Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Environmental...

Welcome Station

Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute

Environmental Assessment Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District

Deschutes National Forest Deschutes County, Oregon

Township 18 South, Range 11 East, Sections 14, 15, Willamette Meridian

For More Information Contact: Scott McBride

63095 Deschutes Market Road Bend, OR 97701

Phone: 541-383-4708

United States

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2016

Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute EA

2

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the

USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited

from discriminating based on race, color, national origin,

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression),

sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental

status, income derived from a public assistance program,

political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by

USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and

complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of

communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-

2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may

be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online

at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a

copy of the complaint form, call

(866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA

by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender

mailto:[email protected]


3

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS

Acronyms

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

BA Biological Assessment

BBC Birds of Conservation Concern

BE Biological Evaluation

BMP Best Management Practices

BO Biological Opinion

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DNF Deschutes National Forest

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

FS Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FSR Forest Service Road

FSTAG Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines

GIS Geographical Information System

IDT Interdisciplinary Team or ID team

KEA Key Elk Area

LRMP Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan also referred to as Forest Plan

MIS Management Indicator Species

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

NFR National Forest Roads

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NRF Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat (Spotted Owl)

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Values

PDC Project Design Criteria

RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines

TES Threatened, Endangered and, Sensitive Species

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Abbreviations

dbh Diameter at breast height


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Commonly Used Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Project Area Description ..................................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Existing Condition .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.5 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................. 8

1.7 Management Direction ....................................................................................................................... 9

1.8 Summary of the Scoping Process ...................................................................................................... 10

1.10 Other Pertinent Laws and Regulations ........................................................................................... 11

1.11 Project Record ................................................................................................................................. 14

1.12 Decision to be Made ....................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 15

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Alternative Development Process .................................................................................................... 15

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................................................... 15

2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail ..................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Project Design Elements ................................................................................................................... 18

2.6 Connected Actions ............................................................................................................................ 21

Chapter 3: Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 23

3.1 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................. 28

3.3 Botany ............................................................................................................................................... 52

3.4 Silviculture ......................................................................................................................................... 56


5

3.5 Scenery .............................................................................................................................................. 57

3.6 Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 59

3.7 Heritage ............................................................................................................................................. 61

3.5 Required and Additional Disclosures and Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. 62

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................... 66

4.1 Public Involvement............................................................................................................................ 66

4.2 Consultation with Others .................................................................................................................. 66

4.3 Interdisciplinary Participation ........................................................................................................... 66

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 68


6

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION __________________________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the proposed action. This document is organized into five parts:

Purpose and Need for Action: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, the proposal for achieving that purpose and need, and key issues used to formulate alternatives, develop mitigation, and track effects and other issues that did not drive alternatives but were addressed in this analysis.

Alternatives: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. This discussion also includes mitigation measures.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource areas (i.e. recreation, wildlife, botany). Within each section, the effect of the no action alternative provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow are described in this section.

Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of prepares and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, data specific to the project, public notifications and their responses, and miscellaneous documentation, may be found in the project record located at the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District, Bend, Oregon.

1.2 BACKGROUND __________________________________________

In 2012, the Deschutes National Forest initiated the planning process for a non-motorized paved path and a trailhead between Bend and the new Cascade Lakes Welcome Station as well as mountain bike trails connecting the Welcome Station to existing trail systems. Grant funding was received from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program to help pay for the design and future construction of part of this project. A decision signed in July 2014 completed the planning for the Welcome Station Trail Connections project. The decision included approving a multi-modal non-motorized paved path to parallel the Cascade Lakes Highway and provide connection between Bend Park and Rec’s Haul Road Trail (which ends at the Forest Service boundary) and the newly constructed Welcome Station Visitors Center.


7

1.3 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION _________________________________

The Welcome Station Paved Path project is located on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District on the Deschutes National Forest (DNF) west of the City of Bend. The project area includes the section of the path that parallels the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway (also known as Highway 46, Cascade Lakes Highway) from the new Rimrock trailhead to the Meadow Day Use road intersection (Figure 1-1). This section of trail is approximately 1 mile long.

Legal descriptions are as follows: Township 18 South, Range 11 East, Sections, 14, 15.

Figure 1: Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Vicinity Map

1.4. EXISTING CONDITION

The newly designed and approved Welcome Station paved path is a multi-modal non-motorized trail that parallels the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway (Highway 46). The path is located on the Bend -Fort Rock Ranger District just west of the City of Bend. The current design for the trail connects the Bend Park and Recreation District Haul Road trail to the new Cascade Lakes Welcome Station. The paved path currently designated route is on the southeast side of the Cascades Lakes Highway with users


8

crossing the highway on a surface crossing near the Meadow Day Use Road intersection. After the surface crossing, the paved path continues west to the Welcome Station.

1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED _______________________________________

The purpose and need for action is generated by the difference between current conditions and desired conditions. Desired conditions are based on goals and management direction provided in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990).

Existing Condition

The current planned location of the Welcome Station Paved Path uses a surface crossing on the Cascade Lakes Highway near the Meadow Day Use Road intersection. ODOT was able to locate a safe location for the surface crossing and has the responsibility to monitor and install traffic control devices to maintain a safe surface crossing. The paved path is planned to be located on the south side of the highway until the crossing and at the crossing switches to the northwest side of the highway.

Desired Condition

Providing an underpass crossing instead of a surface crossing is desired to further improve public safety while crossing the highway. Selecting a suitable location that allows for public safety and minimizes construction and resource impacts is needed.

Purpose and Need

There is a need to improve public safety on the Welcome Station paved path by eliminating the surface crossing while maintaining paved path connectivity between Bend and the Welcome Station. The crossing will need to be located in an area that would minimize construction disturbance as well as resource impacts.

1.6 PROPOSED ACTION________________________________________

The proposed action would alter the design of the Welcome Station paved path, rerouting a portion of the trail to cross the Cascade Lakes Highway with an undercrossing near the new Rimrock trailhead location and continuing west on the north side of the highway. The paved path has not been constructed yet and this proposal would alter the design before this 1 mile section of trail is built. All other portions of the paved path, mountain bike trails and other components of the Welcome Station Trail Connections Environmental Analysis and Decision Notice would remain as initially planned.

Undercrossing: This proposed trail crossing under the Cascade Lakes Highway would be located near the Rimrock trailhead and eliminate the need for a surface crossing on the highway near the Meadow Day Use road intersection. After initial review of potential undercrossing sites along the Cascade Lakes Highway, this location allows for a low amount of construction disturbance and provides a safe crossing for path users. The underpass would incorporate accessibility and universal design features for a hiker/pedestrian path consistent with the rest of the Welcome Station Paved Path.

Paved Path Reroute: With the new undercrossing, a reroute connecting the paved path at the undercrossing to the existing path location across from the Meadow Day Use road intersection is needed. The reroute is about 1 mile, replacing approximately 0.9 miles of proposed trail on the southeast side of the highway. The path would be located near the highway and would be consistent


9

with the design of the Welcome Station Paved Path.

1.7 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION __________________________________

1.7.1 DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

This environmental assessment is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended. The Forest Plan guides all management activities on the Forests. It establishes overall goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines for proposed activities, including specific management area guidance for resource planning. Major Forest Plan amendments that pertain to this project are the Eastside Screens which guides all natural resource management activities within the project area and provides standards and guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest.

The existing planned location of this segment of the paved path is within MA 11 Intensive Recreation. Almost all of the 1 mile of the rerouted paved path would be in MA 9 Scenic Views Management Allocation. The new undercrossing would be located in the ODOT Highway right-of-way and does not have a Management Allocation (Other Ownership).

MA9 Scenic Views

The goal of scenic views is to provide Forest visitors with high quality scenery that represents the natural character of central Oregon. The theme of scenic views is for landscapes seen from selected travel routes and use areas to be managed to maintain or enhance the appearance of the areas being viewed (LRMP 4-121).

MA11 Intensive Recreation

The goal is to provide a wide variety of quality outdoor recreation opportunities within a Forest environment where the localized settings may be modified to accommodate large numbers of visitors (LRMP 4-135).

Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area

The project area is also within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA), as designated in the Forest Plan (LRMP 4-56 to 4-58; Appendix 16-2). Both the current designated trail and the new proposed trail reroute have sections (approximately .5-.75 mile) within the KEA. Elk are found in certain key habitat areas, within which land management is designed to provide conditions needed to support summering and wintering elk. Key elk areas are not a separate management area designation in the Forest Plan but forest-wide standards and guidelines (S&Gs) are identified for these areas (LRMP WL-43, WL-45, WL-46 and WL-47).

Additional management direction can be found in resource reports located in the project record.


10

Figure 2: Proposed Reroute Location

1.8 SUMMARY OF THE SCOPING PROCESS AND COMMENT PERIOD The Welcome Station Trail Connections project was first published to the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest project webpage on 9/25/2015 at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47482.

This project was first published in the Deschutes National Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), a quarterly publication, in October 2015 and has appeared in each quarterly SOPA since then. This is a quarterly report that is distributed to interested individuals, organizations, and agencies Forest-wide. The SOPA is automatically updated and available on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest webpage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110601.

A detailed description of the proposed action was mailed on September 25, 2015, to approximately 160 forest users and concerned publics, soliciting comments and concerns related to this project. This letter was also mailed to the Burns Paiute Tribe, The Klamath Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. Coordination and consultation with the tribes is ongoing. A total of four letters/emails of response were received, which were considered and evaluated.

The Interdisciplinary (ID) team of Forest Service resource specialists evaluated input from public scoping. Issues and concerns are used to formulate and develop alternatives or develop constraints and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. Issues are generally divided into the following groups: non-key issues, key issues and analysis issues. Currently only non-key issues were raised in scoping comments. Half of the comment letters were supportive of the project. The

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110601


11

other comments brought up questions about cost and protection of wildlife habitat. These questions were reviewed for analysis.

The Environmental Assessment was made available to the public for a 30-day comment period which began on January 27, 2016 and ran through February 26, 2016. Two comments were received.

1.10 OTHER PERTINENT LAWS AND REGULATIONS _____________________

Analysis and documentation has been done according to direction contained in the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, Forest Service NEPA regulations, The Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.

The following is a brief explanation of each of these laws and their relation to the current project planning effort.

1.10.1 NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs all actions taken on National Forest System (NFS) lands to be consistent with Land and Resource Management Plans. The regulations in this subpart set forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource management plans for NFS lands as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as amended. These regulations prescribe how land and resource management planning is conducted on NFS lands. The resulting plans shall provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of goods and services from the NFS in a way that maximizes the long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner. This project would incorporate design features that ensure compliance with amended Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

1.10.2 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969, AS AMENDED

The purposes of this Act are “to declare a national policy which would encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which would prevent or eliminate damaged to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nations; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). The law further states “it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of the present and future generations of Americans.” This law essentially pertains to public participation, environmental analysis, and documentation.

The Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Project follows the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The entire process of preparing this environmental assessment was undertaken to comply with NEPA. Cumulative effects were assessed and displayed where they occur in the manner most informative and logical to display. The depth of analysis was tailored to the degree of effect. Therefore, a brief discussion is most useful to decision makers and the public to reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data and to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives (CEQ, 1500.2b). In many instances within


12

this analysis, past and present activities were included in the existing condition. Foreseeable actions were also addressed if there was a proposed action and if it is in the public domain.

1.10.3 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED

Effects to Threatened and Endangered species are evaluated in the Wildlife and Botany sections of Chapter 3 of this EA and in their resource reports. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions of federal agencies do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species. A Biological Evaluation has been completed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant, and terrestrial species.

The purposes of this Act are to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purpose of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section”. The Act also states, “It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.”

Threatened and endangered fish, plant, and wildlife species and their habitat are evaluated in Chapter 3 of this EA, and in the Biological Assessments/Evaluations found in the project record.

1.10.4 MULTIPLE-USE SUSTAINED-YIELD ACT OF 1960

The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage NFS lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). All renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations.

1.10.5 THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consult with American Indian Tribes, State, and local groups. Section 106 of this Act requires Federal agencies to review the effects project proposals may have on the cultural resources in the analysis area.

Potentially affected Tribes (Burns Paiute, The Klamath Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs) have been contacted. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted on this project.

1.10.6 THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The purpose of this Act is to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds. The Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, including in this Convention…for the protection of migratory birds…or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16USC 703). The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States


13

and Great Britain (for Canada). Later amendments implemented treaties between the Unites States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia). In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Deschutes National Forest is currently following guidelines from the “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington” (Altman 2000). This conservation strategy addresses key habitat types as well as biological objectives and conservation strategies for these habitat types found in the East Slope of the Cascades, and the focal species associated with these habitats. The conservation strategy lists priority habitats: 1) ponderosa pine; 2) mixed conifer (late successional); 3) oak-pine woodland; and 4) unique habitats, lodgepole pine, white bark pine, meadows, aspen, and subalpine fir. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds Executive Order 13186, signed January 10, 2001, directs federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practical, adverse impacts on migratory birds’ resources when conducting agency actions. This order directs agencies to further comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other pertinent statutes. This analysis is compliant with the National Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. FWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds (USDA 2008g). See Wildlife analysis in Chapter 3.4.2.

1.10.7 EXECUTIVE ORDER ON INVASIVE SPECIES

This order (signed February 3, 1999) requires Federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species to identify those actions and within budgetary limits, “(i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species… (iii) monitor invasive species populations… (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;…(vi) promote public education on invasive species… and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species… unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency had determined and made public… that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm would be taken in conjunction with the actions.”

1.10.8 THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1977 AND 1990

The Clean Air Act requires the Forest Service to protect air quality related values in Class I Areas (e.g. City of Bend). The primary purpose of this act is to: a) protect human health and welfare with national air quality standards; b) establishes major air quality goals; and c) provides means and measures to attain goals by addressing existing and potential air pollution problems. All Forest Service proposed activities must follow the federal Clean Air Act, as amended. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility and authority to establish regulations and standards for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Region 10 of EPA covers Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.


14

1.11 PROJECT RECORD _______________________________________

This EA hereby incorporates by reference the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project record references all scientific information that was considered for the analysis, including reports, literature reviews, review citations, academic peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground- based observations to validate best available science. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the specialist reports, biological assessments, and biological evaluations in adequate detail to support the decision rationale. The project record is available for review at the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District Office, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701, Monday through Friday 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

1.12 DECISION TO BE MADE ____________________________________

The responsible official for deciding the type and extent of management activities in the Welcome Station Reroute analysis is the District Ranger of the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District on the Deschutes National Forest. This decision is limited to whether or not an underpass will be installed for crossing the Cascade Lakes Highway, the location of the underpass and resulting reroute of the path and what mitigation measures will apply. The responsible official will consider the following factors when making a decision:

1. How well the alternative(s) meets the project’s purpose and need.

2. How well does the alternative respond to the issue(s).

3. Have public comments been considered during this analysis.

4. What are the likely environmental effects of the proposed action and alternative(s), and have mitigation measures that would apply to project implementation been identified.


