Orogrande OHV Trail Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Orogrande OHV Trail Project March 2012 Environmental Assessment North Fork Ranger District Clearwater National Forest

2

3 Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment North Fork Ranger District Clearwater National Forest Northern Region, USDA Forest Service March 2012 Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Kathryn Rodriguez, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District Hwy 12 Orofino, ID For further information, contact: Tammy Harding, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Lochsa Ranger Station rd Street Kamiah, ID The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil

4

5 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Introduction Background Purpose and Need Proposed Action Desired Condition Existing Condition Tribal Consultation Public Involvement Environmental Issues Regulatory Framework and Consistency CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Alternative Development Process Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Design Features Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail Alternative Comparison CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Recreation Water Quality/Fisheries Soils Wildlife CHAPTER 4 OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSIS Effects of Alternatives on Prime Farm Land, Rangeland and Forest land Energy Requirements of Alternatives Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and Women Environmental Justice List of Preparers APPENDICES Maps Federal Consistency Checklist Best Management Practices References Cumulative Effects Page Number

6 CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. Chapter 1 identifies the purpose and need for the proposed action, the scope of the proposed action, and the decisions to be made. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Lochsa Ranger District Office in Kamiah, Idaho. A. Introduction The North Fork Ranger District of the Clearwater National Forest (CNF) proposes to create an Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) loop trail system in the Orogrande Creek area. Encompassing 68 miles (60 miles on National Forest System (NFS) lands and 8 miles on Idaho Department of Lands and Potlatch Corporation lands), this loop would tie into the existing Clarke Mountain OHV trailhead to the north; extend to the Bighorn Weitas Roadless Area boundary to the east, Forest Road 547 to the south, and the Forest Boundary to the west. The route would primarily consist of existing roads and trails. Proposed actions would entail minor amounts of new trail construction, trail reconstruction and changes to travel restrictions on various roads. B. Background Increasing numbers of OHV users, with vehicles having increased off-road capabilities, are visiting the North Fork Ranger District. This increases the possibility of user created routes and subsequent erosion and maintenance issues. The Clearwater National Forest has limited opportunities for OHV users to ride long, primitive trail/road loop-routes that provide access to scenic, rugged country with high elevation vistas. There is an existing system of old logging roads and skid trails in the project area that have been used by OHV s over the last several years. These routes were used as the starting point to create an OHV loop trail system which would tie into the existing Clarke Mountain OHV trail and trailhead to the south and the Sheep Mountain/Camp 60 OHV Trail to the north. C. Purpose and Need The purpose and need for action is based on management direction in the Clearwater National Forest Plan (CFP) to provide a range of quality outdoor recreational opportunities within a Forest environment that will meet public needs now and in the - 1 -

7 future (Forest Goal 1.a, CFP p. II-1). The Forest Service would create an OHV loop trail system in the Orogrande Creek area of the North Fork district to provide an enhanced motorized recreational opportunity to a growing segment of recreationists. Purpose: The purpose of this project is to provide a safe, high quality OHV trail experience in a forested setting appropriate for motorized recreation. OHV routes would offer interpretive and educational signing that promotes public understanding of proper use of and enjoyment of Forest resources. Need: There is a need to provide safe routes that are well designed, in locations that would minimize resource damage, and that can be maintained at reasonable cost (Forest Goal 15. a, b, and d, CFP p. II-3 to II-4). Within this area of the district, there are an increasing number of OHV users and they share the roads with other types of vehicles. Some of these roads are busy, mainline roads where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed. Redirecting OHV traffic to other roads would minimize conflicts with traffic and provide for safer passage. The growing numbers of OHV users along with vehicles having increased off-road capabilities can increase the potential for resource damage. A lack of designated loop routes of substantial length can lead to exploring of non-designated off road/trail routes by users. D. Proposed Action This proposal would provide an OHV loop system on 60 miles of NFS roads and trails in the Orogrande Creek area of the North Fork District. The proposed route continues onto 8.7 miles of Roads 5055, 5055A and 669 on lands owned by Potlatch Corporation and Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). These roads are currently open to public access, but public use is subject to rules and regulations determined by the private landowners. This proposal does not propose to conduct any activities except on National Forest lands. This proposal consists of the following activities Construct 1.7 miles of new trail consisting of 5 short segments (see attached map). Reconstruct 1.2 miles of Trail 17 to accommodate all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Reconstruct 2.9 miles of Trail 88 to accommodate ATVs. Change travel restrictions on 1.2 miles of Trail 17 to permit ATV traffic Change travel restrictions on 12.6 miles of Forest Roads 5201, 5209, 5214, 5227A, 5235, 5235C, 5240, 5240B and as shown in Table 1 below. Trail construction standards would include a tread width of up to 6 feet, clearing width of up to 12 feet, and a desired maximum sustained grade of 15 percent. Grades may vary up to 25 percent in short pitches or climbing turns. Drainage dips would be installed on sustained grades, about 100 feet apart. Where needed, vegetation would be cleared on roads and trail tread established. Directional and educational signing may be placed along the routes and at intersections. Interpretive signing would be installed

