an increase in user-created trails in some areas. Under both of the action alternatives there would also be a change in access for the public to the current Forest Service road system in regards to the administrative road closures that would take effect. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the closure of 17.1 miles of Forest Service roads; however, most of these roads were brushed in and grown over. Use of these roads by forest visitors was minimal because of the difficulty in accessing them, so the actual amount of use will not be a substantial change. The results of both action alternatives will produce a healthier forest and a reduction in the number of snags which would have eventually fallen and obstructed trails in the area. Snag removal will decrease the amount of ongoing trail maintenance needed to continually remove trail obstructions, and thus will improve volunteer organizations’ success at trail upkeep.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Scenery Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a direct effect on the scenery from activities such as cutting, skidding, and decking logs; piling non-commercial woody material and logging-generated slash; operating heavy machinery around the vicinity of trails. Each of the proposed treatments would affect the physical and therefore the scenic recreational setting. The direct effects to vegetation from each of the treatment prescriptions are detailed in the Forested Vegetation section of the EA. The following is a description of the general effects of the proposed treatments that may affect the scenic recreational setting of trails.

Short-term Effects (0 to 3 years)

Evidence of treatment operations including painted trees, slash, piles, tracks, and temporary roads. Project design criteria have been developed for this project to ensure that these effects remain temporary (Table 1). These short-term effects will likely affect whether the trails and surrounding areas are as attractive to some users as they had been in the past.

Mid-term Effects (3 to 10 years)

Evidence of harvest operations and treatments including stumps would be noticeable for a number of years until vegetation begins to grow back in. Project design criteria have been developed for this project to reduce the impact of these mid-term effects (Table 1).

DRAFT


24

Harvest thinning and salvage (HTH/HSV) and seed tree cuts with reserves (HCR) are proposed in the units in and surrounding the Mrazek, Metolius-Windigo, and Farewell Trails. The goal of the prescriptions within these stands is to remove the dead standing lodgepole pine and the lodgepole pine overstory to promote a healthy single story lodgepole pine stand (see the Vegetation section of the EA). Understory lodgepole pine stands are in differing stages of growth. The effect to scenery would be most evident in the youngest stands. Removal of dead and dying trees would benefit the scenic values throughout the area. Some areas would also benefit from expanded view sheds, including mountain views in some areas. Until young trees grow taller, some forest visitors may not find the openness of the area and effects from management activities to be attractive. Project design and mitigation measures have been developed to maintain trees sufficient to designate and define trails (Table 1).

Long-term Effects (10 to 30 years)

Reduced risk of catastrophic wildfire and future bark beetle attacks, improving overall forest health, would maintain the scenic quality surrounding these trails in the long-term.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Access Access to trails may be affected to maintain public safety. Effects may include disruption of services (e.g. outfitter and guide operations and ability to maintain trails), reduced access or closure of trailheads, and/or closure of trails. Effects to access may occur when work is occurring directly adjacent to the trail, in areas surrounding the trail, and/or along roads that access the area (descriptions of the roads that are used for hauling and that are otherwise affected by the project are included in the Transportation section of the EA). Effects to recreation activities may include restriction of the trail activity within the area, requirement to access the trail activity in the area via a different trailhead, requirement to participate in the same trail activity in the area at a different time, requirement to participate in the same trail activity in another area, or the inability to participate in the desired trail activity during the access disruption. Mountain Biking and Hiking Trails: Due to the number of mountain bike trails within close proximity, it is likely that visitors would be able to participate in mountain biking and other trail activities even if parts of the trail system are not accessible. Disruptions in access to the Mrazek and Farewell Trails will have a short-term effect on users, as treatments proposed near these trails may displace hikers and bikers from sections of the trail. Trail volunteers maintenance activities would also be impacted during operations. Equestrian Trails: Equestrian users and other trail users may be displaced from a portion of the Metolius-Windigo Trail during operations. Users would likely utilize a different portion of the Metolius-Windigo Trail, utilize other forest trails, utilize trails under other ownership/jurisdiction, or may choose not to participate in the activity during the operational period. Snowmobile Trails: Due to the number of snowmobile trails within close proximity, visitors would be able to participate in snowmobiling and other trail activities even if parts of snowmobile trail are closed. Snowmobilers and other winter users may be displaced from snowmobile Trail #8 and Triangle Hill #88 during operations. However, effects to snowmobile users are expected to be minimal, as most operations will occur in warmer months. For the small amount of snowmobile trails affected by the project that fall within the Winter Recreation LRMP Management Area, a project design criteria has been developed to require that treatments are implemented outside of the winter use season from December 1st until March 30th unless coordinated with Deschutes National Forest Recreation staff. If the trail is closed in the winter, volunteers would not be able to groom the trail and snowmobilers would not be able to access the trail. Timing or season when recreational access may be affected