15

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 INTRODUCTION __________________________________________

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Welcome Station Reroute project. This chapter is intended to present the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public (40 CFR 1502.14).

2.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS __________________________

An Interdisciplinary (ID) team evaluated information from public scoping. This chapter outlines project design elements that have been built into the alternative to ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, laws, regulations and other policies. It also includes resource protection measures that are designed to minimize potential resource impacts by the project.

2.3 SCOPING COMMENTS ______________________________________

A total of 4 letter or emails were received from the pubic during scoping. Two of the comments were supportive of the proposed action. One email commented on cost of the project which is addressed below, but did not drive another alternative. Another letter commented on wildlife concerns that are addressed in the wildlife effects section. No comments received contained unresolved conflicts that would create a third alternative. During IDT review, the alternative of rerouting the path to remain on the southeast side of the highway until the existing underpass was discussed. This was also explored during the Welcome Station Trail Connections EA. Upon review this alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY _____

2.4.1 REROUTE PAVED PATH TO THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE CASCADE LAKES HIGHWAY AND

USE THE EXISTING UNDERPASS AS THE HIGHWAY CROSSING

Constructing the paved path on the southeast side of the Cascade Lakes Highway within ODOT’s right of way across Widgi Creek Golf Course and Seventh Mountain Resort was explored. This alternative would provide a connection from the Rimrock trailhead to the existing Cascade Lakes Highway hiker/pedestrian underpass without constructing an additional crossing.

This alternative was reviewed by Forest Service and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) engineers. Because the path would have closely paralleled the Cascade Lakes Highway, they found that safety barriers would be needed between the paved path and the highway to protect bicyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicle accidents. The location of the path would require the removal of vegetation screening along the golf course that is maintained to protect motorists from stray golf balls. Removing this screening would also place bicyclists and pedestrians at risk of being injured by stray golf balls unless netting or some other barrier was placed between the golf course and the paved trail. Finally, it was determined that the path would not fit completely within the ODOT right of way, and an easement would need to be pursued across private land. Acquiring easements can be a


16

lengthy process, taking two or more years and due to the safety concerns listed above, it is unlikely that an easement could be attained.

Due to the complexity of the safety requirements for bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists, and the uncertainty of obtaining an easement, this alterative was eliminated from detailed study.

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL __________________________

This EA assesses the potential effects of three alternatives: a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one Action Alternatives (Alternative 2).

2.5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

The interpretation of this no action alternative is that the proposed action would not take place. Under this alternative, the paved path location would be constructed as analyzed in the Welcome Station Trail Connections EA (2014). The path would have the surface crossing at Meadow Day Use Road intersection. This alternative is used as baseline to compare the action alternative against.

2.5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2

Alternative 2 would allow for construction of an undercrossing tunnel and subsequently reroute ¾- 1 mile of the paved non-motorized path on National Forest System lands adjacent to north Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway. This project would provide increased safety to users of the paved path by constructing an undercrossing instead a surface crossing on the Cascade Lakes Highway.

Specifically, this project includes:

UNDERCROSSING TUNNEL

This proposed trail crossing under the Cascade Lakes Highway would be located near the Rimrock trailhead and eliminate the need for a surface crossing on the highway near the Meadow Day Use road intersection. After review of potential undercrossing sites along the Cascade Lakes Highway, this location allows for a low amount of construction disturbance and provides a safe crossing for path users. The underpass would incorporate accessibility and universal design features for a hiker/pedestrian path consistent with the rest of the Welcome Station Paved Path.

PAVED PATH REROUTE (1 MILE)

The path reroute would connect the undercrossing location to the existing trail location on the northwest side of the highway at the Meadow Day Use Road intersection. This reroute would construct approximately 1 mile of paved path northwest of the highway replacing about .9 mile of paved path (not yet built) on the south side of the highway from the trailhead to the Meadow Day Use Road (FS4600-100). The proposed non-motorized paved path would be 10 feet wide with approximately 2 or 2.5 foot shoulders on each side. Vegetation clearing limits for the path would be approximately 20 feet or less. The path would be closed to motorized uses other than wheelchairs and mobility devices1.

1 A wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, is a device that is designed solely for use

by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (Title V, sec.


17

Figure 3: Location of Alternatives

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICS

Short-term safety hazards, such as construction traffic and falling trees near roads, would be mitigated through contract safety provisions and are not anticipated to impact public safety. Standing trees that lean over or near roadways and present a hazard to public safety due to conditions such as deterioration or physical damage to roots, trunks, stems, or limbs would be removed from the project area.

Undercrossing

507c, of the ADA; 36 CFR 212.1). “Designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion” means

that the wheelchair was designed and manufactured solely for use for mobility by a person with a disability. Thus,

this term does not include a motorized unit that has been retrofitted to make it usable by a person with a disability.

“Suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area” means usable inside a home, mall, courthouse, or other indoor

pedestrian area.


18

During the construction of the undercrossing tunnel beneath the Cascades Lake Highway, the Rimrock trailhead and adjacent trails will need to be temporarily closed.

Paved Path At this time, the final construction design for the path is not complete. To construct the paved path it has been estimated that fewer than 100 trees between 8 and 20 inches dbh and less than 5 trees/snags greater than 20” would be taken. If feasible, trees would be removed and sold.

2.6 PROJECT DESIGN ELEMENTS __________________________________

In order to minimize potential resource impacts from project activities, project design criteria have been incorporated into the action alternatives unless otherwise specified. Project design criteria are devised in the pre-analysis and analysis phases to reduce environmental impacts and comply with applicable laws and regulations. They include, but are not limited to, best management practices (BMPs), standards and guidelines (S&Gs), and standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Recreation and Scenery

To maintain the natural appearances of the setting and maintain ROS norms:

Restore areas impacted or denuded of vegetation as a result of project activities as soon as practicable after construction.

Retain features in the landscape such as large trees or tree groupings and lava rock outcrops. Maintain as many trees as possible so recreationists travel through a natural-appearing setting.

To the extent possible, allow curvature in the trail layout and alignment vs. straight shots so the rider experience is enhanced and views to the surrounding landscape are captured.

To facilitate public safety:

Utilize AASHTO standards with regard to trail surfacing, grade and turning radius.

Coordinate with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for undercrossing of Cascade Lakes Highway.

To incorporate accessibility and universal design features as well as reduce conflicts between users:

Construct the paved trail reroute to meet the following Designed Use and Trail Class standards:

Designed Use: Hiker/Pedestrian

Trail Class (Appendix B): Trail Class 5, Fully Developed

Tread wide, firm, stable, and generally uniform

Width generally accommodates two-lane and two-directional travel, or provides frequent passing turnouts

Commonly hardened with asphalt or other imported material

Utilize FS Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG) and Forest Service Trails Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG).

Ensure accessible parking facilities are designed into developed parking areas and are defined as accessible. Include accessible trail connectivity from developed parking areas to trail access points.


19

Prohibit recreational use of Class I, II, and II all-terrain vehicles and equestrian use on all paved trail alignments. Allow motorized wheelchairs or mobility devices2 on the paved path in pursuant to 36 CFR 212.1.

To provide for sustainable recreation opportunities:

Explore partnership agreements for construction and future maintenance of all proposed recreation developments.

Design criteria for the paved path should consider the following to meet standards and guidelines for the Scenic Views Management Area:

Locate viewpoints and design interpretive sites that take advantage of any panoramic views or points of interest if applicable to the area.

Consider providing shaded rest stops or pull-outs along the route.

Provide signing that is minimal and low key by avoiding shiny or metallic materials and bright or white colors.

Use topography and existing vegetation to create a path that invites non-motorized use and limits access to motorized vehicles.

Restore disturbed native vegetation to edges of path and provide landscape screens around parking areas so vehicles are not visible from surrounding areas.

Use materials on the trail that blend with the surrounding landscape character and avoid white or light colored aggregate on the shoulders of the trail.

Provide screening between the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway and trail through natural appearing earth berms and native vegetation.

Use native materials that blend with the surrounding landscape for site revegetation and construction of terraced planting areas along the undercrossing connection to the trails.

Wildlife

To protect Lewis’ woodpeckers, disruptive work activities will not occur within ¼ mile of nest sites between April 15 and August 31.

To protect white-headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, northern flickers, and pygmy nuthatch disruptive work activities will not take place within ¼ mile of nest sites between May 1st and August 31st.

To protect Black-backed woodpeckers, disruptive work activities will not take place within ¼ miles of nest sites between May 15th and August 31st.

To protect red-tailed hawks, disruptive work activities will not take place within ¼ miles of nest sites between March 1st and August 31st.

For all bird nests, pre-implementation nest checks (during nesting season) will help refine where these restrictions apply.

2 A wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, is a device that is designed solely for use

by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (Title V, sec.

507c, of the ADA; 36 CFR 212.1). “Designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion” means

that the wheelchair was designed and manufactured solely for use for mobility by a person with a disability. Thus,

this term does not include a motorized unit that has been retrofitted to make it usable by a person with a disability.

“Suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area” means usable inside a home, mall, courthouse, or other indoor

pedestrian area.


20

To protect western bumblebee populations, invasive plant sites will be avoided and/or treated prior to ground disturbance to minimize spread.

Signage that explains that the paved trail will not be maintained for winter use will indirectly reduce to disturbance to wintering elk and deer.

Soils

Establish and maintain construction limits, clearing limits, and staging areas to the minimum area

necessary and confine ground disturbance to these limits. All limits and staging areas should be

clearly staked on the ground. Clearing limits for this project will be 20 feet wide, except in situations

where cuts and fills require wider limits to maintain trail grade.

Use the construction footprint for the trail prism for temporary stockpile on cut and fill sections to the

extent practicable. Where additional stockpile space is required, identify and clearly stake soil

stockpile areas to the minimum size necessary. Excavated soil should be constrained to these areas.

Avoid burying undisturbed areas with less-fertile excavated subsoil. If excess soil remains after cut

and fill is balanced, remaining soil will be hauled away to an approved disposal site. Disturbed

stockpile areas will be rehabilitated and seeded as specified in Design Feature 7 below.

During undercrossing excavation, excess material should be placed in an approved storage site if it is

expected to be used for fill during trail construction, or promptly hauled to an approved disposal site

if it is to be wasted. Where additional short-term stockpile space is required, identify and clearly

stake soil stockpile areas to the minimum size necessary. Excavated soil should be constrained to

these areas. Avoid burying adjacent undisturbed areas with less-fertile excavated subsoil. Disturbed

stockpile areas will be rehabilitated and seeded as specified below.

Heavy machinery should remain within the staked clearing limits for the project. Any areas outside

the clearing limits that are impacted by machinery must be rehabilitated and seeded as specified

below.

Any trees to be removed from the clearing limits will be hauled back to an approved decking site

along the trail corridor. Off-trail travel onto adjacent lands is not permitted. Alternately, trees may

be felled and left onsite.

Undercrossing design should incorporate appropriate drainage features that prevent concentration of

highway runoff onto disturbed soil areas.

As soon as is practicable following construction completion, all bare and/or impacted surfaces should

be rehabilitated. This may include loosening heavily compacted soil using excavator bucket teeth or

other available machinery, recontouring displaced soil, and re-establishing surface cover. Surface

cover may be achieved by applying a hydroseed/hydromulch mix to obtain 75% mulch surface cover

by area. Seed mix will be prescribed and approved by the project botanist. All bare areas resulting

from this project (including but not limited to cuts and fills along the paved trail, cuts and fills

associated with the undercrossing, staging and stockpile areas, and machinery disturbances within

and outside of clearing limits) will be treated in this manner.


21

Invasive Plants

Clean all equipment before entering and after leaving National Forest System lands. Remove mud,

dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it into the project area and before

proceeding to the next project.

Avoid site 6110878LIDA. Avoid this site due to the high population of dalmation toadflax (1,000

stems) and inability to effectively remove the plants. Lat: 44.019269° Long: -121.377338°. Other

documented sites will continue to be pulled or sprayed by the District.

Fill material from the 41 Rd. pit (source for project aggregate) weed spread prevention measures:

Spray invasives within the Forest Service 41 Rd. pit property, prior to rock crushing if possible.

Spray exposed aggregate with preemergent once aggregate is in place to prevent weed establishment.

Conduct follow-up treatments as necessary.

Additional fill material: any additional fill material proposed for use in the project must be inspected

for weeds and cleared by the District Botanist prior to approval for use.

Revegetate disturbed areas around the underpass with locally adapted, native plants in order to

promote a healthy, weed resistant habitat. Consult with District Botanist to determine areas

necessary for revegetation.

Cultural Resources

If previously unknown items of prehistoric or historical value are discovered or disturbed during construction, activities would cease in the area affected and the District Archaeologist would be notified. A mitigation plan would be developed in order to address the effects of the project on the resource.

Vegetation

Remove whole trees without harming remaining trees to an approved landing site.

To reduce growth loss and health of trees, from compaction and damaged roots, keep heavy equipment actions and activity away from under remaining trees.

2.7 CONNECTED ACTIONS

Danger Tree Removal

For worker safety during construction, danger trees (and snags) along the path corridor may be felled. Most snags identified along the trail corridor were smaller diameter trees. All danger trees identified by workers needs to be verified and approved by the Forest Service before being felled.


22

2.8 COST

The cost of implementing either Alternative 1 or 2 will be primarily sourced from grants and other

outside funding such as Federal Highways Funds. The cost of either alternative is not prohibitively high

to prevent reaching a decision based on purpose and need along.


23

CHAPTER 3: EXISTING CONDITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 RECREATION __________________________________________

RECREATION RESOURCES ANALYSIS METHODS

The analyses of environmental effects to recreational resources included in this report are assessed based on the following measures:

A. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is used as a framework managing recreation development (Clark and Stankey, 1979). The proposed actions are located within a Roaded Natural classification. The recreation opportunity is comprised of the activities, setting and experience a visitor may engage in. The opportunity can be further described with established elements and has been used to structure indirect and direct effects discussions. These elements are:

1. Access: Access includes type and mode of travel. Highly developed access generally reduces the opportunities for solitude, risk, and challenge. However, it can enhance opportunities for socializing, and feelings of safety and comfort. For the Roaded Natural classification, less developed access is compatible while fully developed access is the norm.

2. Remoteness: Remoteness refers to the extent to which individuals perceive themselves removed from the sights and sounds of human activity. A lack of remoteness is important for some setting experiences. In the Roaded Natural classification, remoteness is not a critical component; therefore remoteness is not further addressed in this analysis.

3. Naturalness: This refers to the degree of naturalness of the setting; it affects psychological outcomes associated with enjoying nature This indicator is portrayed by using a compatible visual quality objective (VQO) for each setting. The USDA landscape Management Handbook series can provide further guidance. This criterion will be address in the visual quality component of this environmental analysis and is not further addressed in the recreation report.

4. Facilities & Site Management, Visitor Impacts and Visitor Management & Information: Facilities and site management refers to the level of site development. A lack of facilities and site modifications can enhance feelings of self-reliance and independence, and can provide experiences with a high degree of naturalness. Highly developed facilities can add feelings of comfort and convenience, and increase opportunities for socializing. Within areas classified as Roaded Natural, a range of facilities from undeveloped to rustic using native materials is compatible. Some facilities designed primarily for user comfort with synthetic materials is inconsistent, but acceptable, and facilities designed for user comfort and convenience with synthetic materials commonly used is generally unacceptable.

