DECISION NOTICE FOR THE. Fremont-Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management Project AND. Fremont National Forest Plan Amendment 36 AND

Transcription

1 DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND FINDING OF NON-SIGNIFICANT LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE Fremont-Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management Project AND Fremont National Forest Plan Amendment 36 AND Winema National Forest Plan Amendment 19 USDA Forest Service Fremont-Winema National Forests Lake and Klamath Counties, Oregon Location: This Decision is applicable to National Forest System lands administered by the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Background Across the Nation, motorized vehicle use on National Forests has become a growing issue as more Americans use motorized vehicles to enjoy the outdoors. Conflict between Forest users is increasing and protection of Forest resources and values is a concern. The Forest Service recognizes unmanaged recreation, including OHV use, as a potential threat to the condition of the National Forests and Grasslands. Most people ride responsibly, but a few riders leave lasting impacts by traveling off roads and trails and creating user-created routes. Unmanaged OHV use can affect wetlands, wildlife habitat, erode soils, damage cultural resources, spread invasive species, and increase visitor conflict. In 2005 the Forest Service issued the Travel Management Rule in response to the need to improve management of OHV use on National Forests. This decision is being made in compliance with the Travel Management Rule (Rule) and is supported by the environmental assessment (EA) for the Fremont-Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management Project. The decision will designate a portion of the current National Forest System roads for public motorized use and access. It will determine which roads, trails, and areas will be available for motorized use, the season of use, and class of vehicles. The decision will be displayed on the initial Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) showing the motorized opportunities and uses on the Forest. Motor vehicle use off designated routes or outside designated areas shown on the MVUM would be prohibited, with certain limited exemptions for emergency, administrative and law enforcement uses. 1 1 see EA page 14

2 The Fremont-Winema National Forests (Forest) currently manages approximately 12,369.5 miles of National Forest System Roads (NFSRs) and motorized trails available for use. Approximately 5,770 miles are maintenance level (ML) 1 roads, placed in long term storage and closed to motorized use. Nine hundred ninety-eight miles of the ML 1 roads have Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) closures. The rest of the ML 1 roads had mixed amounts of use by the public since the Forest currently allows cross-country motor vehicle use. There are 8.5 miles of motorized trail designated for summertime motorized use near Crane Mountain. The remaining 6,584 miles of open roads are predominately maintained for high clearance vehicles (5,598 miles) and 986 miles for highway legal vehicles only. User developed routes will not be considered for designation at this time. Future projects and updates to the MVUM will address motorized trail system development; user developed routes, and needs for more or less access to all areas of the Forest. Decision Motorized vehicles provide an important mode of access for use of the Forest, including driving for pleasure, hiking, dispersed camping (both motorized and non-motorized), hunting, fishing and viewing wildlife. Motorized vehicles are an appropriate and enjoyable way for people to use and work in National Forests. After careful review of public comments, the environmental assessment, and analysis file, I have decided to implement Alternative 3 with modifications for new information provided by the public and agency management partners and the continued review of the existing road system. 2 The Decision represents a blend between the public s desire for adding currently closed roads as motorized trails and closing specific open roads to motor vehicle use based on public, other agency, comments and resource protection needs. Approximately 6,600 miles of roads and trails will be designated for motorized use. Motorized access for dispersed camping (MADC) would be limited to existing routes to existing dispersed campsites, where permitted within 300 feet of roads. Crosscountry motorized travel will be prohibited other than for some limited exceptions. 3 The Decision is consistent with current Forest Plan direction however it will supersede current CFR closures that describe road or wheeled motorized trail use. The Decision also applies additional resource protection and honors many public requests. Corrections for additional access were made for: Public requests for additional access that could be met without impacting resources or that did not require additional analysis o I ve decided to provide additional access to the Chewaucan River due to public comment about restrictions in proximity to lands managed by other partners or landowners. o This decision provides approximately miles of ML1 roads as motorized trail providing access for OHV users which include several important connector segments between road systems. Changes from private to Forest Service jurisdiction o Information provided by agency management partners, stimulated by considerable public comment, revealed the Forest had jurisdiction on NFSR , , and which allowed me to include motorized access to the area southwest of Gearhart Mountain Wilderness. 2 EA pages 30 to 32 3 EA page 14 Page 2