8 at points along the route where unique geologic, historic or prehistoric and natural or management processes are evident or took place. This document discusses motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), OHVs, Utility Vehicles (UTVs) and small vehicles. To avoid confusion, the following describes the differences between these vehicles. OHVs are motorized vehicles capable of traveling off the normal highway system. Such vehicles include 4x4 s, dirt bikes, motorcycles, trail bikes, snowmobiles, UTVs and ATV s like three or four wheelers. ATV s consist of all vehicles with three or more wheels that are less than 50 inches in total width measured at their widest point, with a saddle-style seat that is straddled by the operator and steered with handlebars. Small Vehicles are not just defined by width. Specifically, they are ATV s and motorcycles, but not UTV s. E. Desired Condition The desired conditions for this landscape are based on Forest Plan direction. Forest wide goals and objectives are met within the project area through the development of motorized recreation opportunities. By providing agency approved facilities such as OHV trails constructed to Forest Service standards, existing user created trails would no longer be utilized, thereby better protecting area resources. F. Existing Condition The Orogrande OHV project area is located on the western boundary of the North Fork Ranger District in T37N and 38N, R7E and 8E. IDL and Potlatch Corporation lands also lie within the western portion of the project area. The closest community is Pierce, Idaho which lies about five miles to the west of the project area. The project area is primarily accessed from Forest Roads 250 and 669. It contains an extensive road system with general vehicular accessibility, a colorful mining history and a relative degree of remoteness. There are low to moderate levels of dispersed camping, hiking, biking, berry picking, firewood gathering, hunting and horse riding in the area. There is limited non-motorized winter recreation because of the absence of plowed road access. In the winter, some of the area receives moderate to heavy snow machine use. From the Canal Creek trailhead north of Pierce, ID, portions of FS Roads 250, 669 and 5055 are part of the 49 miles of regularly groomed area trails in the area used by snowmobilers; all are in Management Area E1 Timber Management (EA, page 8). OHV use is an extremely popular, fast growing recreational activity on the North Fork Ranger District. The project area currently receives moderate use. Trails 17, 232, 517, 674 (OYM) and Trail 88 (OYS) are the only developed and maintained Forest Service system trails open to motorized use in the project area. The road system is extensive and provides for lengthy excursions. Some of these are busy mainline roads where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed. Partially due to the absence of approved trails, a number of user created trails are scattered about the - 3 -

9 project area. G. Tribal Consultation On January 23, 2008, a scoping letter describing the proposed action, and purpose and need was sent to the Nez Perce Tribe. On February 22, 2008, the project was presented and discussed with tribal officials at a Staff to Staff meeting. H. Public Involvement The proposal was first listed on the Clearwater National Forest website ( in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on January 1, On January 23, 2008, a scoping letter describing the proposed action, and purpose and need was sent to over 300 interested individuals, businesses, organizations and agencies. A legal notice and request for public comment appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on January 24, The project was also presented to various ATV groups in April and May of Comments were received from 24 individuals, organizations and agencies. Many who commented stated that the scoping map did not display the proposed route in enough detail to provide helpful comments. On March 16, 2010, after further field work and incorporation of public comments into a more refined proposal, the Forest Service sent another scoping letter out to those who had originally commented on the project. This letter provided a detailed description of project activities and a detailed map of the proposed route. The Orogrande OHV EA was released in January 2011 and a Decision Notice was issued September The project was appealed and subsequently withdrawn in December The Orogrande EA has been updated to address public concerns. I. Environmental Issues The proposed action was developed to meet the purpose and need for action and designed to minimize effects on resources. Analysis of public and internal comments for the project identified the following issues and concerns. They were addressed through alternative development, and/or project design features and resource protection measures. These issues are described below. 1. Issues Used to Develop Alternatives to the Proposed Action Development of Motorized Access in Management Area (MA) C8S Big-Game Summer Range/Timber Management: Some who commented translate Clearwater Forest Plan direction for MA C8S (ROD, pg. 25 and CFP III, pg. 55, Appendix F, pg. 1, 2) to mean that the one mile long section of Trail 17 that lies within MA C8S should be closed to all motorized vehicles. They wanted to see an alternative that did not construct new trail or enter MA C8S. Alternative 3 was developed to address concerns about development of motorized access in MA C8S. This alternative does not propose any reconstruction activities or access changes to Trail 17. This trail is currently open yearlong to motorcycles and has been in place since 1928, long before development of the Clearwater Forest Plan. Under this alternative, access would remain open yearlong - 4 -