5. The visitor impact factor refers to the impacts of visitor use on the environment. The relevant question for managers is not "how can impacts be prevented", but rather, "how much change will be allowed and which actions are appropriate for control". The matrix in Appendix A suggests appropriate actions for controlling impacts on soil and vegetation. Impacts on wildlife habitat and on air, water, and sound quality affect the


24

visitor's experience, and visitor impacts can also alter wildlife habitat or displace wildlife species, including indicator species, which provide an important means of monitoring recreation related impacts on fish and other wildlife. Within areas classified as Roaded Natural, appropriate actions for controlling impacts on soil and vegetation range from no site hardening to subtle site hardening that is in harmony with the surroundings. The effects to wildlife, botany and other resources are evaluated in each respective section of the environmental analysis and are not further addressed in the recreation report.

6. Visitor management and information includes the degree to which visitors are regulated and controlled as well as the level of information and services provided for visitor enjoyment. In some opportunity settings, controls are expected and appropriate. For instance, people sometimes seek developed settings for security and safety. Elsewhere, on-site controls may detract from desired experiences, such as independence, self-reliance, and risk-taking. The type and level of information, and where it is provided to the visitor, may facilitate or hinder a desired experience. On-site interpretive and directional signing may adversely affect the visitor where experiences such as self-discovery, challenge, and risk are important. In other situations, on-site information may be essential to achieve desired experiences. Within areas classified as Roaded Natural, a range of visitor management and information from low regimentation and no on-site controls or information to obvious and regimented controls and more complex visitor information facilities that harmonize with the area are acceptable. Controls that are less harmonious and sophisticated information exhibits are generally unacceptable in Roaded Natural settings.

7. Social Encounters: This factor refers to the number and type of other recreationists met along travelways, or camped within sight or sound of others. This setting indicator measures the extent to which an area provides experiences such as solitude, or the opportunity for social interaction. Increasing the number of visitors to an area changes the kind of recreation experience offered, attracting new users and causing others to leave. Moderate to low visitor contacts are the norm within Roaded Natural areas with moderate to high visitor contacts on trails inconsistent, but acceptable and contacts with high numbers of people on-site and within areas surrounding the site unacceptable.

B. Recreation Activities and Experience: Effects on recreation activities and experience in an affected area as well as the effects on recreation activities and experience in other areas (e.g. displacement).

C. Economics: An economics element is included to help completely describe effects to a sustainable recreation program where management strives to balance overlapping environmental, social and economic components of a recreation program. The report assesses the effects on recreation-based revenue including permitted special uses (outfitter/guides and events) and tourism.

The analyses of environmental effects to recreational resources included in this report are based on the following assumptions:

a. The proposed developments are intended for use during the spring, summer and fall, and therefore, effects to winter recreation resources will not be analyzed.


25

b. The following analysis characterizes trails based on trail ‘designed use’, this is the use of a trail that requires the most demanding design, construction, and maintenance parameters. Other trail uses are permitted on all trails unless prohibited. For example, trails within the Phil’s trail system have a trail designed use of mountain bike; however, hiking is also permitted and a popular activity on these trails. The ‘managed uses’ of a trail are those uses for which the trail is actively managed and maintained.

RECREATION EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 (No Action)

Access

This alternative would meet the long term goals for alternative transit options and enhanced access to trail networks between the City of Bend and the Deschutes National Forest. As recreation use and the demand for direct trail connections between Bend and the national forest increases due to population growth, increased tourism and the increasing desire for options for alternative transportation, the additional trails constructed to connect the Welcome Station to Bend and to the existing trail systems would address this increasing use and demand for alternative transportation. Access between Bend and the national forest and among the trail systems would be improved.

This alternative would provide a level of access that offers opportunities for socializing and the feeling of safety and comfort, which is the norm for the Roaded Natural setting.

Temporary closure of short sections of existing trails and the surrounding general forest area may occur during constructions to provide for public safety.

Facilities & Site Management, Visitor Impacts and Visitor Management & Information

The path would be constructed using synthetic materials (asphault), which is inconsistent, but acceptable with a Roaded Natural classification. The pedestrian crossing of the Cascades Lake Highway at the Meadow Day Use areas access road would require coordination with ODOT on appropriate signage and safety requirements to allow safe pedestrian and bike crossings of the high speed highway.

Social Encounters

Due to the developed parking facility and the development of a new recreation opportunity (the paved path), encounters and contact with visitors would increase. The development of a pedestrian crossing of the Cascades Lake Highway also would mean an increase in encounters between vehicles and trail users that currently does not exist.

Recreation Activities and Experience

The popularity of biking, running and walking across the project area is likely to grow as the population of Bend, Sunriver and the nearby housing developments grows and as visitation to the region to enjoy its recreation resources grows.

Economics


26

The proposed improvements to the recreation infrastructure would enhance the outdoor recreation opportunities available near Bend and Sunriver that are an important factor in the ‘livability’ of the community and support the region’s growing outdoor recreation based economy. Area residents, visitors, and businesses would gain from the addition of a paved path connecting the Haul Road trail though the Forest to the Welcome Station and from the addition of new mountain bike trails that link the Phil’s trail system to the Welcome Station.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 2

Access

This alternative would also meet the long term goals for alternative transit options and enhanced access to trail networks between the City of Bend and the Deschutes National Forest. As recreation use and the demand for direct trail connections between Bend and the national forest increases due to population growth, increased tourism and the increasing desire for options for alternative transportation, the additional trails constructed to connect the Welcome Station to Bend and to the existing trail systems would address this increasing use and demand for alternative transportation. Access between Bend and the national forest and among the trail systems would be improved.

This alternative would provide a level of access that offers opportunities for socializing and the feeling of safety and comfort, which is the norm for the Roaded Natural setting.

Temporary closure of short sections of existing trails and the surrounding general forest area may occur during constructions to provide for public safety.

Rerouting the paved path from the Haul Road Trail to the north side of Cascade Lakes Highway will affect one designated Mt. Biking trail. Currently, the southern end of Marvin’s Garden crosses over the Cascade Lakes Highway and ties into the Good Dog! parking area. A short reroute along this section of trail will line it up and integrate it with the paved path and undercrossing. This will substantially improve safety and provide trail connectivity to the Phil’s Trailhead area.

Facilities & Site Management, Visitor Impacts and Visitor Management & Information

The path would be constructed using synthetic materials (asphault), which is inconsistent, but acceptable with a Roaded Natural classification. The pedestrian undercrossing of the Cascades Lake Highway would be designed by ODOT.

Social Encounters

Due to the developed parking facility and the development of a new recreation opportunity (the paved path), encounters and contact with visitors would increase. The installation of a pedestrian undercrossing would limit the amount of vehicle/trail user encounters and provide a safe way for trail users to access the trail systems on either side of the Cascade Lakes Highway.

Recreation Activities and Experience

The popularity of biking, running and walking across the project area is likely to grow as the population of Bend, Sunriver and the nearby housing developments grows and as visitation to the region to enjoy its recreation resources grows.

Economics


27

The proposed improvements to the recreation infrastructure would enhance the outdoor recreation opportunities available near Bend and Sunriver that are an important factor in the ‘livability’ of the community and support the region’s growing outdoor recreation based economy. Area residents, visitors, and businesses would gain from the addition of a paved path connecting the Haul Road trail though the Forest to the Welcome Station and from the addition of new mountain bike trails that link the Phil’s trail system to the Welcome Station.

Cumulative Effects

A number of projects affecting recreation have, are or may occur in the areas surrounding the project area.

Proposed and approved recreation projects would increase and enhance trail-based recreation opportunities in the area including: expansion and improvement of Phil’s trailhead, construction of the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway Welcome Station including a day use trailhead, construction the Cascade Lakes Highway pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing, and the completion of the Tyler’s Traverse and other trails in the Wanoga trail system. Overall, these recreation enhancements along with those proposed in the Welcome Station Trail Reroute Project would improve access, recreation experience and recreation-based revenue. The increase in parking capacity, public safety and availability of new recreation opportunities may lead to an increase in use and encounters, however, the connectivity among the trail systems and the mileage of trail available would provide a trail system that is able to accommodate existing use and growth in use. Encounters would be highest the concentrated use areas around the trailheads, the Welcome Station and at key trail intersections.

The on-going, future and planned vegetation management/fuels reduction and recreation projects would affect access to existing developed and dispersed recreation activities in the area. With multiple projects planned within the area over the next five years, the public, especially residents and frequent visitors, would be affected by the cumulative access disturbances. The effects would include road, trail, site and area closures and the extent of the effect would range from week-long closures to closures that may last two years. The extent of the trail system and area within the project area would allow the public to find substitute recreation opportunities, even if their preferred location is not available. Overall, the long term benefits to forest health and recreation enhancement would be worth the short term effect to access.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both Action alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan standard and guidelines (USDA 1990), as amended. The Recreation Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Project.

Both alternatives would meet the key standard and guidelines for trails; to provide a trail system that is developed to provide a variety of experiences (TR-1).

Both action alternatives would maintain a combination of activities, setting and experience that are consistent with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification of Roaded Natural.


28

3.2 WILDLIFE ____________________________________________

Table 1 DETERMINATIONS SUMMARY TABLE FOR ALL SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE WELCOME STATION PAVED PATH UNDERCROSSING RE-ROUTE PROJECT ANALYSIS

Species Status Determination Rationale

Lewis’ woodpecker

S, MIS, CEFS, BCC

MIIH, SNI, Y, - Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: April 15th through August 31st

White-headed woodpecker

S, MIS, CEFS, BCC

MIIH, SNI, Y, - Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: May1st through August 31st

Townsend’s big-eared bat

S, MIS MIIH, NI Some snag removal, MIS determination based on presence of caves, and no caves within project area.

Pallid bat S MIIH Some snag removal.

Fringed myotis S MIIH Some snag removal.

Western bumblebee

S MIIH Invasive weeds present, potential to impact overwintering burrows and floral/nectar resources.

Red-tailed hawk MIS SNI Some trees removed. Seasonal restriction required for known nest: March 1st through August 31st

Rocky Mt. elk MIS SNI No effects to cover measurements but added non-motorized disturbance.

Mule deer MIS SNI No effects to cover measurements but added non-motorized disturbance.

Pygmy nuthatch CEFS, BCC Y, - Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: May 1st through August 31st

Downy woodpecker

MIS SNI Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: May 1st through August 15th

Hairy woodpecker

MIS SNI Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: May 1st through August 15th

Black-backed woodpecker

MIS, CEFS SNI, =, NA Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: May 15th through August 31st. A focal species for lodgepole pine which is not in project area.

Northern flicker MIS SNI Some snag removal and need for a seasonal restriction for known nesting: May 1st through August 15th

SPECIES STATUS: (Federal Status) T=Threatened; E=Endangered; P=Proposed

Sensitive=S Management Indicator Species=MIS

(Landbird Status) Cascades East Slope Focal Species=CEFS Birds of Conservation Concern=BCC

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NE=No effect; BE=Beneficial effect, NLAA=May affect, not likely to adversely affect;

LAA=May affect, Likely to adversely affect

SENSITIVE SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact; BI=Beneficial impact;

MIIH=May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species;

WIFV=Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact to viability on the Deschutes NF


29

IC=Improved conditions, will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes NF SNI=Small negative impact, continued viability is expected on the Deschutes NF

LNI=Large negative impact with viability concern on the Deschutes NF

LANDBIRDS: Habitat increased (+); Habitat decreased (-); Habitat unchanged (=)

Project is consistent with Conservation Strategy (Y/N/NA)

3.2.1 SNAGS, LOGS AND ASSOCIATED SPECIES

Snags and logs as a habitat component are analyzed because of their role in providing crucial habitat for many Sensitive, MIS, and focal Landbird species. Snag densities in ponderosa pine habitat within the overlapping watershed (North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River) were related to historic or reference conditions. This data did not include the 67 acres of prescribed burning within the project area that occurred in spring of 2015. In general, there is more area lacking in snags than there was historically and there are fewer areas with higher densities of snags than would be expected under reference or historic conditions. Combined with wildlife data, this suggests that the lack of areas with high densities of snags limits the availability of habitat for a number of Regionally Sensitive or Management Indicator Species (MIS) (e.g. more habitat for cavity nesters, in general, is better provided at >4 snags 10”+ dbh/acre and >2 snags 20”+ dbh/ acre but currently the watershed is lacking in these densities).

The prescribed burn in 2015 that runs through the proposed project area provided a small increase in the amount of the landscape providing higher snag densities. This area could also be viewed as a small piece of the landscape providing more suitable habitat for many cavity nesters. LRMP Standards and guidelines for snag densities (1.35 snags per acre) are currently being provided in the watershed.

Current downed wood levels in the larger landscape watershed show that the majority of the watersheds are meeting the LRMP Standard and Guidelines for downed logs. Large (>20”dbh) downed logs are notably below reference conditions.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 (No action)

Not re-routing the trail and building the underpass would have no direct or indirect impacts to wildlife in the project area, a ¼ mile disturbance buffer or in the watershed. A connector paved trail would still be built based on the previously signed decision to place the trail south of the Cascade Lakes Hwy along a closed road bed. An analysis of effects was already completed for this proposal.

The no action alternative would retain the existing habitat conditions, specifically the snag levels supplemented by the West Bend prescribed burn in the spring 2015.

Because there are no direct or indirect effects there are no effects that are additive or cumulative with other actions in the project area, within ¼ mile, or in the watershed.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2

Re-routing the trail onto the north side of Cascade Lakes Hwy and building an underpass adjacent to the Rimrock parking area would directly remove habitat (remove trees and shrubs) within an approximately 6- 8 acre (1 mile linear feet) swath and indirectly disturb with noise approximately 437 acres of wildlife habitat.


30

Field visits to determine snag and log sizes to be removed were conducted in the fall of 2015. Sampling methods put forth by Bate et al (2008), or Jones and Allen (2002) were not applicable to this small of an area or project. Approximately 76 trees (almost 50% of them snags) would be removed as a result of this project. Of these, 1 large (>20” dbh) snag and 3 large (>21” dbh) live trees would be removed. The rest are <20” dbh. There were no logs within the footprint of the proposed action.

The proposed action would reduce snag levels by a fraction of a percent in the entire watershed. This would be additive to other projects in the watershed that reduce snag habitat and contribute to the high snag density pulses in the watershed being further reduced, away from reference conditions.

Log levels would not be directly affected by the proposed action. Reduction of snag habitat would reduce future log habitat.

The project area would still meet LRMP S&Gs for snags and logs.

3.2.2 LEWIS’ WOODPECKER

The Lewis’ woodpecker is a Region 6 Sensitive species that utilizes well decayed snags. There has been an ongoing monitoring study since 2003 of Lewis woodpecker use of artificial nest boxes as well as remaining standing snags. This study has been monitoring 26 nest boxes and 5 nests in snags for 12 years adjacent to the parking area and location for the proposed underpass.