3 Addition of motorized access for dispersed camping in several historically used areas o Concern was voiced that not enough motorized access for dispersed camping was being offered in the Winter Rim area for the amount of hunters using the area and that the concentrated use proposed would cause resource damage. Therefore, I am providing motorized access for dispersed camping on NFSR 2700, 2800, and Clarifying and classifying access routes to existing, in use, cataloged facilities that were either not in the Forest Service database or were incorrectly represented Corrections for additional restrictions were made for: Roads and proposed motorized trails found to be decommissioned or left isolated by decommissioning o The Forest found, through field review after the public meetings that 46 miles of roads indicated for use in the EA have been decommissioned and were not recorded in our database and will not be shown on the MVUM. o After further review it was determined that approximately 4 miles of roads proposed as motorized trails had been previously decommissioned and are no longer available for use. Requests by the Community of Rocky Point o Motorized use of the Fourmile Rock Quarry will be limited to 0.3 miles of NFSR with access ending in the quarry. Historic motorized use of NFSR Road will be discontinued, as well as the last 0.6 miles of NFSR Road All cross-country motorized vehicle use within Fourmile Quarry will be prohibited. Seasonal restrictions for spotted owl and elk calving protection o The Decision responds to comments by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to re-classify some ML 2 roads to ML 1 for meadow and riparian protection and additional roads with seasonal restrictions for elk calving and mule deer winter range. 4 o Project Design Criteria: After consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service the Project Design Criteria for northern spotted owl was changed in Table 12 to read: Any roads that increase in maintenance level (i.e. ML 2 to ML 3) or change from a closed to open status (i.e. ML1 to ML2) located within 1/4 mile of active, historic, or predicted spotted owl nests will be seasonally restricted from March 1 - September 31. Roads that provided connections to non-motorized trails o Several segments of roads were coincident to the OC&E Woods Line Trail a State of Oregon Park designated for non-motorized use. Additional meadow and riparian protection Requests by private land owners to restrict public access to private in-holdings accessed by NFS roads Roads that were closed by a previous NEPA decision that were not identified in the EA The Motor Vehicle Use Map can be viewed on the Forest web page at: The following tables summarize the designated motorized routes by vehicle class and the amount of motorized access for dispersed camping that will be implemented with this decision. 4 See EA page 31 for complete list of resource constraints Page 3

4 Table 1- Motorized Road and Trail Opportunities by Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Total (Miles) Year Round Access (miles) Seasonal Restrictions (miles) Roads Closed to Public Motorized Use 5,726 N/A N/A Roads Open to Highway Legal Motor Vehicles Only Roads Open to All Motor Vehicles 5,973 5, Trails Open to All Motor Vehicles (including both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles) Trails Open to Motor Vehicles 50 Inches or Less in Width Trails Open to Motorcycles Only Total Designated for Motor Vehicle Use 6, , Total Miles - All Designations 12, N/A N/A Acres Designated for Motorized Cross-Country Travel None N/A N/A Motor Vehicle Access for Dispersed Camping Motorized access for dispersed camping would be allowed within 300 feet on one or both sides of a portion of designated roads; however access would be confined to existing routes to existing campsites. 6 Motorized access for dispersed camping would not be designated along motorized trails. Table 2 displays the miles and acres available for motorized access to dispersed campsites proposed under The Decision. Table 2 - Motorized Vehicle Access for Dispersed Camping Motor Vehicle Access for Dispersed Camping (MADC) Miles Acres Corridors designated for year-round access 3, ,089 Corridors seasonally available affected by road or area closures ,892 Total 3, ,981 Seasonal Restrictions The following seasonal restrictions on motorized access will be implemented to minimize impacts to resources: January 1 to August 31 to protect nesting bald eagle March 1 to September 30 to protect nesting spotted owls May 1 to June 30 for elk calving areas May 1 to September 15 for elk calving and summer range for the Green Mountain Elk Closure September 25 to October 15 for mule deer hunt travel management November 1 to May 1 for protection of the Avery bald eagle winter roost on the Fremont National Forest. November 1 to March 31 for protection of bald eagle winter roost on the Winema National Forest. November 1 to June 30 for elk and mule deer in the Sun Creek Cooperative Closure area. 5 Total miles of system roads changed from Alternative 3 because of roads found to be decommissioned during the comment period. 6 Existing route: a route with an established history of passenger vehicle use, as indicated by a road-bed width of greater than 50 inches, the predominance of compacted soil, and minimal vegetation growing in the travel way. New resource impacts (indicated by single or double tracks through vegetation) are not considered existing routes. Existing campsite: an area obviously used by campers that usually contains a rock fire ring and minimal ground vegetation as the result of motor or foot traffic. Page 4