10 to motorcycles. No reconstruction activities or travel restriction changes would occur. There would be no travel restriction changes on Roads 5240, 5240B and 5227A within MA C8S. These road segments would remain restricted yearlong. Alternative 2 would change travel restrictions on the section of Trail 17 in C8S to open yearlong to small vehicles (ATV and motorcycles, but not utility vehicles). About 1.2 miles of Trail 17 would be reconstructed to accommodate all-terrain vehicles. With few exceptions forest-wide, the projected road building and timber harvest envisioned for MA C8S has not occurred and, given the protections afforded by the Idaho Roadless Rule, is not likely to occur. (Of the 207,500 acres of MA C8S, only around 2,000 acres in scattered chunks were ever roaded or harvested.) Since MA C8S has not been roaded or developed, the requirement to restrict all motorized traffic there is not triggered. Therefore, this proposal to change travel restrictions on Trail 17 and construct 0.4 miles of new trail open to small vehicles within MA C8S is consistent with Forest Plan direction. See page 8 of this document for more information regarding forest plan direction. 2.Issues Used to Develop Design Criteria and/or Mitigation Impacts on Weitas Creek Inventoried Roadless Area: Portions of Trail 17, which is open yearlong to motorcycles, lies within the Weitas Roadless Area. This trail has been in place since Because of public concerns that any proposed activities within the roadless area could affect roadless area values, this proposal would not enter the roadless area. Alternative 2 would reconstruct 1.2 miles of Trail 17 that lies within management areas E1 and C8S, but outside of the Weitas Roadless Area, and change travel restrictions on that section from open yearlong to motorcycles to open yearlong to small vehicles. Alternative 3 does not propose any activities or changes on Trail Other Issues Carried Through the Analysis Resource Concerns: People expressed concern that proposed activities should protect water quality, fisheries, soils, and wildlife habitats. This project was designed to assure that Forest Plan goals and standards for these resources would be met, as well as other applicable laws and regulations. Potential impacts to these resources are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table 3. Law Enforcement: Others who commented thought the proposal would encourage more illegal motorized use and lead to resource damage and subsequently, more law enforcement would be needed. The project purpose and need addresses this concern. The project was designed to provide safe routes that are well designed and in locations where resource damage would be minimized and trails could be maintained at reasonable cost. The Forest Service feels that designated routes and proposed signage would direct traffic, discourage trail pioneering and educate the public about motorized recreational etiquette

11 4. Issues decided by Law or Policy, not Affected by the Proposal, or Outside the Scope of the Project Impacts to Cultural Resources: Some were concerned about impacts to cultural or religious sites. Cultural resource surveys were conducted in the proposed treatment areas. In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clearwater National Forest consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Nez Perce Tribal Historic Preservation Office on the no properties finding of this report in accordance in the terms of the programmatic agreement. Game Retrieval: One commenter wanted the project to incorporate a permit system to enable hunters to retrieve wild game from behind closed gates. This proposal is to provide a safe OHV route for motorized recreation that would minimize user conflicts and restrict resource damage. Incorporation of a permit system for game retrieval is outside the scope of this project. Noxious Weed Treatments: There was concern that potential campsite development in the project area would result in machines being driven off trail, increasing the spread of noxious weeds. No campsites are proposed with this project. The proposed route designations would discourage off trail use. Travel off designated routes will soon be prohibited once the Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan is completed. Ongoing weed treatments would continue in this area. OHV Use on Trail 20: One commenter felt that travel restrictions on Trail 20 should be changed and ATV travel should be prohibited. This trail is not a part of this proposal and is not within the project area; therefore, suggested access changes to that trail are outside the scope of this project. Travel Planning: Some who commented felt that this project should be delayed until the Forest-wide travel management plan is completed. Once the Forest-wide Travel planning process is complete, motorized vehicles will be required to travel only on designated routes. The Travel Plan is evaluating motorized travel on a broad scale (most of the Clearwater National Forest) to implement the national travel rule and require summer motor vehicles to travel only on designated routes. Other projects, like this one, are proceeding concurrently with the Travel Plan and are analyzing road or trail work like construction or reconstruction that is not addressed by the Travel Plan. The Travel Plan did not propose any notable changes to motorized travel that are specific to the Orogrande OHV Project area. Wildlife Security: One commenter felt the Forest Service should enforce seasonal restrictions to prohibit wheeled vehicle access on trails in MA C4 (big game winter range) during the winter months. Impacts from trail use in MA C4 would be minimal because there is little to no access to this area in the winter due to the long travel distances and extreme weather conditions. This trail system receives little to no wheeled vehicle use in winter. In winter, the route within MA C4 is physically very difficult to travel due to deep snow and cannot be traveled in a day. There is no draw for recreation