Figure 4: Nesting use and success of boxes at Entrada site.

According to the species report on file at the Deschutes National Forest (2012) habitat for the Lewis’ woodpecker, a migrant in this part of its range, is old-forest, single-storied ponderosa pine. This species was identified as a focal species for ponderosa pine with patches of burned old forests for the East Cascades Landbird Strategy (Altman 2000) as it is highly associated with post-fire environments. Burned ponderosa pine forests created by stand-replacing fires provide highly productive habitats as compared to unburned pine. In fact, Lewis’ Woodpeckers have been termed “burn specialists” because the large majority of this species’ nests have been found within snags in burned pine forests. The Lewis’ woodpecker is abundant in recent (2-4 years) burns and older burns (10-30 years post-fire).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

of

ne

st b

oxe

s

Year

Lewis' Woodpecker Nesting(Entrada Site)

% Used

% w/ FledgedYoung


31

Although S&Gs for snags are being met in the project area, best available science (as referenced using the DecAID website [Mellen-McLean, 2012]) suggests that 1.35 snags/ac is not adequate to meet suitable Lewis’ woodpecker habitat.

The following information from DecAID displays tolerance level information for snag density relative to the Lewis’ woodpecker for snags >10” dbh and snags >20” dbh in post-fire Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF_PF); the habitat type relevant to the proposed action. There is no data on snag density in green stands for the Lewis’ woodpecker due to this species being highly reliant on post-fire habitats.

Table 2: Tolerance levels for the Lewis’ woodpecker as reported in DecAID for post fire habitats

Snag Size Species* 30% T.L.

Snag Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

50% T.L.


Snag DBH (in.)

80% T.L.


Snag DBH (in.)

Number of Studies

>10” dbh PPDF

LEWO 24.7 42.7 70.6 2

>20” dbh LEWO 0 6.2 16.1 1

Snag diameter at breast height (DBH)

LEWO 15.6 19.8 26.1 3-4

From DecAID Version 2.2: Tables PPDF_PF.sp-22, PPDF_PF.sp-17 *LEWO = Lewis’ Woodpecker T.L. = Tolerance Level

Looking at the table above and using data from the wildlife species curves for Lewis’ woodpeckers from the Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir, Post-fire (PPDF_PF) wildlife habitat types, we can say (with 90% certainty) that in this vegetation type:

50% tolerance level = 43.0 snags per acre, thus, 50% of the individuals within the population of nesting Lewis’ woodpeckers utilize areas with a density of snags <43.0 snags per acre and 50% of the individuals within the population of nesting Lewis’ woodpeckers utilize areas with a density of snags >43.0 snags per acre

80% tolerance level = 71.0 snags per acre, thus, 80% of the individuals within the population of nesting Lewis’ woodpeckers utilize areas with a density of snags <71.0 snags per acre and 20% of the individuals within the population of nesting Lewis’ woodpeckers utilize areas with a density of snags >71.0 snags per acre

No Lewis’ woodpeckers were seen along the proposed paved path reroute; however this may be due to the fact that this species is migratory. The field reconnaissance was conducted in October and


32

November of 2015. The monitoring in the area has shown that the Lewis’ woodpeckers arrive by late April and often gone by October.

The monitoring data suggests that the number of active nests in the area has been decreasing since 2010.


The no action alternative would not have any effects to Lewis’ woodpecker populations in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing was analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connections EA (2014). The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA.



The proposed action will directly remove potential Lewis woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat by removing snags and shrubs (potential prey habitat) from the footprint of the paved re-route. Some nesting habitat will also be lost as result of falling hazard trees to meet OSHA requirements. The loss of large snags will be limited with at least one known large snag to be removed (>21”dbh). Otherwise, project design (trail placement) purposefully tried to avoid large snags and logs. This is the size class most widely used by Lewis’ woodpeckers, however the removal of snags <21” dbh will remove some potential nesting habitat (see Table 2 ).

Approximately 10 known nests (nest boxes and in natural snags) are within ¼ mile of the location of the undercrossing. It is likely that work to build this undercrossing would be loud enough to disrupt Lewis woodpecker nesting, especially being additive to regular trails and highway use. A seasonal restriction to avoid the Lewis woodpecker nesting season would be required to minimize the impact implementation may have on nesting woodpeckers. Monitoring data has shown that this season would be April 15th through August 31st in order to capture nest initiation through fledging. This disturbance would be additive to the existing disturbance from recreationists during the breeding season.

The proposed action may impact individuals and habitat but is unlikely to contribute towards a trend to further listing.

Because this project impacts <1% of the suitable habitat across the Forest (<8 acres of habitat impacted with >126,000 acres available on Forest), the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat. The project is consistent with the LRMP, and thus continued viability of the Lewis’ woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency with the Deschutes LRMP

The applicable wildlife standard and guideline is WL-37: At least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population needs will be provided (WL-37) = 1.35 snags/ac >10” dbh. The project will meet this criteria as habitat is available. This proposed action is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP.

Landbird Conservation Strategy Consistency


33

Biological objectives are all based on “where ecologically appropriate” meaning actions must occur within the proper habitat addressed in order to be consistent or not.

Table 3: Lewis Woodpecker Landbird Conservation Strategy Consistency

Species Biological Objectives

Consistent?

Rationale

Lewis Woodpecker

Patches of Burned Old Forest

Maintain >1% of the landscape as post-fire old ponderosa pine forest habitat and >50% of the post-fire landscape as unsalvaged.

Yes The paved path represents <50% of the prescribed burn that created habitat. No removal is planned in the old Awbrey Hall fire area.

Provide approximately 24 snags/ac >9”dbh of these >6/ac should be >20”dbh

Yes Constructing a paved path & undercrossing does not allow the retention of snags within the footprint; however large snags were avoided during layout of the path. Otherwise, it is assumed that elsewhere in the burn unit, all snags would be retained.

Provide recruitment of snags

Yes Snags and green trees retained will provide near-term and future snags.

Retained snags should be in clumps with both hard and soft decay classes.

Yes Project design avoided clumps of snags, and limited the removal of snags.

Provide shrub understory with >13% cover

Yes Shrub removal would only occur in the footprint of the project (~8 acres)

3.2.3 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER

According to the species report on file at the Deschutes National Forest (2012) habitat for white-headed woodpeckers occur primarily in open forest with large ponderosa pine (dead and alive), low shrub levels and large snags (Marshall et al. 2003). Altman (2000) identified the white-headed woodpecker as a focal species for ponderosa pine forests, specifically large patches of old forest with large snags. This species primarily inhabits green forests but the importance of post-fire environments is becoming more apparent. Although S&Gs for snags are being met in the project


34

area, best available science (as referenced using the DecAID website [Mellen-McLean, 2012]) suggests that 1.35 snags/ac is minimal to meet suitable white-headed woodpecker habitat.

Incidental disturbance at nest and roost sites occurs around recreation sites but this species is tolerant of human activity in the nest vicinity as long as activity does not involve the nest tree. Birds become extremely agitated if the nest itself is disturbed even if activity is not prolonged (i.e. steady and consistent disturbance for short period of time).

The following information from DecAID displays tolerance level information for snag density relative to the white-headed woodpecker for snags >10” dbh and snags >20” dbh in Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF_PF); the habitat type relevant to the proposed action.

Table 4: Tolerance levels for snag density for the white-headed woodpecker as reported in DecAID.

Snag Size Species* 30% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

50% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

80% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

Number of Studies

>10” dbh1 WHWO 0.5 1.9 4.0 2

>20” dbh1 WHWO 0.5 1.8 3.8 1

>10” dbh2 WHWO 0.3 1.7 3.7 1

>20” dbh2 WHWO 0.2 1.3 2.8 1


WHWO 10.7 15.8 23.1 2

From DecAID Version 2.2: Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-221, PPDF_O.sp-222 , PPDF_PF.sp-17 *WHWO = White-headed Woodpecker T.L. = Tolerance Level

White-headed woodpeckers were seen along the proposed paved path reroute; however it was outside of nesting season. The field reconnaissance was conducted in October and November of 2015. Nesting may be occurring in the area.


The no action alternative would not have any effects to white-headed woodpecker populations in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing were analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014). The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA.



The proposed action will directly remove potential white-headed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat by removing snags from the footprint of the paved re-route. Some nesting habitat will also be


35

lost as result of falling hazard trees to meet OSHA requirements. The loss of large snags will be limited with at least one known large (>21”dbh) snag to be removed. Otherwise, project design (trail placement) purposefully tried to avoid large snags and logs. Although potential nesting habitat (snags) would be removed, the largest sizes that accommodates a wider proportion of the population (i.e. >21”dbh that meets the 80% tolerance level) will be avoided.

Although there are no known nests within ¼ mile of the project it is likely that implementation work would be loud enough to disrupt potential white-headed woodpecker nesting, especially being additive to regular trails and highway use. Generally without surveys conducted at proper time of year, nesting is assumed because white-headed woodpeckers have been seen in the area and habitat is present. It would be prudent to conduct pre-implementation survey for nesting during the spring. If a nest is found a seasonal restriction to avoid the white-headed woodpecker nesting season would be required to minimize the impact implementation may have on nesting woodpeckers. This season would be May1st through August 30th in order to capture nest initiation through fledging.

Cumulatively, the project is associated with less than 1% of the overall white-headed woodpecker reproductive habitat that occurs across the Deschutes National Forest (approximately 198,330 acres). Implementation of this project would contribute to a small negative trend and may impact individuals and/or habitat for the white-headed woodpecker but will not contribute to a change in viability of the white headed woodpecker on the Deschutes National Forest or contribute to a trend towards federal listing because of the small acreage of the project. Project design retains some potential nesting habitat.




Biological objectives are based on “where ecologically appropriate” meaning actions must occur within the proper habitat addressed in order to be consistent or not.

Species Biological Objectives Consistent?

Rationale

White-headed Woodpecker In Ponderosa Pine Stands

Provide a mean of 10 trees/acre >21”dbh and at least 2 trees >31”dbh

Yes Project design avoided large trees and snags as much as possible.

Provide a mean of 1.4 snags/acre >8”dbh with 50% >25”dbh in a moderate to advanced state of decay

Yes Snag retention will leave 4 snags/ac >20” dbh. It is unknown the state of decay currently but they will advance to this level.

Provide a mean canopy closure of 10-40%

Yes Project is linear in design and will maintain some canopy cover where it exists


36

In predominantly old-growth, provide >350 of contiguous habitat

NA Project is not occurring in old growth.

In 26-75% old-growth, provide >700 acres of contiguous habitat

NA Project is not occurring in old growth.

3.2.4 HAIRY WOODPECKER, DOWNY WOODPECKER, & NORTHERN FLICKER

The hairy woodpecker is a primary cavity nester that is able to adapt to a wide variety of habitats. Ponderosa pine is a preferred nest tree but hairy woodpeckers are known to nest in other species (lodgepole pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, and aspen) except grand fir. Most nests are in dead trees less than 5 years and preferred snags are 10-20” dbh. Most dead trees used for foraging were ponderosa pine >10” dbh, at least 49 feet tall, and dead less than 3 years. Hairy woodpeckers were observed in the project area.

The downy woodpecker is associated with deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests or riparian areas. Downy woodpeckers occur in Oregon primarily in low to moderate elevation deciduous stands of aspen or riparian cottonwood or less often in coniferous forest. The downy woodpecker also utilizes burned forests although specific information of use in the literature is limited usually due to small sample sizes. Marshall et al. (2003) reported documentation of downy woodpecker use of the Awbrey Hall fire in Bend in the winter of 1991. The only report of post-fire foraging habitat comes from Kreisel and Stein (1999). They report that downy woodpeckers foraging on standing dead trees 99% of the time and primarily foraged on ponderosa pine branches (80%). Downy woodpeckers were observed in the project foraging in this way.

Northern flickers are perhaps the most common resident woodpecker in Oregon. They can be found in a range of terrestrial habitats but are generally abundant in open forests and forest edges adjacent to open country. They typically avoid dense forest. This species is also associated with post-fire environments. The northern flicker nests in forested areas in older forests, along forest edges, and in large diameter snags and live trees with moderate to heavy decay. Bull (1980) and Bull et al. (1986) found the flicker most frequently nests in ponderosa pine forest types in northeastern Oregon. In central Oregon, they have a preference for old-growth to mid-successional juniper stands. Flickers tend to select for larger (>20”dbh) diameter snags that are well-decayed and have broken tops. Flickers were observed in the project area and have been known to nest in areas adjacent to the where the undercrossing is proposed.

Although S&Gs for snags are being met in the project area, best available science (as referenced using the DecAID website [Mellen-McLean, 2012]) suggests that 1.35 snags/ac is minimal to meet suitable woodpecker habitat.

The following information from DecAID displays tolerance level information for snag density relative to the white-headed woodpecker for snags >10” dbh and snags >20” dbh in Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF); the habitat type relevant to the proposed action.


37

Table 5: Nesting parameters for snag density >10”dbh for the hairy woodpecker as reported in Bate (1995)

Snag Size Species* No Nesting Habitat (#/acre)

Provides Minimal Nesting Habitat (#/acre)

Provides Nesting Habitat (#/acre)

Provides Optimal Nesting Habitat (#/acre)

30% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

50% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

80% T.L. Snag Density

(#/acre) Snag DBH (in.)

>10” dbh HAWO 0 0.1 3.7 3.7+


HAWO 12.2 16.3 21.9

From Bate 1995 Table PPDF_PF.sp-17 *HAWO = Hairy Woodpecker

Table 6: Tolerance levels for the northern flicker as reported in DecAID in post-fire habitats.


Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

50% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

80% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

Number of Studies

>10” dbh NOFL1 26.8 45.6 84.1 1

>20” dbh NOFL1 2.2 17.4 39.6 1


NOFL 15.2 19.5 25.4 2-3

From DecAID Version 2.1: Table PPDF_PF.sp-221 Table PPDF_PF.sp-17 *NOFL = Northern Flicker T.L. = Tolerance Level


38

Table 7: Existing woodpecker nesting habitat (snags >10” dbh) on the Deschutes NF.

Total Forest-wide Potential HAWO Nesting Habitat Acres

Total Forest-wide Potential DOWO Nesting Habitat Acres

Total Forest-wide Potential NOFL Nesting Habitat

Acres

248,713 ac 1,331 ac (based on hardwood stands)

219,575


The no action alternative would not have any effects to these woodpecker populations in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing were analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014). The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2

The proposed action will directly remove potential woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat by removing snags from the footprint of the paved re-route. Some nesting habitat will also be lost as result of falling hazard trees to meet OSHA requirements. The loss of large snags will be limited with at least one known snag to be removed. Otherwise, project design (trail placement) purposefully tried to avoid large snags and logs. This will assure some habitat being retained and the larger snag sizes are more likely used by a larger portion of the population (Tables 5 and 6).