5 December 1 to April 30 for protection of winter recreation. All roads used as Forest snowmobile or Nordic trails will be closed to wheeled motorized use to protect snow trails. Closure of Fourmile Rock Quarry is also included. December 1 to March 31 for protection of mule deer winter range. I have also decided to amend the Forest Plans to make them consistent with the Travel Management Rule and reduce the protection zone for northern spotted owls and bald eagles consistent with new science and US Fish and Wildlife Service considerations for effects. The proposed Forest Plan amendments include: Winema Forest Plan (Chapter 4, page 4-48, Table 4-12): would add lines specific to the Travel Management Project: Northern spotted owl: the protection zone for northern spotted owls would be 440 yards (1/4 mile) and motorized access for dispersed camping prohibited in these areas year round. Bald eagle: the protection zone would be 220 yards (1/8 mile) and motorized access for dispersed camping prohibited in these areas year round. Winema Forest Plan (Chapter 4, page 4-71): would add item and Fremont Forest Plan (Chapter 4, page 161): replace statement at D. Transportation (2) with the following: Motorized vehicle use shall be prohibited outside of roads, trails and areas designated in the Motor Vehicle Use Map, consistent with 36 CFR 212. Winema Forest Plan (Chapter 4, page 4-133) would add standard and guideline item A. #5 which states:: Motorized vehicle access for dispersed camping within 440 yards (1/4 mile) of an active northern spotted owl nest site will be prohibited. Winema Forest Plan (Chapter 4, page Management Area 9): add standard #7 under the Intensity-Specific Standards for Wildlife and Fish: Motor vehicle access for dispersed camping within 220 yards (1/8 mile) of an active bald eagle nest site will be prohibited. Winema Forest Plan (Chapter 4, page 4-149): add standard #5 under the Intensity-Specific Standards for Wildlife and Fish: Motor vehicle access for dispersed camping within 220 yards (1/8 mile) of an active bald eagle winter roost will be prohibited. The Klamath Tribes The Forest remains committed to giving deference to Tribal sovereignty and self-regulation. The Forest will seek ways to use our working relationship to improve resource protection measures. We agree that Tribal Codes are important conservation tools that may be sufficient to regulate Tribal motorized impacts. Enforcement of Tribal Codes and regulations are essential for successful travel management. How the Decision Meets the Purpose and Need I believe this decision best meets the public s needs and is consistent with the Travel Management Rule of 2005, based on information given to me by the public and information generated by the analysis. There is a clear need to designate motorized routes that provide access for the use and enjoyment of the Forest on a safe and cost effective transportation system. The routes designated will Page 5

6 provide sustainable public and agency access for a range of motorized and non-motorized recreational experiences. This decision is based on a collaborative effort and listening to interests of both motorized and nonmotorized users that work and recreate on the Forest. The Forest requested input about the roads people used or would like to see not used as it developed the proposed action and alternatives. The Forest chose to utilize the existing system roads and existing, assigned maintenance levels as a starting point. This approach represented a cost effective, open road system that met resource protection goals at the time the decisions were made. User developed routes were not considered because the Forest had incomplete data and inventory about these routes. Decisions on those routes are deferred to project level planning. Forest plan standards and guidelines were modeled to provide resource protection and seasonal restrictions through a GIS process. A mixed use analysis was performed to determine where motorized mixed use is appropriate (5,973 miles) and where motorized use should be restricted to highway legal vehicles only (453 miles). The Decision provides a blend of roads and trails that minimized impacts to forest resources while promoting forest health and user safety. Approximately 81 percent of the Forest is within a half mile of a designated motorized route. There will be areas distant from roads that can be utilized by non-motorized users. Seasonal restrictions to motorized use provide protection to wildlife while also reducing conflict between motorized and nonmotorized users. While there are 36.5 miles of motorized routes within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), all are located in Forest Plan management areas that allow semi-primitive motorized recreation and are consistent with the Forest Plan. Ultimately, the prohibition of cross-county use reduces user conflicts with minimal impacts to access. The Forest continues to provide motorized access for the use and enjoyment of the majority of Forest users. Although motorized cross-county use areas have not been provided at this time, identification of these areas will come under later planning efforts when time can be dedicated for determining effects and appropriate locations. Historical motorized access to some areas will be prohibited and users may be displaced. Motorized access for dispersed camping will be confined to existing locations on existing routes within 300 feet of roads. This new standard will continue to allow motorized access to many historically used campsites. To me, this Decision provides the best mix of motorized routes for various vehicle classes based on the Forest s inventory of National Forest system roads and motorized trails while protecting natural resources by seasonal and year round closures and reducing conflict between motorized and nonmotorized use. Routes requested by the public were provided when they met resource protection goals established by the Forest Plans. Reasons for the Decision I considered the concerns raised during scoping and the EA comment period (EA Chapter 1 and Appendix G). These concerns lead to the consideration of three action alternatives and to the modification of Alternative 3 as part of my decision. My reasons for not analyzing two alternatives in detail are disclosed in the EA, Chapter 2. 7 Rationale for not selecting Alternatives 1, 2, or 4 is below. 7 EA pages 22 and 23 Page 6

