RECREATION. 1. Conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation uses,

Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Chapter 3. Recreation RECREATION INTRODUCTION This section discusses the effects to public recreation opportunities and experiences. The type of recreational activities and experiences a person has while visiting National Forests varies based on the personal observations, expectations, and beliefs of the individual. Considering that individual visitor s expectations and desired experience outcomes are so varied, the Forest Service generally seeks to provide both a variety of opportunities on NFS lands and only those regulations or limitations that are necessary to protect natural resources, provide for public safety, and mitigate conflict. ANALYSIS AREA The analysis area for this discussion will focus on the Project Area and Island Unit Geographic Area. Pertinent recreation opportunities outside the Project Area on both the Flathead National Forest and nearby public and private lands and their relation to the proposed actions and activities will also be considered. ANALYSIS METHODS Analysis of a proposed action s impact on recreation opportunities and experiences can be accomplished in a variety of ways. While an analysis framed around the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is often used, it would be of marginally utility in this case, as essentially the entire Project Area, and the areas where specific trail development actions are proposed, are Roaded Natural. Development and management of both motorized and non-motorized trails within the Roaded Natural opportunity class are appropriate. This analysis was framed around four key factors identified by the ID Team and the public during scoping and considers the effect of the alternatives on these factors. The four factors are as follows: 1. Conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation uses, 2. Quality of the recreation experience, 3. Public safety and property values, and 4. Unauthorized/unmanaged recreation. These concepts are detailed and explained here and the effects of the alternatives framed around these concepts can be found below. CONFLICT BETWEEN MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USES Conflict between differing recreational user types is a central factor in the level of satisfaction and perception of the quality of the recreational experience a visitor to public lands has. Just as individuals have varied tastes in food, music, politics, and so on, an individual s desired experiences and outcomes from a visit to public lands vary dramatically. It is these differences that result in conflict between recreational user groups. Often these conflicts are asymmetrical in that one user groups choice of recreational activity may disproportionately impact another group (Project File Exhibit P-8). One of the most commonly perceived conflicts reported to land managers is a negative impact on non-motorized users such as hikers and equestrians from motorized users, such as motorcycle and ATV riders. The conflict can arise from not just encounters with motor vehicles, 3-125

Chapter 3. Recreation Island Unit Trail System Additions Project but also from the sound of motor vehicles as it travels across the landscape. Conversely, ATV riders and motorcyclists seldom express concern about encounters with non-motorized users. Use conflicts can result in visitors employing various behaviors to cope with the conflict, such as spatial or temporal displacement (Johnson and Dawson 2004), or reduced satisfaction with their experience (Project File Exhibit P-8). These conflicts can be resolved or mitigated through separating use types, i.e., providing trails or areas open to only non-motorized use, through outreach and education and other means. For this analysis, the alternatives are analyzed on how they contribute to or mitigate user conflict. QUALITY RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES As was discussed above, visitors to public lands recreate in a variety of means, seeking a variety of outcomes. A common theme among different user groups (both motorized and non-motorized) visiting the Flathead National Forest, however, is the desire to experience natural forest environments, view wildlife, and view scenery according to the 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey and Report (Project File P-10). Regardless of their desired experience type, mode of travel, method of recreation, the search for a high quality and satisfactory recreational experience is considered by researchers to be a universal among recreationists (Project File Exhibit P-8). In this case, the alternatives were analyzed for their effect on the quality of recreation experiences. Specifically, the miles of trail by type and the proximity to and intersections with open roads and other trails were considered as measures of quality recreational experiences. PUBLIC SAFETY AND EFFECTS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY One issue of concern raised in comments on the Proposed Action was the project s effect on public safety and neighboring private property. Specifically, concerns were expressed