Although there are no known nests within ¼ mile of the project it is likely that implementation work would be loud enough to disrupt potential woodpecker nesting, especially being additive to regular trails and highway use. Generally without surveys conducted at proper time of year, nesting is assumed because woodpeckers have been seen in the area and habitat is present. It would be prudent to conduct pre-implementation survey for nesting during the spring. If a nest is found a seasonal restriction to avoid the woodpecker nesting season would be required to minimize the impact implementation may have on nesting woodpeckers. This season would be May 1st through August 15th in order to capture nest initiation through fledging.

Cumulatively, the project is associated with less than a 1% of the overall hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, or northern flicker reproductive habitat that occurs across the Deschutes National Forest (Table 7). Implementation of this project may have a small negative impact, but continued viability is expected on the Deschutes National Forest for these woodpecker species. Project design retains some potential nesting habitat, with one large snag and 5 large green trees likely to be removed.




39

3.2.5 PYGMY NUTHATCH

According to literature cited in the species report on file at the Deschutes National Forest (2012) the pygmy nuthatch occurs in mature to old growth ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forests dominated

by ponderosa pine. The pygmy nuthatch nests in cavities in snags and dead portions of live trees. Most nests are in the trunks of ponderosa pine snags and may be reused in successive years. This species may prefer decay class II snags in a wide range of heights. The surrounding areas around nests have been characterized as open forests consisting of large (18.3” dbh) stems and the mean diameters of nests were greater than the surrounding forests.

Although S&Gs for snags are being met in the project area, best available science (as referenced using the DecAID website [Mellen-McLean, 2012]) suggests that 1.35 snags/ac is minimal to meet suitable pygmy nuthatch habitat.

The following information from DecAID displays tolerance level information for snag density relative to the pygmy nuthatch for snags >10” dbh and snags >20” dbh in Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF_PF); the habitat type relevant to the proposed action.

Table 8: Tolerance levels for snag density for the white-headed woodpecker as reported in DecAID in green stands.


Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

50% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

80% T.L. Snag

Density (#/acre)

Snag DBH (in.)

Number of Studies

>10” dbh PYNU 1.1 5.6 12.1 1

>20” dbh PYNU 0.0 0.6 4.0 1


PYNU 16.9 22.8 31.5 2

From DecAID Version 2.2: Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-17 *PYNU = Pygmy Nuthatch T.L. = Tolerance Level

Pygmy nuthatches were not observed along the proposed paved path reroute; however it was outside of nesting season. The field reconnaissance was conducted in October and November of 2015. Nesting may be occurring in the area.


The no action alternative would not have any effects to pygmy nuthatch populations in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing was analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014). The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA.



40

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects- Alternative 2

The proposed action will directly remove potential pygmy nuthatch nesting and foraging habitat by removing snags from the footprint of the paved re-route. Some nesting habitat will also be lost as result of falling hazard trees to meet OSHA requirements. The loss of large snags will be limited with at least one known snag to be removed. Otherwise, project design (trail placement) purposefully tried to avoid large snags and logs.

Although there are no known nests within ¼ mile of the project it is likely that implementation work would be loud enough to disrupt potential nesting, especially being additive to regular trails and highway use. Generally without surveys conducted at proper time of year, nesting is assumed because habitat is present. It would be prudent to note pygmy nuthatch presence during a pre-implementation survey for woodpecker nesting during the spring. If a nest is found a seasonal restriction to avoid the nesting season would be required to minimize the impact implementation may have on nesting woodpeckers. This season would be May 1st through August 31st in order to capture nest initiation through fledging.

Cumulatively, the project is associated with a small percentage of the overall pygmy nuthatch nesting habitat that occurs across the Deschutes National Forest. As a focal species for large ponderosa pine, the project area would meet the biological objectives in the respective Landbird conservation strategy. Project design retains some potential nesting habitat, with one large snag and 5 large green trees likely to be removed.





Species Biological Objectives Consistent?

Rationale

Pygmy Nuthatch Large Trees in Ponderosa Pine Stands:

Provide a mean of 10 trees/acre >21”dbh and at least 2 trees >31”dbh

Yes Project design avoided large trees and snags as much as possible.

Provide a mean of 1.4 snags/acre >8”dbh with 50% >25”dbh in a moderate to advanced state of decay

Yes Snag retention will focus on leaving the largest sizes. It is unknown the state of decay currently but they will advance to this level.

3.2.6 BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER

According to the MIS Info sheet (Mellen-McLean, 2013 updated version) on file at the Deschutes National Forest, habitat for black-backed woodpeckers in general is in old forests in subalpine,


41

montane, lower montane forests and riparian woodland. Recently burned conifer forests or insect-infested forests provide key conditions for nesting and foraging, as the birds require conditions that produce bark and wood-boring beetles.

Black-backed woodpeckers are associated with recently burned forests and locally abundant insect outbreaks. Their populations are irruptive as they follow the outbreaks of wood-boring beetles across the landscape.

Black-backed woodpeckers reach higher abundances and have higher reproductive success in burned forests than in unburned forests, including areas of insect outbreaks. Black-backed woodpeckers nest in areas of high severity fire. Densities of nests peak at about 4 to 5 years post-fire. Nesting rarely occurs in burned areas where salvage logging has occurred. This type habitat for the species is only temporarily suitable, usually within the first 5 years post-disturbance. Green forests provide less suitable habitat, but allow the woodpeckers to persist between disturbances.

Table 9: Densities of snags >23 cm (9”) dbh surrounding nests of black-backed woodpeckers in Oregon and Idaho, by Vegetation Condition Class (DecAID version 2.1 Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-22, PPDF_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012)).

Vegetation Condition 30% tl 50% tl (mean) 80% tl

Number of studies

PPDF_S/L (green) 2.5 13.6 29.2 1

PPDF_PF (post-fire) 37.4 52.8 76.5 2

Snag Size (in.)

PPDF_PF Snag dbh 9.9 12.3 15.9 3-4

Black-backed woodpeckers were observed along the paved path route in the section that runs through a prescribed burn. Because initial field observations were made in the fall, nesting could not be determined. Potential nesting habitat is present.

Direct and Indirect Effects- Alternative 1 (No Action)

The no action alternative would not have any effects to black-backed woodpecker populations in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing were analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014). The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA.



The proposed action will directly remove potential black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat by removing snags from the footprint of the paved re-route. Some nesting habitat will also be lost as result of falling hazard trees to meet OSHA requirements and building of the trail. The loss of large snags will be limited with at least one known snag to be removed. Otherwise, project design


42

(trail placement) purposefully tried to avoid large snags and logs. However, this species tends to use smaller snags (Table 13). Therefore more potential nesting habitat will be removed.

Although there are no known nests within ¼ mile of the project it is likely that implementation work would be loud enough to disrupt potential black-backed woodpecker nesting, especially being additive to regular trails and highway use. Generally without surveys conducted at proper time of year, nesting is assumed because black-backed woodpeckers have been seen in the area and habitat is present. It would be prudent to conduct pre-implementation survey for nesting during the spring. If a nest is found a seasonal restriction to avoid the black-backed woodpecker nesting season would be required to minimize the impact implementation may have on nesting woodpeckers. This season would be May 15th through August 31st in order to capture nest initiation through fledging.

Cumulatively, the project is associated with less than 1% of the overall black-backed woodpecker reproductive habitat that occurs across the Deschutes National Forest (approximately 258,072 acres). Implementation of this project may impact individuals and/or habitat for the black-backed woodpecker but will not contribute to a change in viability of the species on the Deschutes National Forest or contribute to a trend towards federal listing because of the small acreage of the project. Project design retains some potential nesting habitat.





Species Biological Objectives Consistent? Rationale

Black-backed Woodpecker Old Growth Lodgepole Pine

Provide large tracts (>1,000 acres) of lodgepole pone forest dominated by and managed for late successional condition

NA No harvest is occurring in old growth lodgepole pine.

3.2.7 FRINGED MYOTIS, TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT, AND PALLID BAT

The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a Regional Forester Sensitive Species and a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species. The Townsend’s big-eared bat is known to occur on the Deschutes National Forest, particularly in lava tubes and flows on the Forest. The following information is summarized from the 2012 forest-wide habitat assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (USDA Forest Service 2012). This species is dependent on cave or cave-like structures (buildings) year-round in mixed conifer forests, deserts, and agricultural areas for roosting, rearing, and hibernacula. There are no known caves or buildings in the project area but there is a rock cliff structure adjacent to the project area. Foraging associations include edge habitats along streams and in forested habitats, particularly in sagebrush steppe and open ponderosa pine stands. They are assumed to seasonally migrate to caves or cave-like structures in lower elevations during spring and summer. Foraging habitat occurs in the project area. Lepidoptera, their primary insect prey, appears to be vulnerable to high-severity fire


43

effects; however, low severity fires may enhance their habitat. This species is declining across the western U.S. and is considered stable or slightly decreasing on the Deschutes National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012). The project area may be providing some foraging habitat for this species because the stand is open. However because the project area is part of a burn, and prey species are known to be vulnerable to such burns, the foraging habitat may be of lower quality for Townsend’s big-eared bat.

The fringed myotis is a small bat distributed patchily throughout the west. It is most common in drier woodlands (oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine). It roosts in large decadent trees and snags, crevices in buildings, underground mines and caves, rocks, cliff faces, and bridges. It is likely that structural characteristics (e.g. height, decay stage) rather than tree species play a greater role in selection of a snag or tree as a roost. This species is adapted for foraging within forest interior and along forest edges. Threats include loss or modification of roosting snag habitat, and loss of prey species due to pesticides/chemicals. One record of this species during summer surveys with the use of mist-nets was documented on the Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District in 1992. This species potentially occurs in snags and rock outcrops in the project area.

Pallid bats’ day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees (e.g., exfoliating ponderosa pine). Roosts generally have unobstructed entrances/exits, and are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators. Pallid bats can use cavities in large diameter trees and snags (>21 inches dbh) in mixed coniferous forests at elevations greater than 3,800 feet, suggesting that they switch to non-rock crevices when in coniferous forests. The diet of pallid bats is varied including such insect taxa as beetles, centipedes, crickets, moths, scorpions, and termites. The pallid bat has been documented on the Deschutes National Forest in the Sisters area. This species potentially occurs in snags and rock outcrops in the project area.


The no action alternative would not have any effects to bat populations in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing was analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014) and determined to have no impacts to these bat species. The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA.



The proposed action will directly remove potential bat roosting and foraging habitat by removing snags from the footprint of the paved re-route. Some nesting habitat will also be lost as result of falling hazard trees to meet OSHA requirements. The loss of large snags will be limited with at least one known large snag to be removed. Otherwise, project design (trail placement) purposefully tried to avoid large snags and logs.

Consideration to make the underpass “bat friendly” as it is indicated the fringed myotis will use bridges. However, the underpass will have a very low ceiling and not provide an unmolested area for bat roosting.


44

Implementation of this project may impact individuals and/or habitat for bat foraging habitat but will not contribute to a change in viability of the species on the Deschutes National Forest or contribute to a trend towards federal listing because of the small acreage of the project. The project will remove a small amount of potential snag roosting habitat as well as impact <10 acres of foraging habitat.


All of the standards and guidelines associated with the Townsend’s big-eared bat specifically reference caves and lava tubes. There are no known caves or lava tubes within or adjacent to the project area, therefore wildlife standards and guidelines WL-37 was assessed.WL-37: At least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population needs will be provided (WL-37) = 1.35 snags/ac >10” dbh. The project will meet this criteria as habitat is available. This proposed action is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP.

3.2.8 RED-TAILED HAWK

According to literature cited within MIS species report for this species on file at the Deschutes National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012), the red-tailed hawk is an abundant species occupying a variety of open to semi-open habitat types. Limiting factors in preferred habitat are availability of suitable perches and hunting grounds open enough to locate and catch ground prey. Perches can be any object that provides an unobstructed view of a red-tailed hawk territory. These objects are usually high and can be natural (e.g. tree, snag, cliff, rock), or man-made (e.g. utility pole, tower, fence). Nesting occurs in large mature trees, usually at a forest edge or near an opening in the canopy. Nests are often reused from year to year provided the nest is not occupied by earlier nesting raptors and is in suitable condition.

The red-tailed hawk, although listed as a Management Indicator Species for the Deschutes National Forest, is not on any federal, state, or other conservation lists. Globally, the population is increasing and has no significant threats; nationally, the population is increasing or stable in most areas; and in Oregon, the red-tailed hawks are secure with the population is not decreasing (NatureServe 2014, USFS 2012).

Currently, there are approximately 192,492 acres of habitat occurs across the Deschutes National Forest. There is one known nest adjacent to the project area that has been active for at least the past 3 years.


The no action alternative, under this proposal, would not have any effects to red-tailed hawks in the area. The effects of the original paved path location and lack of undercrossing was analyzed under the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014) and found to impact the same nest referenced above. Mitigations from this EA were incorporated into this project proposal. The selection of the no action alternative for this project would revert to the original proposal and design under this 2014 EA with associated mitigation measures.



45


The proposed action will directly disturb nesting red-tailed hawks in the vicinity. A seasonal restriction (March 1 – August 31st) ¼ mile around this nest site would be applicable. This would impact the undercrossing the eastern portion of the trail.

Although the project will remove some trees in the footprint of the paved path, it is unlikely that this area would be used for nesting because of the established nest territory < 1 mile away. A seasonal restriction of March 1st through August 31st would remove any disturbance to this species as a result of project implementation. Long-term use of the facility may incrementally increase use of the entire area, adding to any ongoing disturbance from recreationists.

Cumulatively, the project is associated with less than a 1% of the overall red-tailed hawk habitat that occurs across the Deschutes National Forest (approximately 192,492 acres). Implementation of this project will result in a small negative impact for the red-tailed hawks in the area but will not contribute to a change in viability of the species on the Deschutes National Forest. Project design retains some potential nesting habitat.


Wildlife standard and guidelines WL-2 and WL-3 were assessed. The project is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP.

Standard and Guideline Do Not Meet, Meets, Not Applicable

Rationale

WL-2 – Maintain forested character at least 300 feet surrounding active nest sites.

Meets

The project avoids trees within 300 feet of the known nest.

WL-2 – While timber management may occur, maintain at least 4 dominant overstory trees per acre suitable for nest and perch trees, favoring ponderosa pine.

Meets

Although 3 large trees and one large snag is expected to be removed there are >4 large pines retained.

WL-3 – Seasonal restrictions will be in effect for disturbing activities within ¼ mile of active nests.

Meets Mitigation measures are in place.

3.2.9 WESTERN BUMBLEBEE

Western bumble bee occurs broadly across western North America from Alaska to central California using a variety of natural, agricultural, urban and rural habitats with abundant floral resources. They require suitable nesting and overwintering structure, such as rodent burrows, downed wood or bunchgrass. They are generalist foragers, but require sources of pollen/nectar spring through fall. Threats include pathogens from commercial honey bees, environmental toxins and habitat alternations caused by natural and prescribed fire, grazing, conifer encroachment and agricultural or urban development. Population trends are declining, especially at the edges of its known range


46

(Jepsen 2014). The species is known from several sites on the Deschutes National Forest. Local observations have been as recent as 2011 in the Sunriver area and at Sparks Lake.