7 Though all action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plans, Alternative 3 was selected because it would provide the best protection of Forest resources, including biological, physical, cultural, and social. The Decision is the most responsive to the diverse desires for motorized access to the Forest. It considered public requests for specific roads and screened them for resource protection to determine if they should be included in the alternative. Alternative 3 applied the resource protection screens on a watershed basis rather than forest wide. This approach provided consistent comparison between fisheries and wildlife standards as well as a finer scale of measure to ensure that forest plan standards and guidelines were less likely to be exceeded. All resources are expected to be improved by implementing the Travel management Rule because cross-country motorized use will no longer occur and ML 1 roads would no longer be used by motor vehicles. I considered the general and specific criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands when making this decision. 8 Natural Resource Protection The Decision has the fewest miles of roads in riparian areas, as well as the fewest acres allowing motorized access for dispersed camping of the alternatives examined in detail. When developing the alterative, open road densities in key and priority watersheds were kept the same as the existing condition. When analysis determined there was a need to reduce open road density the following conditions were considered: streamside ML 2 roads or extensive ML 2 road systems in riparian areas. Of the 6,600 miles designated for motorized use 350 miles are within riparian areas. 9 This reduction represents an improvement in riparian function and fisheries habitat over the current condition. In addition, the Decision provides the best distribution of mule deer summer range open road density of all alternatives. Prohibiting cross-county travel will allow soils to recover from past motorized use and vegetation management treatments. Off designated route motorized use under the Decision would be confined to existing disturbed travel ways (undesignated routes within 300 feet of a designated route along which MADC is allowed) to existing campsites. These areas would see no change in detrimental soil condition or impacts to soil productivity since motorized access will be confined to a smaller area when compared to current motorized use and other alternatives. Because this alternative has the fewest acres of off designated route use it would have the highest potential for soil productivity recovery. Impacts to sensitive plants and Northwest Forest Plan species of interest have been considered. Confining motorized access to dispersed camping to existing routes and campsites would not have major negative impacts to the habitat of these species. Two sensitive species (Peck s milkvetch and Tricolored monkeyflower) have habitat adjacent to open roads (less than 3 percent of each species habitat). Parking along designated routes is the only potential impact to the milkvetch because motorized access for dispersed camping would not be allowed in these areas. Approximately 17 percent of the monkeyflower habitat is within the motorized access for dispersed camping corridor but confining access to existing routes would confine impacts to individual plants or edge of habitat. Motorized use would not impact species viability or trend the plants toward listing. Cultural Resource Protection The Decision has reduced access to areas with significant cultural sites. When reviewing which ML 1 roads to use for trails, a map was generated showing areas of significant cultural importance. No ML 8 Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR EA page 107. The 350 miles represents the roads in riparian areas in the open road system only. There are 644 miles of roads in riparian areas within the 12,374 miles of the entire road system (including ML1 roads). Page 7

8 1 roads that fell into these areas were considered for use. Regulating MADC, as proposed, will reduce impacts to cultural resources when compared to current use. Managing select ML 1 roads as trails could allow access to individual sites, but important areas would be avoided. Not allowing motorized access to dispersed camping on trails reduces the time people would spend along the trails, reducing the chance of accidentally finding sites. Overall there will be fewer potential impacts to cultural resources than under the any other alternative. 10 Public Safety The Forest conducted an engineering analysis to determine which Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads would be recommended for motorized mixed use. The analysis indicated that mixed use will be allowed on most roads with the exception of paved roads and a few two-lane gravel roads. 11 Provision of Recreational Opportunities The Decision maintains access to all Fremont-Winema National Forest developed recreation sites. The network of roads and motorized trails provides a good distribution of motorized access to developed recreation sites, as well as, dispersed recreation opportunities across the length and breadth of the Forest. Motorized access provided meets Forest Plan direction for the intended experience dependant on management area standards and guidelines. Access Needs The Decision designates approximately 6,600 miles of roads for motorized access to the Forest. In general, 81 percent of the Forest will be within a half mile of an open road. Most of the areas distant from roads are wilderness and semi-primitive areas. I recognize that historical motorized access to some areas will be prohibited and that some users may be displaced. Some of this historical use may still be desirable. To accommodate simple adjustments to motorized routes and allow desired historical use, the Motor Vehicle Use Map can be updated with minor changes as discussed in the EA through consideration of a supplemental information report. 12 I expected that through time, the MVUM will become closer to what is desired by the public for motor vehicle access to the Forest, while balancing the needs for resource protection and conflicts between user groups. Public comment indicated some class II users (4x4/jeep) were concerned about not having trails designated specifically for their use. In order to meet this additional need, a vehicle class specific motorized trail system will be developed during future project level planning efforts. The Decision does provide motorized trails that can accommodate some of this demand, but not to the extent of difficulty those users would like to see. The site specific analysis needed to provide more challenging access to the Forest is beyond the scope of the current proposed project and will be better handled under a more focused analysis. The Decision provides the best access to the Forest given the need to designate a motorized route based on the current inventory of National Forest System roads. Conflicts Among Users Motorized access coincides on approximately 4.5 miles of the 1,200 miles of trails used by nonmotorized users of the Forest. User conflict would continue to occur along these non-motorized trail segments since they are coincident with existing road segments. The impact of this coincident use is minimal and the majority of non-motorized trail users would not be affected. Designated routes for motor vehicle use are primarily located in Roaded Natural and Roaded Natural Modified ROS settings and do not include Primitive or Semi-primitive non-motorized settings. Roads 10 EA page EA page FSH Page 8