12 Climate Change: Others who commented suggested that this proposal would result in the emission of greenhouse gases; therefore, impacts on global warming should be considered. Others felt we should consider the cumulative impacts of promoting fossil fuel consumption. The Forest Service recognizes that vehicles emit greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change; however, this project does not authorize whether or not motorized activity occurs on the District, but rather where it may occur. This project attempts to redirect existing OHV traffic onto safer, well designed routes in locations that minimize resource damage and can be maintained at a reasonable cost. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the general public would meaningfully alter the amount of their motorized use (and corresponding emissions) because of this proposal, whether their preferred use is to drive to this or a different trailhead to hike, tour in a passenger vehicle, or to recreate with off highway vehicles on this or another trail, on or off the forest. Given the limited scope and small scale of this project and the lack of connection between the proposal and changes in public vehicle emissions, we believe further analysis is unwarranted. J. Regulatory Framework and Consistency 1. Forest Plan Direction The Clearwater Forest Plan (CFP), as amended, guides all natural resource management activities by providing a foundation and framework of standards and guidelines for National Forest system lands administered by the Clearwater National Forest. This proposal was developed to provide a safer, high quality recreational OHV routes. The Orogrande OHV Trail System EA is tiered to the CFP and CFP EIS. A complete description of forestwide goals, objectives, and standards are found in Chapter II of the CFP on pages II-1 through II-40. The following forestwide goals and objectives apply to this project area and are relevant to proposed actions. Provide a range of quality outdoor recreational opportunities within a Forest environment that will meet public needs now and in the future. (II-1) Limit motorized use on selected big-game range to minimize effects on big game. (II-2) Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species. (II-2) Maintain, and where appropriate, improve the winter and summer habitat over time to support increased populations of big-game wildlife species. (II-2) Manage watersheds, soil resources, and streams to maintain high quality water that meets or exceeds State and Federal water quality standards, and to protect all beneficial uses of the water, which include fisheries, water-based recreation, and public water supplies. (II-3) Locate, design and manage Forest roads to meet resource objectives and public concerns, and to provide optimal soil and watershed protection. (II-3) Plan, construct and maintain a safe and cost-efficient Forest transportation system that - 7 -

13 will achieve Forest Plan resource management goals and objectives. (II-3) Apply transportation planning concepts considering present and anticipated future demands for trails and related facilities as a part of project planning to determine need for retaining trails and appropriate standards. (II-3) Manage use of trails to provide user safety, minimize conflicts between users, and prevent damage or loss of facilities from improper use. (II-4) Area specific standards and guidelines are found on pages III-1 through III-74 of the CFP. Proposed activities would take place on lands that fall within MA C4, C8S and E1. MA direction, specific to this project area, is summarized below. C4 Key Big Game Winter Range/Timber Management Manage to provide sufficient forage and cover for existing and projected big game populations and achieve timber production outputs. Manage motorized vehicle use during the winter when big game is vulnerable to harassment, and at any time when conflicts may occur with timber management. Close roads and trails to motor vehicles and off road vehicle use when potential conflicts with big game winter use could occur (III-47). C8S Big Game Summer Range/Timber Management Manage to maintain high quality wildlife and fishery objectives while producing timber from the productive forest land. These objectives can be met by modifying standard timber practices, scheduling, and prohibiting most public motorized uses. Wildlife objectives are primarily oriented at elk habitat management but are not to exclude moose habitat on the Powell District. Travel management direction for MA C8S is mostly premised on this MA being developed (new road construction) and harvested during the life of the Forest Plan. With few exceptions forest-wide, this development has not occurred and, given the protections afforded by the Idaho Roadless Rule, is not likely to occur. The Forest Plan does not speak to ATV use in C8S and it is not specifically prohibited. Management Area direction applicable to the current and foreseeable future of MA C8S (Forest Plan, p. III- 55) includes: Prohibit public use of motorized vehicles on all new roads constructed in the management area, except permit snowmobiles during the winter period (December 1 through March 1). Permit trail bike use on trails suitable for trail bikes until the area is roaded, at which time the entire area will be closed to all public use of motor vehicles. E1 Timber Management Manage to provide optimum, sustained production of wood products (III-57). Manage for a minimum of 25 percent maximum elk potential habitat effectiveness. When habitat conditions warrant, managers are urged to exceed the 25 percent habitat standard (III-58). Manage a roaded natural setting for dispersed recreation. Manage for all levels of difficulty of ORV use on trails. Regulate use of roads and trail (to motorized vehicles) where needed to accomplish wildlife, watershed objectives, or property values. Manage seasonal and yearlong road closures to provide security for elk to meet area objectives (III-59)