Habitat alterations including those that could destroy, fragment, alter, degrade or reduce the food supply produced by flowers, as well as destruction of nest sites and hibernation sites for overwintering queens (e.g. abandoned rodent burrows and bird nests), adversely affect these bees. Agriculture and urban development alter landscapes and habitat required by bumblebees (NatureServe 2014).

When exotic plants invade, they may threaten bumblebees by competing with the native nectar and pollen plants relied upon by bumblebees. The invasion of exotic plants should be restricted as much as possible by controlling populations of invasive species (NatureServe 2014).

Since there are flowering shrubs within the project area (ceanothus and greenleaf manzanita), it is assumed that it may potentially provide western bumblebee habitat. Habitat for nest sites and hibernation sites are also likely available within or adjacent to the project area.

There are populations of invasive plants (Dalmatian toadflax and cheatgrass) in the foot print of the paved path that could spread to impact bumblebee habitat. There were also old rodent burrows seen along the proposed paved path.


The no action alternative would not alter potential bumblebee habitat within the footprint of the proposal. Current levels of ceanothus and manzanita would remain providing potential foraging habitat, and any current rodent burrows would provide potential hibernation sites. There would be no impact to western bumblebees.



The proposed action will remove potential foraging and overwintering habitat in the locations of the undercrossing and paved path. This is a long-term impact.

The paved path also lies within a known invasive weed site. Mitigation to avoid this site is proposed to minimize the spread of the weed as a result of the construction. There could be incidental spread of the weed due to use of the trail, and this would degrade any potential bumblebee habitat.

Cumulatively, the project is associated with 6-8 acres of additional impact to potential bumblebee habitat. The Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA did not address the western bumblebee as it was determined to be associated with meadows and this type of habitat for the species is not present in the project area. Jepson (2014) does list flower-rich meadows and subalpine habitats as places likely to find western bumblebees, the habitat requirements of this species are availability of nectar and pollen throughout the colony season and availability of underground nest sites and hibernacula.

The proposed construction of the path and undercrossing would be a small additive effect to the rest of the paved trail proposal discussed in the Welcome Station Trails Connectors EA (2014).


47

Because of the small (6-8 acre) additive effect to potential bumblebee habitat, this proposal may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely cause a trend towards federal listing because of the small size of the project and mitigations to avoid invasive weed sites.


There are no standards and guidelines associated with the western bumblebee.

3.2.10 ELK

Rocky Mountain elk were chosen as a terrestrial MIS in the DNF LRMP for its socioeconomic importance to the hunting community in Central Oregon.

Elk are negatively affected by vegetation management activities that reduce hiding and thermal cover. Hiding cover provides elk secure areas from disturbance (e.g., motorized vehicles, hikers and other recreationists) and predators. Elk avoid areas with high road density when roads remain open for use but may use roads as travel corridors if areas are closed (Rowland et al. 2000). High road density can increase illegal harvest as access to elk populations increase. Winter range can be a critical habitat element and the availability of this habitat type can be affected by housing development, overgrazing and forage quality decrease.

Rowland et al. (2005) found elk avoided heavily traveled roads. Wisdom et al. (2004) found elk were generally farther from roads with traffic rates as low as >1 vehicle/12 hours during day and nighttime hours. Another study conducted by Wisdom et al. (2004) on the effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk, showed elk had greater flight probabilities and movement rates for all four off-road activities measured (ATV, mountain biking, horseback riding, and hiking) compared to no human activity. Elk reactions were more pronounced during the ATV and mountain biking activities than to horseback riding and hiking. Lyon (1979) reported the area of avoidance for elk is generally ¼ to ½ mile from a road depending on the amount of traffic, road quality, and density of cover near roads.

Rowland et al. (2005) reported the primary effect of roads on elk was habitat fragmentation. There are fewer patches of cover large enough to function effectively (Rowland et al. 2000). Rowland et al. (2005) also documented three main direct impacts on elk.

Elk avoid areas near roads.

Elk vulnerability to mortality from hunter harvest, both legal and illegal, increases as open road density increases.

In areas of high road densities, elk exhibit higher stress levels (Rowland et al. 2005) and energetic costs of moving away from roads may be substantial (Cole et al. 1997).

A majority of the project area is found within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA). The DNF LRMP direction for the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (WL-45) states

Public use will be encouraged on travel routes which will minimize conflicts with elk

Public use will not be restricted within the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River during the calving season (May 1-July 31)


48

Facilities will not be developed nor activities promoted which would encourage public use during the winter

Motorized traffic will be limited to designated routes

Elk habitat improvements must be compatible with recreation, visual objectives, and Wild and Scenic River objectives

Two primary standard and guidelines (S&Gs) which are associated with the KEAs include hiding cover and open road densities. Hiding cover is a habitat attribute which provides escape from predation as well as avoidance from harassment potential by hunters and other recreation use. Manipulation of road densities are used to mitigate habitat impacts from vegetation management, where hiding cover S&Gs cannot be met (i.e. road densities are used to further eliminate disturbance from an area). The guidelines for hiding cover states, “Hiding area must be present over 30% of National Forest Land in each key area.” The DNF LRMP defines thermal cover for elk as a minimum 10 acre patch of 40 feet or taller trees with 40% canopy cover or more. Hiding cover is described as a minimum 6 acre patch capable of concealing 90% of an adult animal at 200 feet. Per the DNF LRMP hiding cover should be present over at least 30% of each Key Elk Area (WL-47). There are 3,437 acres of hiding cover in the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area for 16%. There are 4,478 acres of thermal cover or 21% of the Key Elk Area. The Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area is currently below plan direction for hiding cover but slightly above plan direction for thermal cover.

The DNF LRMP recommends open road densities between 0.5 and 1.5 mi/mi2 in key elk areas with a lower objective in areas of high public use (WL-46). Current road density in the Ryan Ranch Key Elk area is 2.02 mi/mi2. Non-motorized trails can affect elk movement when in use. Increased human presence, especially during the winter, can increase flight response in big game and result in avoidance of areas and reduced access to essential habitat components.


Existing non-motorized trail density in the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area is 1.49 mi/mi2, with plans to build an additional 10.8 miles of non-motorized trail in the Key Elk Area for an overall non-motorized trail density of 1.77 mi/mi2.

Ongoing recreation activities are expected to continue displacing elk throughout the Project Area. Current road densities exceed DNF LRMP guidance and will continue to fragment elk habitat and inhibit movement. Seasonal winter range road closures that are part of Tumalo Winter Range Cooperative Closure Area improve elk security areas in the winter. Non-motorized recreation will continue at similar to increasing use levels as currently occur.

There is no mapped hiding cover or thermal cover in the project area. No impacts to these habitat components are expected. Existing road densities will continue to be above LRMP guidance.

Direct and Indirect Effects- Alternative 2

The primary impact to elk from this activity is the increase in non-motorized trails in the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area. Use of non-motorized trails can displace elk from an area in a similar manner as roads. The proposed trail re-route will pave approximately 1 mile of new trail while the section no longer being paved will remain as dirt track; a net increase of 1 mile of non-motorized trail. Existing trails are heavily used and not covered under the Tumalo Winter Range Cooperative Closure since use is non-motorized. New technology (i.e., wider tires for winter mountain biking) is allowing increased access


49

to elk in the winter. Total non-motorized trail density in the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area will increase to 1.8 mi/sq. mile as a result of the proposed project. The effect of this trail increase may be limited by the fact that the new paved trail is within the disturbance corridor (100 feet) of the Cascades Lake Highway, already a busy roadway.

Tree removal will not reduce hiding cover as there is none mapped in the Project Area. The number of trees to be removed is not expected to convert stands that currently provide thermal cover into an unsuitable condition. Many of the trees to be removed are snags from the prescribed burn in 2015. Thermal cover patches are associated with mountain bike trails where larger trees will be retained based on the trail construction description.

Current road density in the Project Area will not increase from this as no new roads are proposed. Existing densities will continue to be above LRMP guidance but this project does not propose to change that.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2

Ongoing recreation in the area is contributing cumulative impacts to elk in the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area. Non-motorized trails in the area are concentrated north of Highway 46 and east of Rd 41. Current trail density in the Key Elk Area is 1.77 mi/mi2 and many of these can be accessed year-round. The proposed project will effectively add another mile of non-motorized trail to this density. None of the trails are maintained for winter use but can be accessible during low snow years and as tire design allows for increased access through snow.

Conflicts can exist between hunters and other recreationists when non-motorized recreation (e.g. mountain biking) becomes the dominant activity in the area. As popularity increases, big game hunting opportunities can decrease because of disturbance to wildlife movements.

Proposed action implementation would contribute a small negative trend to elk habitat on the DNF but continued viability is expected on the Deschutes National forest. The overall direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project will result in a small increase in habitat disturbance. This will be insignificant at the Forest scale because elk populations are expected to remain stable across the DNF.


Wildlife standard and guidelines WL-45, WL-47 and WL-50 will be assessed. The project is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP.


Rationale

WL-45 Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area

Public use will be encouraged on travel routes which will minimize conflicts with elk

Public use will not be restricted within the Deschutes Wild and Scenic

Meets N/A

Public use is encouraged on paved trail within 150 feet of Hwy 46. Proposal does not occur within the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River.


50


Rationale

River during the calving season (May 1-July 31)

Facilities will not be developed nor activities promoted which would encourage public use during the winter

Motorized traffic will be limited to designated routes

Elk habitat improvements must be compatible with recreation, visual objectives, and Wild and Scenic River objectives

Meets N/A N/A

Proposed paved trail and undercrossing will not be maintained in winter. For their own safety, public will be discouraged from using trail and undercrossing in winter because it is not maintained (i.e. cleared of snow and ice). No changed in motorized traffic is proposed. No elk habitat improvements are proposed.

WL-47 – Hiding areas must be present over at least 30% of National Forest land in each key area.

N/A There is no elk hiding cover mapped in the project area.

WL-50 – Thermal cover must be present over at least 20% of National Forest land in each key area.

N/A There is no elk thermal cover mapped in the project area.

3.2.11 MULE DEER

Mule deer were chosen as a terrestrial MIS identified in the DNF LRMP for its socio-economic importance to the hunting community within central Oregon. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) have identified biological winter range for mule deer; however, the DNF LRMP uses Management Area 7 (MA-7) as mule deer winter range and everything else on the forest is considered summer range. The project area does not lie within MA-7 allocation but it does lie within biological winter range.

Mule deer exhibit high fidelity to summer and winter ranges. Winter range, corridors, and transition areas may be important to mule deer survival in severe winters, thus need to be evaluated for potential impact by development and other land use activities. Mule deer may experience resource competition from elk.

Wisdom et al. (2004) found mule deer showed little measurable response to off-road activities. Movement rates slightly increased during all off-road activities except during ATV use. Stankowich (2008) and Krausman et al. (2006) showed similar responses of mule deer. They found human’s foot traffic have more impact than other stimuli (vehicles, noise, horseback) studied.

The Tumalo Winter Range Cooperative Area Closure overlaps the project area. This is a cooperative area closure between the USDA Forest Service and ODFW. Motorized vehicle routes are restricted to


51

designated routes between December 1 and April 1. This project does not increase designated motorized routes or authorize use of motorized routes in the Tumalo Winter Range area.


Ongoing impacts to mule deer from non-motorized recreation will continue at stable to slightly increasing rates. Existing seasonal road closures will continue to reduce vehicle traffic in the Tumalo Creek Cooperative Road Closure Area but this is not expected to reduce potential impacts from non-motorized recreation. Mule deer thermal and hiding cover will continue to be available under this alternative.

There is no mapped hiding cover or thermal cover in the project area. No impacts to these habitat components are expected. Existing road densities will continue to be above LRMP guidance.

Direct and Indirect Effects- Alternative 2

The primary impact to mule deer from implementation of this alternative is the increase in non-motorized trail density in the project area. Route placement emphasized staying within 100 feet of an existing road to reduce potential increased habitat fragmentation. Tree removal will not reduce hiding or thermal cover as there is none mapped in the Project Area.

Current road density in the Project Area will not increase from this Alternative as no new roads are proposed. Increased human presence in the area can further displace mule deer that use the area for winter and transition range. This can alter deer utilization of the area with some potential for changes to recreational hunting in the area. Hunting opportunities will continue to be present in the area but existing non-motorized recreation levels have reduced many of these opportunities already.

Cumulative Effects – Altervative 2

This project will not contribute to cumulative losses in thermal cover or hiding cover because the project area does not remove mapped hiding or thermal cover.

Ongoing recreation in the winter range will continue to displace deer in the winter range. The non-motorized trails are open to use during the winter when several motorized routes are closed. Mule deer can be displaced by persistent human presence on wintering grounds.

Road closures to be implemented within the West Bend Project Area will reduce existing road densities in the mule deer range in the project area which would bring this area closer to DNF LRMP guidance (2.5 mi/mi2). These closures will improve mule deer habitat conditions in the future. The project does not propose additional road closures beyond the West Bend Project so it does not directly contribute cumulative effects. However, the improved habitat conditions for mule deer with lower road density will offset some of the potential impacts from increased non-motorized trail use.

Implementation of the proposed action will contribute to a slight negative impact to mule deer viability on the DNF. Mule deer habitat will not be directly removed under the alternatives but increased human presence is expected to reduce habitat quality for mule deer using winter and transition ranges. The overall direct, indirect and cumulative impacts will result in a minor increase in habitat disturbance (<1% of the available habitat) and will be insignificant at the Forest Scale.



52

Wildlife standard and guidelines WL-53 and WL-54 was assessed. The project is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP.


Rationale

WL-54 – Hiding areas must be present over at least 30% of National Forest land in each implementation unit.

N/A Project does not alter mapped cover.

WL-53 – Target open road densities shall average 2.5 mi/ mi2

N/A Project does not propose any additional roads or road closures.

3.3 BOTANY _____________________________________________

3.2.1 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES

The project area is mapped in a dry ponderosa pine/bitterbrush-manzanita/fescue plant association group. Soils are most commonly characterized by sandy, pumiceous volcanic ash and pumice lapilli over sandy to loamy buried soils. Annual precipitation ranges from 12 – 18 inches. The average elevation within the project area is 4,000 feet.

There are no documented TES species within or adjacent to the project area.

No habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate plant species exists within the project area. (These species, and their habitats, are listed in Appendices C and D).

No TES species were suspected, but a field visit was conducted on 10/13/2015 and again on 11/05/2015 by Marlo Fisher, primarily to survey noxious weed populations. During the two visits, no TES species were located.


There are no anticipated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to TES plant species because none would be impacted by this alternative, including effects to their habitats.


There are no anticipated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to TES plant species because none would be impacted by this alternative, including effects to their habitats.

Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Consistency

The Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute project as regards TES plant species is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP (1990). Records were checked for previously known TES plant populations (TE-1), and suitable habitat was not located (TE-2). Surveys were conducted (primarily for weeds) (TE-3). The remaining standards and guidelines for TES plant species do not apply to the Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute project.


53

The action alternative would have no impact on Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species, because there is no high-probability habitat or known sites contained within the project area.