about the safety of the proposed trails, about increased traffic on Forest and adjacent county roads, and impacts from road dust. The alternatives are analyzed for their effect on public safety and private property with comparisons between the alternatives. UNAUTHORIZED/UNMANAGED RECREATIONAL USE Unauthorized and unmanaged recreation can be defined as activities occurring on public lands that are contrary to management direction, law, or policy. These activities can range from the relatively benign to the serious and unacceptable. Two types of recreational use that are unacceptable and can lead to negative environmental consequences from wildlife disturbance to soil erosion are the unauthorized use of closed roads by motor vehicles and the unauthorized construction of both motorized and non-motorized trails. This activity currently occurs on the Island Unit and other parts of the Flathead National Forest. The degree to which unauthorized use occurs is not fully known, but is not expected to be widespread due to terrain limitations, effective closure devices and law enforcement programs. This type of activity can be caused or contributed to by a variety of factors, including availability of managed or legitimate recreation opportunities, visitor education and information, and the effectiveness of restrictions, such as closure devices and law enforcement. These factors were considered, as well as the effects of the alternatives and their likelihood to contribute to or reduce unauthorized recreation. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Island Unit Geographic Area and the lands within the Project Area can be characterized by the extensive road network, prevalence of timber harvest, and the cluster of facilities located on the summit of Blacktail Mountain. From a public recreation perspective, the Blacktail Wild Bill OHV Trail, Blacktail Mountain Ski Area, 3-126

Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Chapter 3. Recreation and Blacktail Nordic Ski Trails are currently the only managed opportunities. Including use of these facilities, the Island Unit sees a variety of other recreation uses as detailed below. DEVELOPED RECREATION SITES The Blacktail Mountain Ski Area (BMSA) is located on the summit of Blacktail Mountain in the heart of the Island Unit and Project Area. The BMSA is a relatively small ski area with three aerial lifts and one surface lift, approximately 1,000 acres of skiing, and serves approximately 40,000 visitors a year since opening for the 1998-1999 ski season. While BMSA is primarily used for winter recreation, the ski area is authorized to operate year around. Currently, weddings, private parties, and recreational events, such as archery shoots, are held at the facility in the summer. While no significant developments are currently anticipated within the ski area boundary, some forest health and ski run improvement harvests have been proposed in the Wild Cramer Project. The Blacktail Nordic Ski Trails are a system of approximately 18 miles of trails groomed for Nordic skiing and snowshoeing. The trails can be accessed from NFS road #917 (Radar Road) and are maintained by the North Shore Nordic Ski Club and the Flathead County Parks, Recreation, and Weeds Department, in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service. The trails have seen significant increases in visitor use in recent winters. Thanks to efforts by North Shore Nordic, and with funding from the Flathead County Resource Advisory Committee and the Forest Service, the trails are groomed daily and are available for use free of charge. DISPERSED RECREATION Dispersed recreation in the analysis area is generally characterized by day use with little overnight camping occurring. Day use dispersed recreation activities are predominately driving the extensive road system for pleasure, wildlife watching, hunting, snowmobiling, berry picking, and firewood gathering. The Flathead National Forest Winter Motorized Recreation Plan Record of Decision (ROD) was signed November 17, 2006 (Project File Exhibit S-8). This plan designates winter-motorized routes, play areas, and seasons for snowmobile recreation throughout the Flathead National Forest. Snowmobile opportunities for the Island Unit are detailed on the Swan Lake Ranger District 2011 Over the Snow Motor Vehicle Use Map. Snowmobiling (Project File Exhibit S-9) in the Project Area is generally permitted, when snow conditions allow. Snowmobiling is prohibited on a number of roads between October 15 and November 30 yearly, as designated on the Over the Snow Motor Vehicle Use Map. Both the Blacktail Mountain Ski Area and Blacktail Nordic Ski Trails are closed to snowmobile use. TRAILS The 10.33-mile Blacktail Wild Bill OHV National Recreation Trail provides the only designated motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities on the Island Unit. The trail generally follows ridgelines in the central part of the Island Unit and is separated into three segments detailed below. The trail is most commonly used by ATVs, motorcycles, and full-size vehicles like jeeps. Less frequently, it is also used by mountain bikers, hikers, and equestrians. TABLE 3-24. BLACKTAIL WILD BILL OHV TRAIL SEGMENTS TRAIL SEGMENT NAME TRAIL NUMBER Blacktail Mountain 917 1.33 Upper Dayton Creek 918 4.00 Wild Bill 919 5.00 Total Miles 10.33 3-127