9 designated as closed to motorized use may allow a non-motorized opportunity in an otherwise motorized setting. However, with much of this opportunity within a half mile of an open road, the non-motorized opportunity will never approach a primitive experience or provide a true nonmotorized setting. The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will reduce motorized access to some historically used dispersed recreation areas, but they will continue to be available using nonmotorized means. Maintenance, Administration and Availability of Resources Road maintenance is important for protecting resources and ensuring public safety. The use of maintenance levels is an important indication of the type and regularity of maintenance performed on the road system. ML 3 and 4 roads are those that receive high use and are major access routes to the Forest by the general forest user to developed sites and trailheads. ML 2 roads are intended for use by high clearance vehicles and ML 1 roads are in long-term storage (and closed to motorized use) until needed for resource management. Currently, little yearly maintenance occurs on ML 1 and 2 roads unless there is an immediate need because of resource damage. ML 1 roads are left in a self maintaining condition and not expected to receive maintenance until it is needed for a specific use. These roads are often allowed to grow in to minimize illegal use, stabilize the road bed and minimize maintenance costs between uses. In the past, public use of some of these roads kept them open, which was not the intent. The Forest minimizes maintenance costs by placing these roads in storage and prohibiting motorized use. Implementation of the Decision will allow the forest to realize the savings of closing ML 1 roads to motorized use and allow maintenance funds to be spent where they are most needed. Maintaining ML 1 roads for use as trails requires recreation funds to correct problems as they arise. Trail width and condition will be managed using motorized trail standards which will create a different experience for the user. Initially, the Forest will take an educational approach to enforcement, realizing that the change from the current situation to travel only on designated routes is a large one. The Implementation Plan will describe this process in detail. It is realized that the vast majority of motorized users want to comply with Forest rules. Part of the change will include a change in responsibility; shifting the burden of understanding which routes are designated for motorized use from the Forest Service to the public. To assist with this transition, Forest staff will assist visitors in determining where legal access exists. Significant Issues The following narrative presents how I considered and addressed significant issues raised by the public or IDT in making my decision. The proposed level of designated roads will adversely affect motorized recreation opportunities: I acknowledge that the selection of any alternative will not provide quality riding or access opportunities for all users because there are no new roads, motorized trails or riding areas proposed for construction. The need for action focused on designating existing National Forest system roads, as a result user developed routes were not considered. Motorized access for dispersed camping was confined to 300 feet from designated roads along existing access to existing sites. Recreational motorized use will be confined to designated routes and areas. Visitors who gain access via user created routes for specific experiences and activities will have reduced opportunity due to the prohibition of cross-country motorized use. If the designated routes or areas do not provide the visitor access to their specific opportunity, they will be displaced and have to find it elsewhere. Page 9