3.2.2 NOXIOUS WEEDS

The project area is mapped in a dry ponderosa pine/bitterbrush-manzanita/fescue plant association group. Annual precipitation ranges from 12 – 18 inches. The average elevation within the project area is 4,000 feet.

Many noxious weed sites are documented in and within close proximity to the project area. Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos (CESTM; spotted knapweed) or formerly known as Centaurea beibersteinii (CEBI2) and Linaria dalmatica (LIDA; dalmation toadflax) are the two noxious weeds present. Also, in great abundance, are populations of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); however it is not designated as a noxious weed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture due to its unmanageable distribution throughout the state, therefore it is not mapped and is only managed on the District where feasible.

The project area was examined by District Botanist Marlo Fisher on 10/13/2015 and on 11/05/2015. Two new weed populations were discovered along the paved path reroute, north of the Cascade Lakes Hwy. One is a large dalmation toadflax population (6110878LIDA), with approximately 1,000 stems (stems because it is a rhizomatous plant) and the other a small spotted knapweed and dalmation toadflax site (6110879CEBI2/LIDA) with five knapweed plants and 15 toadflax stems counted. These sites were discovered during plant dormancy, so more may be present during the active growing season. All toadflax populations show evidence of biocontrol presence, which was released 5-7 years ago, and is effectively suppressing the plant’s growth and spread.

Figure 5 Dalmation toadflax mixed in with Idaho fescue. Stems are pale due to the time of year, photo taken on

10/13/2015.

There is another spotted knapweed site (6110830CEBI2) near the reroute; it was documented in 2012 and has approximately 50 plants. The site is located approximately 100 feet from the paved path proposed location.

The trail undercrossing is proposed in a historically dense spotted knapweed site (6110313CEBI2), although it was noted during both site visits that the population has been greatly reduced by herbicide treatments within the past two years. Dalmation toadflax is documented in site 6110313 but no plants were located in the zone of the project area. The road shoulder of Cascade Lakes Highway, part of site 6110761, has scattered knapweed populations and other non-native weeds such


54

as Russian thistle, mullein, and cheatgrass, the roadside population gets treated each season with herbicides but the past two years only spotted knapweed has been targeted.

The 41 Rd. pit, the material source pit, was examined on 11/02/2015 by Charmane Powers (District Botanist), Mike Crumrine (ODA Weed Manager), and Marlo Fisher. The pit is highly infested with spotted knapweed, Russian thistle, common mullein, and cheatgrass. It was treated with herbicide in the past but has not been treated recently (within the last three years).

Risk Ranking Factors considered in determining the level of risk for the introduction or spread of noxious weeds are: _X _ HIGH Has to be a combination of the following three factors: 1. Known weeds in/adjacent to project area. 2. Any of vectors* #1-8 in project area. 3. Project operation in/adjacent to weed population. __ MODERATE 1. Any of vectors #1-5 present in project area.

__ LOW 1. Any of vectors #6-8 present in project area. OR 2. Known weeds in/adjacent to project area without vector presence. *Vectors (if contained in project proposal) ranked in order of weed introduction risk: 1. Heavy equipment (implied ground disturbance) 2. Importing soil/cinders 3. OHV's 4. Grazing (long-term disturbance) 5. Pack animals (short-term disturbance) 6. Plant restoration 7. Recreationists (hikers, mountain bikers) 8. Forest Service project vehicles

___________________________________________________________________________

Discussion of Ranking

A risk ranking of HIGH is appropriate for this project due to the combination of known weed sites, ground disturbing activity with heavy equipment, importing soil/cinders from a known weed site, and the high use recreation in the area.

The use of the material from the 41 Rd. pit poses the highest risk of weed introduction threat to the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 (No Action)


55

With the No Action Alternative, the undercrossing and paved path reroute would not be created and conditions would remain the same under the Welcome Station Trails Connection 2015 project proposal.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects: Even with the implementation of weed mitigations, some new weed populations or weed spread is anticipated to occur given the already disturbed conditions of the project area and the weedy state of the material source pit.

Cummulative Effects: The project area is vulnerable to many new weed introductions and potential weed spread due to the presence of the highway and the high use from recreationists. Weeds have spread rampantly along the highway due to the thousands of vehicles that travel on the Scenic Byway and other activities along the highway like mowing and brushing, multiple utility line burials on the road shoulder, snow removal, and the application of cinders for winter travel and traction.

In addition to the number of vectors from the highway presence, the trailhead proposed for the Welcome Station Trails Connection project is at a designated “Good dog area”, a site that has been deemed dog friendly by a special interest group which has popularized the recreational trails leading from an already weedy, and unofficial, trailhead adjacent to the paved path undercrossing and reroute. Highly used mountain bike trails are, also, within close proximity of the project and one trail actually crosses the reroute. The vehicle parking along with the trail use from these activities, are yet other vectors that contribute to the high potential for weed introductions and spread.

Weeds have already established in the area and will continue to be a problem considering all of the ongoing and proposed disturbances, thus making control efforts very difficult.

Comparison of Alternatives Under the No Action alternative, a paved path and trailhead would still be constructed and would cause disturbance resulting in a high potential for weed introductions. Alternative 2 proposes the undercrossing, as opposed to the surface crossing, which will have a great impact on an already weedy area. The likelihood of more introductions is high but will be reduced through the implementation of the project design features. Prevention Strategy The USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices provides numerous goals and practices intended to reduce the incidence of weed introduction and spread during forest projects. While there appear to be no goals or practices specifically related to reforestation/planting, several goals and practices identified as “general weed prevention practices for site-disturbing projects” are applicable to this proposed project. Goal 2. Avoid or remove sources of weed seed and propagules to prevent new weed infestations and the spread of existing weeds.

Practice 2. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, inventory and prioritize weed infestations for treatment in project operating areas and along access routes. Identify what weeds are on site, or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity, and do a risk assessment accordingly. Control weeds as necessary. The “Invasive Plant Risk Assessment for Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Project” is in compliance with this direction.


56

Practice 5 (in part). Remove mud, dirt, and plant

parts from project equipment before moving it into a project area. Goal 5. Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment.

Practice 14. Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives.

3.4 SILVICULTURE _________________________________________

Site condition

CPS2-11 Ponderosa pine / bitterbrush/fescue and CPS 2-17 Ponderosa pine/ bitterbrush-manzanita/fescue Plant associations (Volland 1988). These are dry plant associations and in this site tend to have shorter growth for adjacent to a rock outcrop ridge. The trees present are mostly established following harvest about 80-100 years ago and are dominated by ponderosa pine with a few western juniper. Half of this area was underburned about 5 years ago and another half was underburned in the spring of 2015. The first burn saw very little tree mortality of overstory trees whilst the 2015 fire killed a portion of the overstory trees from high scorch due to high brush conditions in a dry spring. The dead trees now have gone through a summer of drying but still have active wood borers due to the bark still being intact keeping the wood moist enough for the pupae to survive. Blue stain is expected to be throughout all the wood reducing commercial value of ponderosa pine.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 (No Action)

With the trail not being built on the North and West of Cascade lakes highway will mean that the original plan for a trail on the South and east of the highway will occur. This trail will be constructed on the abandoned haul route which is now a closed road with a sewer line embedded. No trees or snags will be removed. No more land will be removed from a forest condition.

The forest plan objectives for snags and timber removal would not be an issue since in this section none would occur.

Not building the trail on the North and west side of the highway would not affect any further management in the West Bend Project especially the prescribed fire to be used in the area.

A trail would still connect Bend to the Welcome station though it would be crossing the highway with a surface crossing and not a tunnel. Because of this trees in the area will still be removed just not the ones in the reroute corridor.



57

The Effects of the project will remove some timber which is estimated the average diameter of pine to be 16” dbh and 76 trees larger than 10” dbh from local volume tables (26.4 CF/ tree) could be around 20 CCF.

Some pruning and damage to trees may occur in the making of the trail though this will affect individual tree growth it will not affect the stand area as a whole.

Removal of land from the production land base will be between 2 and 3 acres which is not a percentage point on a 1 million acre district.

Meeting the Forest Plan standard and guidelines in the area of timber or silviculture would be met unless damage to trees would occur increasing the possibility of unsightly damage or danger.

Cumulative Effects

Other projects affecting or being affected by this local project include implementation of the West Bend Vegetation project where there will be further mowing and burning in the trail corridor to meet fuels level objectives and bringing the fire as a natural process into the stands. This includes stands 99, 101 and 102. Stands 99 and 102 have already been burnt in 2015 and will receive burning again within 5-10 years. Stand 101, which includes the southern most portion of the trail segment, was recently mowed and should be burnt in 2016 or 2017. This project will not cumulatively affect the burning effects though there will be a division of the land base from the cascade lakes highway to the trail which will be isolated from the fuels to the west of the trail. This could cause, for ease of implementation, an area not being lit during burn operations though not limiting the mowing operations. Thus having an area of ponderosa pine not managed for a low fuels condition using fire as the main tool. West Bend does not propose any commercial harvest in the stand which is in the trail corridor and so will not be an effect.

Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guides

M9-11 refers to removal of large diameter trees. Removing trees larger than 24 inches is a design criteria for timber sales and vegetation management and does apply to construction of recreation facilities.

M9-80 refers to determining snags as a safety issue and their removal. This project was designed to be further away from snag groups caused by the 2015 burning that were larger and clumped. A few snags will be removed for being in the 20 foot wide clearance zone and those which might hit the trail. As a trail and not a point of interpretation or grouping of people all snags which might hit the trail do not need to be removed. The snags cut during construction will be removed to maintain light fuels conditions.

Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

The proposed action will meet standards and guidelines for Scenic Views Management Area classified as High Scenic Integrity - SMS (Retention - VMS) in Foreground landscapes.

3.5 SCENERY _____________________________________________

In the project area, the proposed paved path and undercrossing are within the Scenic Views Management Area which is classified in the Scenery Management System as High Scenic Integrity –


58

SMS (Retention – VMS) Foreground. This Foregound area includes a distance of 0 to ¼ mile from the Cascade Lakes National Scenic Byway (Highway 46). A new trailhead is to be constructed on the south side of the Cascade Lakes Scenic byway and will be connected to the north side of the highway via the proposed undercrossing and paved path which will continue approximately one mile to the west to the Meadow Day Use road intersection.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, there would be no Welcome Station paved path reroute on the north side of the Cascade Lakes National Scenic Byway and reroute under the Scenic Byway between the Welcome Station and the City of Bend.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes an undercrossing from the new Rimrock trailhead location (locally called Good Dog) that connects to the paved path reroute on the north side of the highway that continues to the west to the Welcome Station. The paved path has not been constructed yet and the proposed action would alter the design before this one mile section of trail is built. All other portions of the paved path, mountain bike trails and other components of the Welcome Station Trail Connections Environmental Analysis and Decision Notice are to be constructed as initially planned and designed. The proposed undercrossing would be located near the trailhead and would eliminate the need for a surface crossing on Cascade Lakes Highway at the Meadow Day Use intersection. The undercrossing would be accessible and consistent with the rest of the Welcome Station paved path design criteria and standards. With the new undercrossing, the proposed reroute is about 1 mile in length and would replace approximately 0.9 miles of trail originally proposed on the southeast side of the highway. Winter use would be discouraged on the Welcome Station paved path through interpretive signage providing a message that limits disturbance to wildlife in the winter months. The paved path will be 10 feet wide with 2 or 2.5 foot shoulders on either side and vegetation clearing limits of 20 feet. It will meet standards and guidelines for scenic quality if surfaced and designed to improve safety and accessibility, protect site resources, and enhance scenic views with the use of materials that blend with the surrounding landscape. Signing will also meet standards and guidelines for scenic quality if minimal and constructed with materials that are not shiny or reflective using colors that complement the surrounding landscape and painting the backs of the signs a neutral color and posts a dark color. The proposed undercrossing will meet standards and guidelines for scenic quality through the use of materials that blend with the surrounding landscape, screening that is created through the use of natural appearing earth berms or terracing that mimics surrounding contours, and native vegetation that prevents erosion and softens steep grades created by cut banks. Cumulative Effects Recreation use at the Welcome Station and surrounding areas will likely increase because of increased accessibility for alternative modes of transportation. The Welcome Station will be a hub for the hiking and biking trail system that will allow extended travel and recreation to other communities or recreation areas on and adjacent to the Deschutes National Forest. Additional trailhead parking in the


59

areas along Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway will draw more users to the area and increase activity on the paved path reroute, undercrossing, and subsequent completion of trails leading to trail connectors.

3.6 SOILS _______________________________________________

The project area lies within the dry ponderosa pine and juniper forest type just west of Bend city limits. It falls within the North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River 10th-field watershed (HUC# 1707030104). The climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters, with precipitation averaging just 15 inches per year. Much of the precipitation comes between November and April as snow. Because of droughty soil properties and low precipitation, this area is mapped as a very low productivity land type.

The activity area is located on a gently sloping glacial outwash plain (SRI Mapping Unit 36) and runs parallel to the interface with a lava flow edge (SRI Mapping Unit 14) and associated upland lava plateau (SRI Mapping Unit XD). All of the areas to be disturbed are comprised of sandy-textured volcanic ash soils underlain by gravelly glacial outwash materials (Larsen, 1976). These soil types are highly permeable and well-drained, are non-cohesive (loose), are highly porous, and have low bulk densities. Because Mazama ash soils are very young (<7,700 years old), A horizons (topsoil layers) are thin and poorly-developed (generally less than four inches thick). Because the activity area falls in a droughty, low-precipitation zone, soil organic matter enrichment and surface litter buildup occurs at a slow rate. This soil type has a low surface soil erosion potential and low to moderate risk of displacement and compaction from heavy equipment. It is not classified as a sensitive soil type. However, this soil type may be poorly resilient to disturbance when topsoil and surface organics are removed, as this affects its ability to retain moisture and store and cycle nutrients. Restoration treatments, such as addition of organic material and/or reestablishment of surface cover accompanied by seeding, are often needed to restore soil function after disturbance.

Soils in the project area been affected by wildfires, recent prescribed fire, logging (including railroad logging in the early 20th century), roads, and recreational usage. A full analysis or estimation of detrimental soil conditions in the area is not presented as part of this analysis. The area supports a fully-stocked low-density ponderosa pine stand (with occasional juniper) and has a robust understory dominated by Idaho fescue and assorted shrubs. No active surface erosion is evident within the project area and ground cover is adequate to meet Forest Plan standards and Regional guidance.


60

Figure 6: Project Area Soil Map


Under the No Action Alternative, ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the trail and the underpass would not occur. No additional soil area would be converted to a permanent nonproductive status, and no additional detrimental soil conditions or short-term impacts would be accrued as a result of ancillary disturbances. There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil resources as a result of not implementing the proposed action.