14 Forest Plan Lawsuit Settlement Agreement In February 1993, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society representing nine coplaintiffs filed two lawsuits against the CFP. On September 13, 1993, the Forest Service signed a settlement with all parties and agreed, in part, to proceed only with those timber sales and/or new road construction projects, which result in no measurable increase in sediment yield in drainages currently not meeting Forest Plan standards. These agreements remain in effect until a Forest Plan revision is completed. The Orogrande OHV project would not measurably increase sediment yield because of the implementation of design features and the new route construction is not near any streams. CFP Water Quality Standards Water quality standards in the CFP on pages II-27 through II-29 direct that soil and water resources be managed at levels designed to meet Forest management objectives for watersheds as well as meet Idaho State Water Quality Standards. 2. Watershed and Fisheries Resources Regulatory Framework All Federal and State laws and regulations applicable to water quality would be applied to the Orogrande OHV project, including 36 CFR , the Clean Water Act, and Idaho State Water Quality Standards, Idaho Forest Practices Act, Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act, and Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, laws and regulations require the maintenance of viable populations of aquatic species including the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR ), subsequent Forest Service direction (Fish and Wildlife Policy, ) and Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2470, 2600). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that states must identify and prioritize water bodies that are water quality limited (i.e., water bodies that do not meet water quality standards). For waters identified on this list, states must develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the pollutants, set at a level to achieve water quality standards. A Sub-basin Assessment and TMDLs have been completed for the Upper North Fork Clearwater River and its tributaries, including Orogrande Creek (IDEQ, 1998). Orogrande Creek was listed as water quality impaired for temperature as it did not meet the state's water temperature standard for cutthroat trout. The TMDL provided an assessment of the shading status for streams the Orogrande Creek watershed. No implementation plan has been completed, but any planned activities need to maintain or improve temperature. Therefore, the Orogrande OHV project would be designed to produce no measurable increase in temperature. The entire TMDL document can be found at the following website: 3. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction The contiguous United State distinct population segment of the Canada lynx is listed as threatened (USFWS 2000). Critical habitat has been proposed for the Canada lynx - 9 -

15 (USFWS 2008); however, none of the proposed critical habitat is on the CNF. Management of lynx in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), including the CNF and North Fork Ranger District, is governed by the Record of Decision for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USFS 2007b), which contains a set of objectives, goals, standards, and guidelines for managing lynx and their habitats in the Northern Rockies. This management direction applies only to mapped lynx habitats on National Forest lands that are presently occupied by Canada lynx. Some specific objectives and guidelines that are applicable to the proposed trail system include: Objective HU 01: Maintain the lynx s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep snow, by discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat. Objective HU 02: Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity Objective HU 03: Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. Guideline HU G3: Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G11: Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. 4. Endangered Species Act The USFWS provided an updated species list for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests on June 30, 2010 (CONS-250c). Listed species that may occur on the North Fork Ranger District include the Canada lynx, gray wolf and bull trout. The species list contained one candidate species, the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). No evidence exists that any other listed or proposed species may occur on the North Fork Ranger District. The Regional Forester approved an updated sensitive species list in February The only sensitive fish species that occur in the project area are westslope cutthroat and interior redband trout. A Biological Assessment has been completed for the Orogrande OHV Project that documents the project may affect, not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. It also documents a no effect determination for the other species. Trail construction and reconstruction would be on ridges, away from streams. Existing OHV use on existing roads poses no sediment concerns. 5. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended A cultural resource inventory was conducted for the proposed project area. No properties eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places were found. In accordance with the Act, the findings of the inventory were