Chapter 3. Recreation Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Use of the Blacktail Wild Bill OHV Trail has increased in recent years as volunteer partners with the Polsonbased Skyliner s 4x4 Club and Kalispell-based Big Sky Four Wheelers invested a significant amount of time and effort into trail maintenance and improvement, sign improvements, garbage collection, and other actions that have improved the quality of recreation opportunity provided by the trail system. Unauthorized use of closed NFS roads by motor vehicles is prevalent in the Island Unit. A lack of trail opportunities, the large number of system roads, and close proximity to population centers all contribute to this problem. The use of gates, rather than berm style closures, is common on the Island Unit to facilitate administrative use of the road system. Some styles of gates, particularly the older style, found on the Island Unit can be susceptible to vandalism. Efforts to maintain closure devices have largely focused on other portions of the Swan Lake Ranger District where wildlife values are more significant. As a result, closure devices on the Island Unit are in need of maintenance. Remnants of historic NFS trails exist in the Project Area. Specifically, remnants of two trails that lead to the summit of Blacktail Mountain, one from the Emmons Creek Drainage and another from the Stoner Creek Drainage, can still be found in places. These trails see some use from motorcycle riders, mountain bikers, hikers, and occasionally equestrians. As the trails are no longer part of the forest transportation system, use by motor vehicles is not authorized. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Under Alternative A, none of the proposed motorized and non-motorized trails and associated trailheads, mitigations, and developments would occur. Recreation management on the Island Unit and within the Project Area would remain the same as it is currently. The Blacktail Wild Bill OHV National Recreation Trail would remain the only NFS trail on the Island Unit and would continue to be managed for motorized and nonmotorized recreation. Conflict between motorized and non-motorized visitors would continue at current levels and likely grow as use of the area increased. Without additional designated routes, however, the points of conflict would be diffuse. The quality of recreational opportunity on the Island Unit would stay the same with very limited trail opportunities. As a result, motorized use of open roads and unauthorized motorized use of closed roads would likely continue. In addition, continued non-motorized uses (foot, horse, and bicycle traffic) on both open and closed roads and historic trail alignments would also continue. Natural resources and forest facilities would continue to be impacted by unmanaged recreation. There would be an ongoing need to enforce closures and maintain closure devices. If impacts worsened as a result of unmanaged recreational use, additional closures may be warranted. ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Alternative B - Proposed Action would designate 34.15 miles of new motorized trails and 11.46 miles of new non-motorized trails, 7 trailheads would be constructed or improved, and a variety of mitigation measures, such as closure device improvements on other routes, would be implemented. Of these 34.15 miles, 26.33 miles would be from the conversion of existing closed roads, 3.45 miles from new trail construction, and 4.37 miles of dual designated NFS roads. An analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action on the four factors detailed above follows: 1. Conflict between motorized and non-motorized uses, 3-128

Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Chapter 3. Recreation 2. Quality recreation experiences, 3. Public safety and property values, and 4. Unauthorized and unmanaged recreational use. CONFLICT BETWEEN MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USES A commonly expressed concern in comments on the Proposed Action was the likelihood of conflict between non-motorized and motorized users arising from the layout of the proposed trails and the noise of motor vehicles. Specifically, concerns were raised with the Upper Stoner Creek Motorized Trails and their intersections and close proximity to both the Lakeside to Blacktail Trail and Foys to Blacktail Trail. It is likely that hikers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers using the proposed non-motorized trails could experience direct and indirect encounters with motorized users. Direct encounters could take the form of meeting at trail intersections, while indirect encounters could be experiencing the sound of motor vehicles travelling across the landscape. Encounters at trail intersections could be mitigated to ensure visitor safety through speed-limiting design for the motorized trails and clear sight distances for both the motorized and non-motorized trails as they enter the intersections. While disturbance to users can surely occur in