10 The closure of ML 1 roads may increase demand and use of roads and motorized trails designated as open. Those who desire a cross-country experience will have to confine their use to designated roads and trails since the Decision does not provide any cross-country use areas. Motorized users will be concentrated onto a smaller network of trails, potentially causing crowding in the more popular areas. The Decision designates for use approximately 165 miles of ML 1 roads as motorized trails. These roads would be maintained as trails until needed for resource management. During the time the road is being used administratively, the road may be closed for public use. There will be campsites further than 300 feet from designated routes that will not have motorized access. People using these sites may be displaced, but most people will still be able to access popular dispersed campsites along the designated routes. Implementing the Decision will impact a small segment of users who have accessed areas of the forest cross-country by motorized vehicle. Most users, however, will not be affected and will continue to access the 81 percent of the forest within ½ mile of the designated routes utilizing designated routes. 13 The proposed motor vehicle cross-country use area at the Fourmile Rock Quarry would adversely affect local landowners in the nearby Rocky Point community: Public concerns about the use of the Fourmile Rock Quarry as a play area include noise, health and safety, late night activity, and resource damage. The play area is very close to the Rocky Point community and receives heavy use. The area was never designated for this type of use; it developed over the years and expanded into riparian areas adjacent to the quarry. There is a similar play area in Keno (Klamath Sportsman s Park) that provides this opportunity and is nearby. The Decision does not designate the quarry for cross-country use. This resolves the noise and other issues the community has with this use near the community of Rocky Point. 14 The proposed number of miles of roads and trails designated for motor vehicle access would adversely affect wildlife, non-motorized recreation opportunities, and adjacent private land owners. Wildlife: Implementing the Decision would provide beneficial impacts to R 6 sensitive species, Northwest Forest Plan species of interest, and management indicator species by prohibiting crosscountry use, reducing motorized access for dispersed camping to existing routes and sites within 300 feet of designated roads, reducing open road density and associated zone of influence, increasing the amount of undisturbed habitat, and reducing the total miles of open roads or trails within buffers for nesting spotted owls, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. In general the Decision provides the lowest open road density, the fewest watersheds not meeting open road density goals: for winter (5) and summer range (2), the fewest watersheds with a high level of disturbance (1) and the most with low level of disturbance (21), the most acres where cross-country travel will be prohibited (acres outside where motorized access for dispersed camping is allowed), and the most miles of seasonal restrictions for wildlife protection, including bald eagle nesting and roosting and spotted owl nesting. The Decision will have the greatest potential to reduce impacts to ungulates, riparian, and waterfowl species and provide similar benefits to late successional species as Alternative 2. No adverse affects to wildlife would occur that would trend a species toward federal listing under ESA. Protection of spotted owls will include special seasonal restrictions to continue to minimize impacts to nesting owls. No motorized access to dispersed camping will be allowed within the nesting buffers EA pages 41 to EA pages 47 to EA pages 54 to 63 Page 10

11 Non-motorized recreation opportunities: There would be no change in the amount, management of, or access to existing non-motorized trails or water based recreation. There are no new motorized routes being designated and cross-country use will be prohibited reducing impacts to non-motorized users of the Forest. The 4.4 miles of coincident motorized/non-motorized trails will continue to cause user conflict however it represents a very small fraction of the total 1,200 miles of non-motorized trails. Areas accessed by motor vehicles will not provide high quality non-motorized experiences because an open road would be within a half mile of 81 percent of the Forest lands allowing sounds of motorized recreation to reach interior sites. However, the prohibition of cross-country use will reduce non-motorized users encounters with motorized vehicles. Adjacent land owners: Public access near lands owned or managed by others has been reduced by the Decision. Generally, ML 1 roads requested by the public to be opened were not considered if they fell within a quarter mile of private lands. To respond to public comment several specific requests for access near other land ownership were reviewed and changes made to allow access near Chewaucan River and Fourmile Creek. Other Alternatives Considered The EA considered four alternatives in detail, including the no action. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include a forest plan amendment that reduces the size of the protection buffer for nesting spotted owls and bald eagles based on new science. A detailed description and comparison of all alternatives, including three alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study, can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA. The Decision is summarized above along with the Forest Plan amendment. All alternatives would accomplish the need for action described in Chapter 1 and incorporate design features that protect various resource values described in Chapter 2. The alternatives to the proposed action are responsive to significant issues raised during scoping and the Interdisciplinary team. Alternative 1 No Action The Forest would continue travel management as it currently is administered. CFR roads closures would remain in effect and cross-country travel would be allowed where permitted by the forest plans. Approximately 11,365 miles of system roads and trails would be available for use. 16 I considered, but did not select Alternative 1 because it does not address the need for action. The alternative does not meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule. Motorized cross-country travel would be allowed on 1,800,475 acres which is not consistent with the Travel Management Rule. This alternative was used to compare the current travel management policy on the Forest with the implementation the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 2 was modified from the action used during scoping (changes were detailed in the EA). This alternative would designate 6,638 miles of road for motorized use along with an additional 8.5 miles of motorized trail. There would be an 80 acre cross-country use area at Fourmile Rock Quarry and motorized access for dispersed camping would be allowed anywhere along 4,871 miles of road or 338,721 acres EA page 23 and EA pages 24 to 30 Page 11