To the extent possible, disruption to recreation access would be as limited as possible to maintain public safety and provide for safe and efficient treatment operations. To the extent possible, implementation of treatments will be designed to minimize closures to trails. The duration of access disruption during overstory and understory treatments could last from a single day to several months. Visitors that use the project area often for recreation may experience access disturbances over the course of the project.

DRAFT


25

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Safety Alternatives 2 and 3 propose largely the same treatments across and surrounding trails and the trailheads and roads that access these trails resulting in reductions in fire hazards, improved ingress and egress, and improvements to public safety. These benefits are described in more detail in the Fire and Fuels sections of the EA. After the proposed treatments, trails would meet trail management standards (FSH 2309.18 Trails Management Handbook) for the recreating public. Trail signs would be replaced as needed and hazards such as sticks/stubs within the trail prism or fall-zone would be removed. As mentioned earlier, implementation of either of the action alternatives would create a more open landscape with an increased line of sight. This improvement in visibility for mountain bikers will give cyclists more time to anticipate any upcoming obstacles or hazards, which could increase their safety. An increased ability to anticipate obstacles could promote some cyclists to carry more speed on trails in open areas. Project design criteria have been developed to maintain public safety during operations by notifying the public about the location of operations by properly signing sites. Additional design criteria ensure that hazards will be mitigated after project completion to improve safety conditions for the public.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Recreation Use and Experience In general, changes in recreation use levels related to the proposed actions would be short-term and localized and there would be no deviation from the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum criteria for any of the sites. The largest effect on recreation use would be due to treatment operations that affect access and/or the quality of the recreation experience (e.g., dust and noise from logging operations). The degree to which user preferences may lead to user displacement based on the short-term effects to the recreational setting is highly variable. In the short-term the visibility of management activities may cause some recreationists to choose to recreate in locations they sense to be less managed or “untouched.” Evidence of harvest operations would be noticeable for a number of years until natural vegetation begins to grow back in. Many recreationists have a reasonable understanding of the nature of change in the forest, and are willing to continue to recreate in an area despite these short-term effects. In a social science literature review on wildland fires, McCaffrey, Toman, Stidham, and Shindler found that there are high levels of public support for thinning and prescribed-fire activities on public lands with a high fire risk (2013, p. 19). Many people also appreciate the change in the vegetation to a more “fire safe” and ‘healthy forest” condition. In the mid to long-term, the proposed treatments would lead to a healthier forest condition that would benefit all recreation uses in the area. In order to help visitors plan their visit around proposed operations, information on treatment locations and timing may be posted on forest websites.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3– Summer and Winter Trails—Revenue While treatments may affect the scenery and recreation experience in the short to mid-term in limited areas, effects to revenue are not anticipated. Due to the vast trail opportunities in the area, ample alternatives exist for outfitter-guides and recreation events. Effects to their revenue are not expected. In the event of a wildfire, areas with vegetation treatments as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 are likely to experience smaller and/or less intense wildfires and (see the Fire and Fuels section) and therefore less effect to recreation use and revenue. Hesseln et. al. (2004) found that demand for hiking and biking decreases as the burned area increases; with hiking demand decreasing from 1% at 1,000 acres to 7% at 100,000 acres and greater and biking demand decreasing from 1% at 1,000 acres to 17% at 100,000 acres and greater. As the percentage of burn increased from zero to 50%, hiking demand declined 1.5%, and biking demand declined 4.7%. According to Englin et al., Loomis et al., Hesseln et al., and Brown et al. visitation to areas that have been affected by a fire, either prescribed or wild, generally decreases immediately after a fire (particularly severe fire), but gradually increases as the forest recovers (as cited by McCaffrey et. al, 2013, p. 19). The 2012 Bend Area Summer Visitor Intercept Survey completed by Visit Bend reported that 33 percent of respondents reported their main purpose for visiting Bend was outdoor recreation and 40 percent reported their