these settings, the Flathead National Forest currently has numerous locations where non-motorized trails intersect with motorized trails and roads. Trailhead and map information could inform visitors that such intersections exist allowing them to prepare mentally for a possible encounter, or alter their planned route to avoid an encounter. Considering these factors, it is likely that some visitors desiring a non-motorized experience without encountering a motor vehicle user would be displaced to other non-motorized trails. Those visitors desiring to use the specific nonmotorized routes proposed in Alternative B would be susceptible to encounters with motor vehicles and could have the quality of their recreational experience degraded by such conflict. As conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreational users are largely asymmetrical, it is unlikely that motorized trail users would have their recreational experience degraded by encounters with nonmotorized users. It is likely that some motorized recreational users would be negatively impacted by the prohibition of motor vehicle use on the proposed non-motorized trails. It is, however, the Purpose and Need of this project to provide for both motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities. The sounds of motor vehicles would be likely to be noticeable on occasion to users of the two proposed nonmotorized trails. Consideration of the sound impacts of proposed motorized routes is required by EOs 11644 and 11989, as well as regulations found at 36 CFR 212.55(b)(5). In 1980, the Forest Service and EPA developed a protocol to evaluate the acoustic effects of various activities (Project File Exhibit P-11). The process, the System for the Prediction of Acoustic Detectability (SPreAD), is based on a system of spreadsheets and tabular data consistent with available technology of the era. The model has been evolved into a GIS database tool called SPreAD-GIS by The Wilderness Society and Colorado State University (Project File Exhibit P-12). The SPreAD-GIS was used to analyze the acoustical impacts of the proposed motorized routes in Alternatives B and C. Data for the analysis included Flathead National Forest GIS data layers including topographical layers, vegetative cover layers (VMAP), route data on proposed and existing system routes, and other similar data. For Alternative B, points on both the proposed Foys to Blacktail and Lakeside to Blacktail non-motorized trails were selected and analyzed to represent the relative prevalence of the sound a motorcycle riding on the proposed motorized routes in Stoner Creek. The analysis indicates that while non-motorized trail users would likely be able to hear motor vehicles, such as motorcycles, traveling on the proposed motorized trails, the sounds would be rather diluted by the forested landscape and terrain. Outputs from the SPreAD-GIS model are in the Project File (Exhibit P-13). The sounds of motor vehicles using the proposed motorized trails would not likely be the only motor vehicle sounds visitors and non-motorized trail users would hear in the Project Area. With a majority of the Project Area managed for timber production as prescribed by Forest Plan MAs and an extensive open network of NFS roads, the sounds of motor vehicles are prevalent on the Island Unit. Public vehicle traffic, logging equipment, 3-129

Chapter 3. Recreation Island Unit Trail System Additions Project commercial trucks, and unrelated aircraft overflights can regularly be heard, even in remote portions of the Island Unit. Faced with the sights and sounds of motor vehicles, some non-motorized visitor s recreation experience would likely be degraded. Research, primarily conducted in Wilderness, has indicated that recreationists, when faced with conditions or experiences that negatively affect their level of satisfaction would employee a variety of coping behaviors (Project File Exhibit P-9). Visitors could be displaced spatially, temporally, or both from a trail or area, choosing to visit another area, or visit a time when they expect to experience fewer negative encounters. Visitors could also adapt their expectations of an experience or location in essence accept the presence of motor vehicles as the norm, for example, and continue to recreate in that location (Project File Exhibit P-9). The layout of the proposed trails in Alternative B would likely lead to some level of conflict between nonmotorized and motorized users. Conflict would likely be less significant on the proposed Wild Bill Mountain motorized trails, however as they are separated by a number of miles from the proposed non-motorized trails. Visitors making use of the non-motorized Wild Bill Mountain trails could have a less satisfying experience because of motorized encounters, however. These visitors would have a choice of where to recreate and could simply avoid using motorized trails. Users of the Foys-to-Blacktail and Lakeside-to-Blacktail Trails would be most likely to experience encounters with motor vehicles and hear motor vehicles resulting in some conflict and a potentially less satisfying recreational experience. These visitors could employ one of the coping