12 I considered, but did not select Alternative 2 because it had the highest impacts to forest resources and adjacent land owners. The continued use of the Fourmile Rock Quarry for a motorized play area impacts the Rocky Point community with noise, dust and nighttime use during the summer. Motorized access for dispersed camping would impact more acres because it is not confined to existing sites. Comparatively, Alternative 3 does not allow motorized access for dispersed camping along motorized trails, so fewer miles of road are available providing better protection of cultural and other resources. Alternative 3 also provides 169 miles of motorized trails which is an opportunity not afforded in this alternative. Alternative 4 This alternative is responsive to the public concern regarding the loss of access to motorized vehicle opportunity by designating 655 miles of ML 1 roads as available for motorized use by designating them as ML 2. This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines at the Forest scale, but not at the watershed level. There would be no cross-country use area proposed with this alternative. Designation would include 7,281 miles of road for motorized use and 5,281 miles of designated routes would be available for motorized access for dispersed camping or 361,842 acres. Use of these areas would be limited to existing routes to existing sites. I considered, but did not select Alternative 4 because it did not provide as much resource protection as Alternative 3 and the additional 655 miles of road added as ML 2 would burden the road maintenance budget. Comparatively, Alternative 3 allows the use of recreation funds to maintain the ML 1 roads as trails. Alternative 3 also provides 169 miles of motorized trails which is an opportunity not afforded in this alternative. Public Involvement Public scoping began July 29, 2009 with mailing a proposed action to over 900 individuals, groups, agencies, organizations, and tribal governments. The Forest received 184 responses. 18 There were 7 open houses to provide the public information. Comments received during scoping provided the issues used to develop the alternatives. 19 On April 22, 2010, the Forest began the 30-day comment period consistent with 36 CFR and 36 CFR An initial analysis and identification of the preferred alternative was provided for the comment period which included a Forest Plan amendment. The Forest received comments from 65 individuals, organizations, and Klamath Tribes. The comments and resource concerns have helped the Forest refine the analysis presented in this EA as well as modify Alternative 3 per requests by the public. 20 Finding of No Significant Impact My determination of significance is based on careful consideration of the EA and project file as compared to the context and intensity factors listed in 40 CFR Context The actions included in the selected alternative are described in Chapter 2 of the EA. The disclosure of effects is for a forest wide action with limited extension outside the National Forest boundary. Most of the motorized use will occur in the interior of the Forest with limited use occurring across BLM and other National Forests boundary. The area of analysis differs by the resource of concern 18 EA Chapter 1 19 EA pages 17 to EA Appendix G Page 12

13 with the scale of analysis often extending to complete watersheds or other geographic area comprising the ecological unit needed for a complete evaluation of impacts. Multiple scales and levels of analysis were used to determine the significance of the actions effects on the human environment. The overall planning area for the Motorized Travel Management Project is the Fremont-Winema National Forest, an area of 2,247,064 acres. The Decision designates approximately 6,600 miles of the 12,374.5 miles of National Forest system roads and 165 miles of motorized trails for public use. Motorized access for dispersed camping would be designated along 4,093 miles of roads for a total of 287,117 acres or about 16 percent of the motorized portion of the Forest. The action was designed to provide motorized access to the Forest for recreational use, including non-motorized uses and does not affect the ability of the Forest to perform resource management projects or meet its emergency obligations. Based on the analysis and the extent of potential effects, this project is local in scope and administration. It results in the safe use of motorized routes for a variety of users while providing the user a tool to determine which routes are available for use through the MVUM. This action also protects ML 1 roads from use while in closed status thereby efficiently using the Forests limited road maintenance funds. The impacts of the selected alternative on each resource are disclosed in the EA. 21 Intensity The environmental effects of the following actions are documented in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Assessment: use of the Fremont-Winema National Forest System roads and motorized trails for motorized recreation and access. The beneficial and adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts discussed in the EA have been disclosed within the appropriate context. Effects are expected to be low in intensity because of project design and the resource protection features put in place to reduce impacts to resources. Significant effects to the human environment are not expected. The rationale for the determination of significance is based on the environmental assessment in light of the factors listed below: 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse (40 CFR (b)(1)) The interdisciplinary team analyzed and disclosed the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the actions on wildlife habitat, soils, water, riparian and fish habitat, air quality, range, transportation, and pest management. 22 While the EA discloses short-term and minor deviations from the existing conditions, in my experience with similar projects, none of these effects have been found to be significant. Alternative 3 applied many of the measurable Forest Plan standards and guidelines at a watershed scale. Even at this scale, effects associated with the public desire to access a larger portion of the forest could be accomplished with resource protection and minimal impacts to potential conflict with non-motorized users. The designated routes fall within the portion of the Forest where the Forest Plans allow motorized use. Forest plan direction could be achieved with one forest plan amendment to accommodate motorized recreation use and access to the Forest. This amendment incorporates new science that reduces the size of the protection buffer for nesting spotted owls and bald eagles. All proposed activities would result in conditions consistent with direction found in the Forest Plan. 2. Effects to public health and safety (40 CFR (b)2)). The Forest conducted an engineering analysis to determine which Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads would be recommended for motorized mixed use. The analysis indicated that mixed use will be 21 Chapter 3 and Appendix H 22 EA pages 47 to 126 Page 13