16 submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer and the Nez Perce Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for review and comment. Both entities concurred with a finding of no effect to historic properties. 6. Executive Order on Environmental Justice Based on experience with similar projects on the North Fork Ranger District and CNF, none of the alternatives would affect minority groups, women, or civil rights. 7. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provisions have been followed as required in 40 CFR The proposed actions comply with the intent and requirements of NEPA. The EA analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. It also discloses the expected effects of each alternative and discusses the identified issues and concerns. 8. Travel Management (36 CFR 212, 251, 261) The Forest Service regulations for travel management at 36 CFR identify criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motorized use. The regulations require the Forest Service to consider: the effects on natural and cultural resources; public safety; provision of recreational opportunities; access needs; conflicts among uses of NFS lands; the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration. The regulations also require the Forest Service to consider the following criteria with the objective of minimizing effects: damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitats; conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS roads; conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands; compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas; and the speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and surfacing. The proposed actions would comply with the regulations for Travel Management. 9. Executive Orders 11644, National direction for travel planning, specifically off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands, is provided by Executive Order (EO) 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands (February 8, 1972), as amended by EO (May 24, 1977). Section 3(a) of EO directs the Forest Service to promulgate regulations that provide for designation of trails and areas for off-road motor vehicle use. The regulations require that designation of these trails and areas be based upon protection of National Forest System (NFS) resources, promotion of public safety, and minimization of conflicts among uses of NFS lands. Section 9(b) was added to EO when it was amended by EO

17 Section 9(b) specifically authorizes the Forest Service to adopt the policy to designate those areas or trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use and to close all other areas and trails to that use. The proposed actions would comply with the Executive Orders

18 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative Development Process This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered during this analysis. Chapter 2 sharply defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public (40 CFR ). The important difference between alternatives is based upon the driving (or key) issue that is emphasized in each. Alternatives were developed based upon Forest Plan objectives, National and Regional direction and policy, existing conditions and environmental issues. B. Alternative 1 No Action This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of environmental consequences of the proposed action to the existing condition and is a management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official. The results of taking no action would be the current condition as it changes over time due to natural forces. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. There would be no new trail construction and no changes to the existing road system. Full sized vehicles and OHV would continue to use the same road systems. This would reduce visitor enjoyment and increase safety hazards resulting in adverse impacts to visitor experience and safety. No interpretive or educational signage would be installed to promote the proper use and enjoyment of Forest resources. Because of the lack of approved trails, user created trails could increase the potential for resource damage. C. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Under this alternative, the Forest Service would meet the purpose and need by implementing the activities listed on pages 2 and 3 of this document. Alternative 2 would construct 5 short segments of new trail totaling 1.7 miles that would be open yearlong to small vehicles. These trail segments would connect existing roads and trails and provide additional loop opportunities. This alternative would change travel restrictions on 1.2 miles of Trail 17 from open yearlong to motorcycles to open yearlong to small vehicles. This section of 18 inch wide single track trail would be widened to about 72 inches to accommodate ATV s. Alternative 2 would reconstruct 2.9 miles of Trail 88 to accommodate ATV travel. Trail 88 currently varies from a single 18 inch track up to about 50 inches wide and lies mostly along the top of a flat ridge and partly on an old logging road. Some steeper sections would be rerouted to locations that are more appropriate. Portions of this trail would need to be widened to the 6 foot trail standard. Travel restrictions on 12.6 miles of Forest roads 5201, 5209, 5214, 5227A, 5235, 5235C, 5240, 5240B and would be changed from restricted yearlong to all to open yearlong to small vehicles. These are aggregate and native surface roads. Some can be readily traveled by full sized vehicles while others have grown in with brush. All roads

19 are stable with functioning culverts and ditches. Trail construction and reconstruction on all roads and trails discussed above would entail vegetation clearing, trail tread development and installation of appropriate erosion control devices. Directional and educational signing may be placed along the routes and at intersections. Interpretive signing would be installed at points along the route where unique geologic, historic or prehistoric and natural or management processes are evident or took place. D. Alternative 3 Development of Motorized Access in MA C8S This alternative was developed to address concerns about development of motorized access in MA C8S. Within MA C8S, Alternative 3 would not construct any new trail or reconstruct existing Trail 17 or change current travel restrictions on 2.18 miles of Roads 5240, 5240B and 5227A. Under Alternative 3, travel on Roads 5240B,5227A and a 1.2 mile portion of Road 5240 would remain restricted yearlong. Alternative 3 would construct 3 short segments of new trail totaling one mile that would be open yearlong to small vehicles. These trail segments would connect existing roads and trails and provide additional loop opportunities. As described in Alternative 2, this alternative would also reconstruct 2.9 miles of Trail 88. Like Alternative 2, travel restrictions on Forest roads 5201, 5209, 5214, 5227A, 5235, 5235C, 5240 and would be changed from restricted yearlong to all to open yearlong to small vehicles. Similar to Alternative 2, directional and educational signing may be placed along the routes and at intersections. Interpretive signing would be installed at points along the route where unique geologic, historic or prehistoric and natural or management processes are evident or took place