DRAFT


26

main purpose as leisure and sightseeing. Fifty-three percent reported participating in hiking/trail running, 15% participated in mountain biking and 18% in road biking (RRC Associates, Inc., November 2012). Given the number of trails and roads in the area, all special use permitted outfitter/guides and events (Table 7) should be able to be accommodated, however their routes may need to be modified. Tourists and visitors should be able to modify their site visit if necessary and still find the recreation experience they desire. Visitors, businesses and central Oregon residents would gain from the long term benefits of healthy forests that are expected from the actions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. These benefits are expected to include forests that are more resilient to catastrophic wildfire and large scale insect infestation providing for improved scenery and recreation experience, consistent economic base for a growing outdoor-recreation and tourism economy, and provision of recreation opportunities that enhance community livability.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternatives 2 and 3– Dispersed Recreation Other than short term visual quality and access effects, the proposed activities would have minimal effects on dispersed campsites, though some of the proposed vegetation management activities may occur within and/or adjacent to the sites. Views would be opened for dispersed campsite users within or adjacent to treatment units. This may increase the satisfaction for visitors where views are improved to the Three Sisters and Broken Top mountains, buttes, rock outcroppings, or other interesting geologic features. Project implementation activities with logging operations around dispersed campsites would negatively affect the visitor’s experience. Logging traffic, dust from logging trucks, chain saw and timber felling noise would likely disrupt or displace recreation activities within or adjacent to the project area.

Opportunistic obliteration of travel routes and campsites not authorized by travel management regulations would incrementally further compliance with regulations and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Visitors not understanding the illegal nature of user-created trails may create alternate routes post -project activities if not followed with field patrol education and information activities.

Closing or decommissioning 17.1 miles of forest roads would reduce the current access to dispersed activities such as OHV recreation, hunting, forest product gathering, and other activities in the areas proposed for closure. However, a number of the road segments proposed for closure are becoming overgrown with dense lodgepole pine and are likely not main motorized travel corridors for a majority of visitors. It would reduce the amount of open roads available to Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts, who in turn, would likely go to other areas to partake in this activity or ignore restoration efforts and continue to use closed roads. The overall effect to the public is that there will be fewer roads to drive than there were previously; however, the closure and restoration of these forest roads would restore vegetation and reduce impacts to scenery and aesthetics. Also, the current state of the brushed-in roads demonstrates that there is low-use in these areas.

For dispersed settings, hazards that would otherwise be present from falling snags in the next decade would still be present, but to a lesser degree in areas where treatments would occur. Dispersed recreation sites would be left in a safer condition.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternatives 2 and 3– Land Uses Direct and Indirect Effects—Alternatives 2 and 3—Land Uses—Infrastructure Infrastructure for a communication site is located on Bear Wallow Butte. The greatest threat to the communication site infrastructure is from wildfire, which could damage or destroy it. The proposed treatments for Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the existing high risk of wildfire that exists within the area.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3—Land Uses—Safety For both alternatives 2 and 3, employees accessing the site would experience a reduction in safety risks, as the potential for injury or death from a falling tree or wildfire would decrease with the removal of snags and reduction in fuels.

DRAFT


27

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3—Land Uses— Access The ability to access communication site structures may be affected in the short-term while the project is being carried out, as logging traffic on roads may cause delays. The US Forest Service will coordinate with the communication site permit holder to minimize delays to accessing the site. Alternative 2 and 3 would produce improvements to access in the long-term from road improvements and the removal of snags which regularly fall on roads during the winter.

Direct and Indirect Effects–Alternative 2 and 3—Land Uses— Revenue Proposed treatments would improve access to the communication site, which would increase the ability for maintenance and regular service to be conducted in a timely manner. This could have a positive effect on revenue over time.

3.7.5 Cumulative Effects A number of projects affecting trails have, are, or will occur in the areas within or surrounding the Ursus project; however, the effects of most of these projects do not overlap in time and space with the proposed project as they occur outside of the recreation cumulative effects analysis area.