14 allowed on most for the roads, except paved roads and a few two-lane gravel roads. 23 The analysis indicated the project was compatible with the findings and recommendations of the Upper Klamath Basin Total Maximum Daily Load and the Clean Water Act. 24 Beneficial uses would not be impacted within or downstream of the planning area. Past experience has shown that air quality declines are limited in scope to the area adjacent to the road or trail and are of short duration. 25 It is possible for dust to extend several hundred feet into the air before being dispersed. This would occur when snow is not present and roads are dry. Motorized use of roads on pumice soils can cause severe dust under dry conditions, but hold firm when moist, like in winter and after rains. Road maintenance and danger tree removal will continue as needed and provide for public safety on roads. 3. Effects to unique characteristics of the geographic area (40 CFR (b)(3)). This decision does not designate motorized use in any new areas or along new routes. User developed routes have not been considered. The designation of motorized roads and trails is confined to existing areas where use has occurred in the past and to routes that are currently in the forests inventory of National Forest System motorized routes. Motorized designated routes are proposed in areas that are designated in the Forests Plans for motorized use. There would be no impacts to unique features or character. In the long-term, the prohibition to cross-county motorized use will reduce impacts to areas of concern. No new activities are proposed in Inventoried Roadless Areas. The motorized trail in the Crane Mountain IRA has been an approved use in a semi-primitive motorized area and has been in use for many years prior to this project. Motorized access for dispersed camping has been available across the forest and was considered under all action alternatives. However, this opportunity will no longer be available in semi-primitive non-motorized areas thereby reducing impacts. The project will not impact wetlands or floodplains Effects on the quality of the human environment that are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR (b)(4)). There are differing opinions within the local area on motorized access to the Forest and what impacts could occur to the ecosystem. The level of controversy or interest in what course of action to take regarding the use of roads and motorized trails to achieve the desired conditions in the Forest Plan and the need for this project are not the focus of this criterion, rather it is the degree of controversy over the effects disclosed in the analysis. The Forest Service is limiting access to the Fremont-Winema National Forest: Many people and groups providing comments felt that the Forest is prohibiting access to the Forest. This is not true, motorized access is being provided; just with fewer roads. Motorized access is still provided with 81 percent of the Forest within a half mile of a designated route. Prohibiting cross-country access is likely the most controversial issue for many users. This issue was disclosed and resolved by the Travel Management Rule at the national level. 27 The Travel Management Rule required all National Forests to designate motorized routes and cross-country use areas. It is beyond the scope of this action to revisit the decision to allow motorized cross-country travel across the Forest. The prohibition on cross-country motorized travel will impact how the public uses the Forest and roads they have used in the past. It does not prohibit users from going to areas they have used; just the means of transportation to get there. 23 EA page EA pages 54 and 55; 111 to EA pages 47 to EA page CFR 212 Page 14

15 No significant disagreements have been identified with the disclosure of effects in the EA or public comments. While some commenters disagreed with the conclusion that motorized access to their National Forest is still provided and they disagree with the need to designate routes and areas available for motorized use; the reasons for this difference are based on opinions, not the disclosure of actual effects. Although there is controversy and disagreement among the public over the potential for significant effects from a project of this size, the professional experts and scientific research consulted agree that the activities can be implemented without significant adverse effects on the environment. All actions meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain, or involve unknown risks (40 CFR (b)(5)). My decision will not impose any highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks. Motorized use of the Forest has been ongoing since the areas were incorporated into the National Forest System. Little resource damage has been observed, but the Forest must comply with the Travel Management Rule to avoid potential damage in the future as the ability of motorized vehicles to access the Forest changes and unmanaged use become a severe problem. The continued use of the Forest for motorized travel will hinge on the user continuing to respect the Forest and its resources. Users and the Forest have been successful in the past in meeting regulations concerning these activities and protecting National Forest resources. Past monitoring and experience has shown that the effects disclosed in the EA are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risk. 6. Establishment of a precedent for future actions with significant effects or implication of a decision in principle about a future consideration (40 CFR (b)(6)). The decision is similar to many that have previously been made and will continue to be made by Forest Service line officers regarding travel management activities on National Forest System lands. Even though the action refers to Phase II projects, it is nothing more than the continued refinement of the Motorized Travel Management Plan for the Forest; which is expected under the Travel Management Rule. Nothing is known about these future changes or additions at this time. It is not known where these changes will occur or what they look like. Any proposed future motorized travel projects must be evaluated on their own merits and effects. Consequently, the decision is not expected to establish a precedent for future actions nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7. Relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulative significant impacts (40 CFR (b)(7)). EA Appendix F lists past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future projects that increase traffic use and were considered when describing cumulative effects of this project. The analysis indicates there will be no significant cumulative effects on the environment, either when combined with the effects created by past and concurrent projects or when combined with the effects from foreseeable future actions. 28 EA Chapter 3 and supplement Page 15