20 Table 1 Proposed Travel Restriction Changes Alt 2 Road/ Current restriction & Trail # reason for restriction Proposed restriction Alt 2 Miles affected Alt 3 Proposed Restriction Alt 3 Miles Affected 5201 RYA *; wildlife OYS*** 0.15 OYS A C RYA except snowmobiles; soil, water RYA except snowmobiles; soil, water RYA except snowmobiles; wildlife RYA except snowmobiles; wildlife RYA except snowmobiles; wildlife OYS 4.37 OYS 4.37 OYS 0.41 OYS 0.41 OYS 0.36 No Change No Change OYS 1.84 OYS 1.84 OYS 0.60 OYS RYA; wildlife OYS 3.08 OYS B RYA except snowmobiles, wildlife RYA except snowmobiles; soil, water, wildlife OYS 0.52 No Change No Change OYS 1.29 OYS 1.29 Total road miles Trail 17 OYM ** OYS 1.2 No Change No Change Total Trail miles *RYA Restricted yearlong to all motorized vehicles ** OYM Open yearlong to motorcycles *** OYS - Open yearlong to small vehicles < 50 (ATVs and motorcycles, but not utility vehicles) E. Design Features Design features for this project are included in the concurrence letters for the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Trail Maintenance Program. Best Management Practices (BMP) s are also included for minimizing sediment and other impacts. These design criteria have been approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA in minimizing impacts. Given past projects, these design criteria have been found to be effective.

21 A fisheries biologist or hydrologist would assess and approve any gravel borrowing that may occur. Woody materials that have fallen across trails and extend into stream channels would have only that portion of the material obstructing trail use removed, leaving the portion extending into the stream channel. Instream woody debris would not be cleared without prior review and approval by the unit fisheries biologist. Dirt which is removed from the trail would be placed outside of the normal high water mark or in the trail tread. Trail work on or near stream crossings would be done with emphasis on retention of vegetation for stabilizing banks, minimizing sediment introduction, and providing a stable, non-eroding crossing. Surface water on trails would be reduced through installation of dips, waterbars, pipes, ditches, and/or trenches. Recreation personnel would monitor the routes for noxious weeds during routine trail maintenance. If any unrecorded heritage sites are discovered during the course of project implementation, all project activities in the vicinity of the sites would cease and the District or Forest Archaeologist would be notified. Employ erosion control measures, such as mulching and seeding, on exposed soils to minimize sediment delivery to streams. F. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Trail 17 Reconstruction in Weitas Roadless area: This project originally proposed to reconstruct a 0.4 mile segment of Trail 17 that lies within the Bighorn-Weitas Roadless Area to accommodate ATV traffic. This trail is currently open yearlong to motorcycles. After review of public comments and field visits by specialists, this alternative was dropped. The project route was altered to avoid the Weitas Roadless Area. Minimizing or eliminating the construction of new ATV trails. One comment suggested an alternative that minimized or eliminated the construction of new ATV trails, stating that this was especially important in Management Area (MA) C8S. The purpose and need of this project is to facilitate OHV traffic to other roads and trails to minimize conflicts with other traffic, reduce resource damage, and better manage recreational use. Alternative 3 would not construct new trail in MA C8S. New roads would not be constructed as part of this project. Proposed access changes on existing roads and trails would only be implemented where analysis determined there would be no impact to various resources (see Chapter 3). With regard to MA C8S, the 1987 Forest Plan envisioned that much of the then roadless country would be developed with road systems and timber harvest and that development was expected to occur in C8S, not in the C1, C6, B2 or A3 MAs. Some of the goals for this MA were set with the expectation that C8S areas would be developed.