The proposed action is expected to have negligible effects on soil resources. Long-term effects to soil would only occur in the footprint of the paved path itself (roughly 1.2 acres). This is comparable to the amount of disturbance that would result from the original proposed alignment and occurs on the same landform/landtype. Because this area is being converted to a non-forest status and dedicated to recreational use, Forest Plan Standards and Guides that speak to detrimental soil condition do not apply. This is considered to be an acceptable trade-off to meet the multiple use requirements of the Forest land base. Short-term effects to the soil resource would occur within the clearing limits for the


61

trail, within the cut/fill and clearing area for the undercrossing, and where miscellaneous disturbances such as staging areas, stockpile areas and machine impacts occur. These short-term effects to soil resources (compaction, displacement, removal of organics) would be mitigated with the required design features and soils are expected to recovery within short time frames (less than five years). Persistent detrimental soil impacts resulting from this project are expected to be negligible. Reestablishing surface cover through seeding and hydromulching on disturbed areas will provide for surface roughness, nutrient cycling, microbiota habitat, and hospitable soil climate for native plant regeneration and hydrologic function. A soils map derived from the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen, 1976) is shown in Figure 1. A complete description of soil types and all associated interpretations are available in the project files.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Forest Service Regional Soil Quality Standards

The proposed action will be in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, policies and Forest Plan direction. Regional and Forest Plan Soil Quality Standards pertaining to detrimental soil condition do not apply to developed recreational facilities (e.g. trails, parking areas) because they are considered to be a long-term commitment of the soil resource and are not expected to be part of the productive land base where vegetation and water resource management are principal objectives. However, standards regarding detrimental soil condition, soil erosion prevention, effective ground cover, and organic matter cycles on associated disturbances (stockpile areas, equipment access routes, clearing limits/rights-of-way) are applicable and will be met through design features described below.

3.7 HERITAGE ____________________________________________

Introduction

This proposed project was analyzed for possible effects to those archaeological sites, known to exist within the project area, that have been deemed eligible for inclusion within the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One on-the-ground survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted during the 2015 field season. A portion of the APE was surveyed as part of the Cascade Lakes Welcome Station Trail Connections project (Report # R20130601004). A majority of the APE has seen extensive ground disturbance from past logging, highway construction and maintenance and ongoing recreational uses. Three previously recorded sites were within the APE and four new sites were recorded as part of the survey. Of the seven sites within the APE all were found to ineligible for inclusion within the NRHP.

Existing Condition

Of the seven archaeological sites located within the APE, all seven sites have been evaluated as ineligible to the NRHP. These sites will not need to be protected and/or avoided during project implementation and future maintenance.

For the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) inventory report, a determination was made of “No Historic Properties Effected.” This report was written during the fall of 2015 and was approved by the Forest Archaeologist on December 8, 2015. The report was then sent to the Oregon SHPO in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2 and 800.3 to fulfill consultation requirements.



62

Under this alternative, no proposed activities would be undertaken. Therefore, no heritage resources

would be affected.


All known heritage sites are considered ineligible for the NRHP; therefore, no known heritages

resources would be adversely affected by this project. Mitigation measures are in place that would be

part of contract specification should any new cultural sites be discovered during project activities.

With the design criteria included written for this project, this alternative is consistent with those federal

laws and guidelines for the protection of NRHP eligible sites.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

As the project is designed the construction of the path will have no direct or indirect impacts to eligible

or potentially eligible heritage sites. There would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources from

this project.

3.5 REQUIRED AND ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES AND CONSISTENCY WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICY AND PROCEDURES ___________________________

This section discloses the effects of the alternatives on the human environment as specified by law, regulation, policy, or executive order. This section includes a brief summary of those laws, policies, and executive orders that are relevant to the proposed actions considered in this EA.

3.5.1 THE AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906

This Act makes it illegal to appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned by the Government of the United States, without permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated.

Following guidelines in a 2004 Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” was determined under stipulation III(B)1 of the Programmatic Agreement.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) all sites, despite eligibility status would be avoided. All eligible and potentially eligible (undetermined) sites would be protected throughout the life of the project. Protection of these sites shall be accomplished through avoidance by ground-disturbing activities.

Should unexpected heritage resources be encountered during project implementation, these resources would also be evaluated and significant resources would be avoided or mitigated as described above.

No impacts to any known cultural resources would result from implementation of this project.

3.5.2 TRIBAL TREATY RIGHTS


63

Treaties provide that Native Americans would continue to have the right to erect suitable buildings for fish curing, privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing stock on unclaimed lands. All alternatives are equal in their treatment of treaty rights and are expected to maintain treaty rights and opportunities into the future.

Potentially affected Tribes, the Burns Paiute, The Klamath Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, were contacted during the scoping process. No treaty resources were identified by any Tribe as at risk. Coordination with the Tribes is on-going.

3.5.3 PRIME FARMLANDS, RANGE LAND, AND FOREST LAND

Actions taken under any of the alternatives would have no adverse impact on farmland, rangeland or forest land, inside of or outside the National Forest.

3.5.4 INVENTORIED ROADLESS, WILDERNESS, RESEARCH NATURAL AREA, EXPERIMENTAL FORESTS

None of these special designations occur within or adjacent to project area.

3.5.5 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS, EXPERIMENTAL FORESTS, WILDERNESS AND FEDERAL STATE AND

LOCAL LAWS

No research natural areas, experimental forests, or wilderness areas are within the project area. There are no known significant cumulative effects between the project and other projects implemented or planned on areas separated from the affected area of the project. The physical and biological effects are limited to this analysis area. No actions are proposed which are considered to be precedent setting.

There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. None of the actions threaten a violation of federal, state, or local law. Alternatives would comply with air and water quality regulations. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial, based on public participation.

3.5.6 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

There would be no unusual energy requirements for implementing any of the alternatives.

3.5.7 INCOMPLETE AND UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.22) require that a federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or unavailable.

Knowledge is, and always will be, incomplete regarding many aspects of terrestrial and aquatic species and their habitats, geology of specific areas, and the economy. The alternatives were evaluated using the best available information. No missing information was deemed to be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives being considered.

3.5.8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES


64

Irreversible resource commitments are actions that either deplete a non-renewable resource or disturb another resource to the point that it cannot be renewed within 100 years. There are no known significant irreversible resource commitments or irretrievable loss of timber production, wildlife habitats, soil production, or water quality from actions initiated under any of the alternatives.

Loss of cultural sites resulting from accidental damage or vandalism would be an irreversible commitment of resources. Extensive cultural resource surveys and a requirement to avoid and protect cultural sites provide reasonable assurance that there would be no irreversible loss of cultural resources.

Impacts to soil are controlled by management practices and mitigation measures, and would not represent an irreversible resource commitment. The hardened and compacted surfaces of the pathway and parking site would remain in a non-forest condition for the life of the pathway and parking area.

3.5.9 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage NFS lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). All renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are there for future generations. This chapter and the specialist reports prepared for this project provide the required disclosure of effects from anticipated use associated with the trail allowed under the action alternative and under the current condition, no action, Alternative 1.

The action alternative is not expected to create any impacts that would cause irreversible damage to soil productivity. There is low risk for the proposed activities to cause soil mass failures (landslides) due to the inherent stability of dominant landtypes and the lack of seasonally wet soils on steep slopes. The development and use of the trails and a trailhead would compact surfaces and would remain in that condition for the life of the trails and trailhead use.

3.5.10 BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

All existing native and desirable introduced species and communities are maintained with all alternatives. Biological diversity would not be affected by this project.

3.5.11 REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 - PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her disability. There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities use of motor vehicles on


65

roads, trails, or other areas that are closed to motor vehicles. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory.

3.5.12 USDA CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY

The Civil Rights Policy for the USDA, Departmental Regulation 4300-4 dated May 30, 2003, states that the following are among the civil rights strategic goals; (1) managers, supervisors, and other employees are held accountable for ensuring that USDA customers are treated fairly and equitably, with dignity and respect; and (2) equal access is assured and equal treatment is provided in the delivery of USDA programs and services for all customers. This is the standard for service to all customers regardless of race, sex, national origin, age, or disabilities.

Disparate impact, a theory of discrimination, has been applied to this projects planning process in order to reveal any such negative effects that may unfairly and inequitably impact beneficiaries regarding program development, administration, and delivery. The objectives of this review and analysis are to prevent disparate treatment and minimize discrimination against minorities, women and persons with disabilities and to ensure compliance with all civil rights statutes, Federal regulations, and USDA policies and procedures.

The project alternatives, given the size of potential social and economic effects, are not likely to result in civil rights impacts to Forest Service employees or customers of its program.

3.5.13 EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (February 11, 1994)

Executive Order 12898 directs the agency to identify and address, “...as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations....” The intent of the order is to assure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement and consideration of all people. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the execution of a federal actions. Outreach and public involvement for this project has been extensive and at various scales within various communities of interest.

In order to identify and address environmental justice concerns, the EO states that each agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects of Federal actions, including effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and native Americans as part of the NEPA process.

There would be no discernible impacts among the alternative in the effects on Native Americans, women, other minorities, or the Civil Rights of any American citizen.

The action alternative does not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated with the principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation measures to offset or improve adverse effects to these populations have been identified. All interested and affected parties will continue to be involved with the public involvement and decision process.


66

Executive Orders 11988 Wetlands and 11990 Floodplains

Executive orders 11988 and 11990 require protection of floodplains and wetlands. The project would have no effect on Executive orders 11988 and 11990 as adverse effects are avoided.

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute project was first published to the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest project webpage in September 2015 at http:www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47482

This project was first published in the Deschutes National Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), a quarterly publication, in October 2015 and has appeared in each quarterly SOPA since then. This is a quarterly report that is distributed to interested individuals, organizations, and agencies Forest-wide. The SOPA is automatically updated and available on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest webpage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110601.

A description of the proposed action was mailed on 9/17/2015, to approximately 200 forest users and concerned publics, soliciting comments and concerns related to this project. Four letters or emails of response were received, which were considered and evaluated. This letter was also mailed to the Burns Paiute Tribe, The Klamath Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. Coordination and consultation with the tribes is ongoing.

4.2 CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS ________________________________

Consultation has occurred with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) following guidelines in the Regional Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon SHPO.

The consultation with the Burns Paiute Tribe, The Klamath Tribe, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs has occurred and coordination is ongoing.

The project has also been completed in coordination with Oregon Department of Transportation to ensure that the undercrossing below the Cascades Lakes Scenic Highway will be meet highway standards.

4.3 INTERDISCIPLINARY PARTICIPATION ____________________________

Below are the members of the interdisciplinary team responsible for coordination, conducting and contributing the environmental analysis for this project

ID Team Member Title

Amy Tinderholt ID Team Leader, Recreation

Lauren DuRocher ID Team Leader, NEPA Oversight, Writer/Editor

Chelsea Muise Recreation

Barbara Webb Wildlife Biologist

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110601


67

Marlo Fisher Botanist

Sarah Hash Soil Scientist

Matt Mawhirter Cultural and Heritage Resources

Tom Walker Fisheries

Robin Gyorgyfalvy Scenery

Pete Powers Silviculture

Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Draft EA Appendix A: Recreational Opportunity Spectrum

68

APPENDIX A: RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM

ACCESS

Access includes type and mode of travel. Highly developed access generally reduces the opportunities for solitude, risk, and challenge. However, it can enhance opportunities for socializing, and feelings of safety and comfort.

Cross-Country Travel

Non-Motorized Trails

Motorized Trails and Primitive Roads (Traffic Ser D)

Controlled (2) TSL B&C Rds.

Full Access

Primitive Norm Norm Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Compatible Norm Inconsistent Unacceptable Unacceptable

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Compatible Compatible Norm Inconsistent Unacceptable

Roaded Natural

Compatible Compatible Compatible Norm Norm

Rural Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Norm

Urban Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Norm

(1) Roaded Natural may be prescribed in certain circumstances with roads partially or fully closed. (2) TSL = Traffic Service Level. In TSL-D primitive roads should provide challenge to 4-wheel drive and high clearance vehicles but discourage use by highway vehicles. By definition, they are "Single-use controlled traffic roads. The surface is rough. Stable during dry weather. Rutting is controlled for protection of water only".

Welcome Station Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Draft EA Appendix B: Works Cited

69

APPENDIX B: WORKS CITED

Altman, B., 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1999. Guide for the development of bicycle facilities.

Bate, L.J.; Torgersen, T.R.; Wisdom, M.J.; Garton, E.O.; Clabough, S.C. 2008. SnagPRO: Snag and tree sampling and analysis methods for wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-780. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr780.pdf

Bull, E.L., A.D. Twombly, and T.M. Quigley. 1980. Perpetuating snags in managed mixed conifer forests of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. IN: Management of western forests and grasslands for non-game birds, Workshop Proceedings. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86, pp 325-336.

Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Research Note PNW-444, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

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

Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of Road Management on Movement and Survival of Roosevelt Elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:1115-1126.

Jepsen, S. 2014. Species Fact Sheet: Bombus occidentalis western bumblebee. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Jones, I. R. and E. Allen. 2002. Detection of large woody debris accumulations in old growth forests using sonic wave collection. Transactions of Important Tree Scientists 120(2):201-209.

Krausman, P.R., S.S. Rosenstock, J.W. Cain III. 2006. Developed waters for wildlife: Science, Perception, Values and Controversy. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34(3):563-569.

Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1999. Bird use of burned and unburned coniferous forest during winter. Wilson Bulletin 111:243-250.Jones and Allen 2002

Larsen, D.M., 1976. Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2006. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon and Washington Partners in Flight. Corvallis, OR.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr780.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml


70

Mellen-McLean, K. Regional Wildlife Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – January, 2012; Updated: December 2012, July 2013 MIS Information Sheet Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) on file at District offices, bend Oregon.

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Neitro, W.A., V.W. Binkley, S.P. Cline, R.W. Mannan, B. G. Marcot, D. Taylor, and F. F. Wagner. 1985. Snags (wildlife trees). Pages 129-169 in E.R. Brown, technical editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Publication No. R6-F&WL-192-1985.5

Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp. 580-623 in: D.H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. Rose et al. 2001

Rowland M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of road on elk; Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk Distribution and Modeling in Relation to Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):672-684.

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

Stankowich, T. 2008. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: A review and meta-analysis. Biological Conservation 141:2159-2173.

Thomas, J. W. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553.

USDA Forest Service, 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1991. Regional Soil Quality Standards. R6 Supplement No. 3500.98-1 to FSM 2500.

USDA Forest Service, 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management

USDA Forest Service, 2001. The Built Environment Image Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/pages/documents/Rose-et-al-2001.pdf


71

USDA Forest Service, 2011 (Updated in 2015). Cascade Lakes National Scenic Byway Corridor Management and Interpretive Plan

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 2012. Species Assessments. On file at Deschutes National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bend, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, 2014. Welcome Station Trail Connections Environmental Assessment (EA).

USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines. May 22, 2006. United States Forest Service. September 6, 2013. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/FSORAG.pdf

USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines. May 22, 2006. United States Forest Service. September 6, 2013. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/FSTAG.pdf

Wisdom, M.J., N.J. Norman, B.K. Johnson, E.O. Garton, J.W. Thomas. 2004. Spatial partitioning by mule deer and elk in relation to traffic. In Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 509-530

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Paved Path Undercrossing and Reroute Environmental...

Documents