Proposed and approved projects adjacent to the Ursus project area that would increase trail-based recreation opportunities in the long-term include: expansion and improvement of Phil’s Trailhead and the reconstruction of Skyliner’s Road which will more safely accommodate bicycle and motor vehicle use. Overall, these enhancements should improve access, recreation experience, and revenue and provide additional recreation opportunities should access to existing trails be affected by proposed treatments.

However, in the short-term the reconstruction of Skyliner road and Phil’s trailhead will affect access to the Mrazek Trail, the Farewell Trail, and dispersed recreation activities between 2014 and 2015.

In the coming years, other projects that will occur in areas outside of the Ursus project area and may temporarily affect the public’s experience and access to certain recreational activities including: the West Tumbull Prescribed Burning, Melvin Buttes, Pole Creek Salvage, Drink, and the salvage of fire burned trees in the Cascades Timberlands Forest.

The National Environmental Policy Act defines cumulative effects as, the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Section 1508.7). For the purposes of this analysis the cumulative effects area for the recreation analysis is the boundaries of the Ursus project area because effects from Ursus treatments would be mostly isolated to that scale.

Cumulative Effects –Alternatives 2 and 3 – Summer and Winter Trails Given the context of The Bend Municipal Watershed Strategic Fuel Break and Bear Wallow Mastication projects may be implemented in areas within the Ursus project area within the same timeframe, adding to the cumulative short to mid-term affects to scenery, disruptions in access, and modifications to recreation use and experience. The Bear Wallow Firewood Personal Use Woodcutting project may also add to the short and mid-term effects on scenery as well as recreation use and experience due to changes in the landscape surrounding some areas along road and trails.

Cumulatively, the effects of the proposed action are not likely to have a long-term adverse effect to forest visitors accessing the area, or in the recreational experience, they seek when coming to or travelling through the area. While access to certain areas may be affected in the short-term depending on each projects’ length of operations, this will not have an adverse effect far into the future. The spatial effects of the projects, which relate to scenery, recreation use, and experience, will be positive in the long-term, as the area will experience improved forest health and the removal of snags and dead woody debris. Reduction in forest densities typically also enhances winter

DRAFT


28

recreation opportunities. Removal of danger trees along trails and access routes would increase visitor safety and reforestation would, in time, enhance the visitor’s experience. Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and guidelines are being met through project design criteria.

Cumulative Effects –Alternatives 2 and 3– Dispersed Recreation See the cumulative effects of Alternative 2 to scenery, access, public safety, recreation use/experience and revenue for winter and summer trails, which are similar for dispersed recreation.

Cumulative Effects–Alternatives 2 and 3– Land Uses Direct or indirect effects do not overlap in time or space with any residual effects from past projects, or expected effects from foreseeable projects. There are no cumulative effects to land uses.

DRAFT


29

LITERATURE CITED

Clark, Roger N., and George H. Stankey, 1979. Determining the acceptability of recreation impacts: An application of the Outdoor Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. In Proceedings of the Wildland Recreation Impacts Conference, October 27-29, 1978, Seattle, Wash. Ruth Ittner, Dale R. Potter, and James K. Agee, eds. USDA For. Serv. and Natl. Park Serv., Pac. Northwest Reg.

Hesseln, H., J.B Loomis, and A. González-Cabán. (2004): Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume

19, Number 1, January 2004, p. 47-53.

McCaffrey, Sarah, Eric Toman, Melanie Stidham, and Bruce Shindler. Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2013, 22, p. 15–24.

RRC Associates, Inc. November 2012. Bend Area Visitor Survey: Summer 2012 Final Results. Retrieved from http://www.visitbend.com/Bend-Oregon-Summer-2012-Research-Report.pdf

DRAFT


30

Appendix– Guidance for Trail Defining Trees

Trees will be retained which help define the trail or give it character. Trees which define the trail are those trees:

• adjacent to the trail which emphasize or control the width, outside or inside edge of the turns • which have roots, branches, or boles that help emphasize trail character such as drops, narrowness,

or other difficulties • along trails where understory stands are not tall enough to define the trail

Trees may be left in clumps, rows, or as individuals.

DRAFT

draft recreation reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...forest service (fsm...

Documents