22 These goals include closing all new roads to motorized traffic and even closing all trails to motorized traffic once the area had been developed, as mitigation. But the future envisioned for these C8S areas in 1987 has not occurred, and is unlikely to. Thus, rather than a developed roaded natural landscape envisioned in 1987, with few exceptions, the forest is looking at a semi-primitive landscape with little development to mitigate for. Currently, the trail system in C8S lands receives motorized traffic, primarily motorcycles, wherever the physical condition of the trail permits it. Maintain existing access restrictions or minimize access changes. A commenter suggested an alternative that would minimize changes to current travel restrictions. Specifically, he suggested development of an alternative that would avoid Road 5235 (by using only Road 5226), and avoid Trail 17, by staying along Road This alternative was not considered in detail because it would not have met the purpose and need to redirect OHV traffic off of mainline roads. Proposed access changes on existing roads and trails were analyzed to determine potential impacts to the various resources that prompted the initial access restriction. Access changes would only be implemented where analysis determined there would be no impact to various resources (see Chapter 3). Alternative 3 does not propose access changes to Trail 17 or Roads 5227A, 5240B and portions of Road The purpose and need for this project is to provide a safe, well designed, high quality OHV trail experience in a forested setting appropriate for motorized recreation in locations that would contain resource damage, and that can be maintained at reasonable cost----using existing roads for this purpose minimizes needed construction/reconstruction, and efficiently utilizes previously constructed routes having hardened tread surfaces----this effectively confines OHV travel to existing routes while minimizing potential sedimentation and/or off-route resource damage G. Alternative Comparison The following table presents a comparison of the proposed action to the purpose and need based on indicators established to measure responsiveness. Table 2 Alternative Comparison by Response to the Purpose and Need Purpose and Need Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Provide a safe, high quality OHV trail experience in a forested setting that is appropriate for motorized recreation. Provide safe routes that are well designed and in locations that would contain resource damage and can be maintained at reasonable cost. Miles of new OHV trail Trail miles converted from OYM to OYS Road miles changed from RYA to OYS

23 Purpose and Need Indicators Miles open seasonally or yearlong to vehicles >50 wide including UTV s Miles open seasonally or yearlong to motorcycles and ATVs, but not UTVs. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative Table 3 Alternative Comparison by Issue Resource Issue Alternative 1 Issue Indicator Water Quality/Fisheries: Increase in Sediment delivery Increase in Stream Temperature Soils: Erosion Potential Wildlife: Management Indicator Species Threatened, endangered & proposed species Sensitive species None None Low to moderate No change No change No change Alternative 2 No change No change No change No change No change No change Alternative 3 No change No change No change No change No change No change

24 CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS This chapter provides a summary of environmental impacts of the alternatives considered in detail. Further analysis and conclusion about the potential effects are available in reports for each resource and other supporting documentation cited in those reports. A. Recreation Resources 1. Affected Environment The Orogrande OHV project area is located on the western boundary of the North Fork Ranger District in T37N and 38N, R7E and 8E. IDL and Potlatch Corporation lands also lie within the western portion of the project area. The closest community is Pierce, Idaho which lies about five miles to the west of the project area. The project area is primarily accessed from Forest Roads 250 and 669. The entire proposed route encompasses an area of about 27,700 acres, mostly National Forest lands and about 2,600 acres of privately owned lands. There are approximately 234 miles of road in the project area with various traffic restrictions (see table 4 below.) This area provides an extensive road system with general vehicular accessibility, a colorful mining history and a relative degree of remoteness. There are low to moderate levels of dispersed camping, hiking, biking, berry picking, firewood gathering, hunting and horse riding in the area. There is limited non-motorized winter recreation because of the absence of plowed road access. In the winter, some of the area receives moderate to heavy snow machine use. Approximately 49 miles of Forest Service roads in the project area (within MA E1) are groomed for snowmobilers. From the Canal Creek trailhead north of Pierce, ID, portions of FS Roads 250, 669 and 5055 are part of the regularly groomed area trails used by snowmobilers. The project area receives moderate motorized trail vehicle use. However, this is an extremely popular, fast growing recreational activity on the North Fork Ranger District. Currently, there are 4.3 miles of trail and 32 miles of roads open to small vehicle use only, in the project area. Approximately 5.5 miles of FS Trails 17, 232, 517, 674 and the northern most portion of Trail 88 are designated for only single-track motorized use in the project area. They receive moderate use. Project area roads provide opportunities for lengthy excursions. Some of these are busy mainline roads where vehicles travel at a relatively high rate of speed. Partially due to the absence of approved trails, a number of user created trails are scattered about the project area. 2. Environmental Consequences a. Alternative 1: No Action. Direct and Indirect Effects OHV recreation opportunities would not change. There would be no trail development