behaviors described above to improve their experience and satisfaction. Considering the spectrum of trail opportunities available on the Flathead National Forest, ample opportunities for non-motorized users to escape the sights and sounds of motor vehicles exist. While the greatest opportunities to avoid conflict with motor vehicles would be found in the Forest s three designated Wilderness areas, opportunities for trail use free of motor vehicles could also be found in the front country portions of the Forest. Information and education made available by the Forest Service about the variety of trail opportunities on the Forest could help visitors find the types of experiences they desire and minimize conflict. QUALITY RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES For the purposes of this analysis, the effect of the Proposed Action on the relative quality of recreational experiences available on the Island Unit was defined as the miles of trail by type, as well as proximity to and intersections with open roads and other trails. Other means of measurement are possible, however, given that individual motivations, desired outcomes of a recreational experience, and individual backgrounds and experience levels vary greatly between recreationists. As a result, the perception of what is and is not a quality recreation experience would vary significantly. By distilling the comparison to the quantity and continuity of trail experiences, the variability in personal perceptions is accommodated. Alternative B would offer a mix of motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities for user types, including hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, motorcycle, ATV, and full-size motor vehicle drivers. The motorized trails proposed in Alternative B include both sections of existing NFS roads and newly constructed routes. Experientially, existing roads converted for trail use would provide a lower quality recreational experience than purpose-built trails. While roads can meet the need for recreational trails, the wide and often smooth travel surface combined with the minor slopes and grades would provide less physical and skill-based challenge or diversity. Table 3-25 shows the breakdown of the proposed motorized trails by construction type and length. For Alternative B, a total of 26.33 miles of currently-closed roads would be converted to motorized trails. An additional 4.37 miles of currently open NFS roads would be dual designated to facilitate trail connectivity. Combined with 3.45 miles of new trail constructed specifically for motor vehicle use, a total of 34.15 miles of new motorized trails would be available on the Island Unit. 3-130

Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Chapter 3. Recreation TABLE 3-25. ALTERNATIVE B MOTORIZED TRAIL SEGMENTS TRAIL SEGMENTS SEGMENT TYPE UPPER STONER CREEK WILD BILL MOUNTAIN SEGMENT NFSR 2832 Convert Closed Road To Trail 2.52 NFSR 2959 Convert Closed Road To Trail 5.98 NFSR 2957 Convert Closed Road To Trail 5.88 North Connector New Motorized Trail 0.57 Middle Connector New Motorized Trail 0.44 South Connector New Motorized Trail 0.55 NFSR 9662 Dual Designate from NFSR 213 to Closure 2.70 NFSR 917A From NFSR 916 to NFST 917 1.67 NFSR 9662 Convert Closed Road To Trail 3.35 NFSR 10149 Convert Closed Road To Trail 3.19 NFSR 10152 Convert Closed Road To Trail 2.00 NFSR 2997B Convert Closed Road To Trail 1.57 NFSR 2997 Convert Closed Road To Trail 1.84 North Connector New Motorized Trail 0.58 Middle Connector New Motorized Trail 0.78 South Connector New Motorized Trail 0.53 BY TYPE 14.38 1.56 4.37 11.95 1.89 TOTAL TRAIL 15.94 16.54 Specifically, this considers motorized trail miles rather than total open road miles currently available for motor vehicle use. While driving for pleasure on NFS roads is a popular recreational activity (Project File Exhibit P-10), this activity is only available to licensed drivers operating street-legal vehicles limiting the opportunity. Alternative B presents a spectrum of opportunities from dual-designated roads, closed roads converted to trails, to purpose built trails, each in turn more specialized and as a result offering higher quality opportunities. Alternative B would also offer a total of 11.46 miles of new non-motorized trails on the Island Unit where none currently exist a significant improvement in the quality and availability of non-motorized recreational opportunities. This would be a relatively small change in non-motorized opportunities Forest wide, presenting an only 0.006 percent increase in non-motorized trail miles. The proposed non-motorized trails would, however, intersect proposed motorized trails in two locations breaking the continuity of the trail experience. As was discussed earlier, intersections between trails of different types could lead to conflict and cause a degradation of the recreational experience for some trail users. In this case, the intersections of the nonmotorized trails with the motorized trails could negatively affect the overall quality of the non-motorized trail experience. While this affect would be very real for some trail users, opportunities for uninterrupted nonmotorized experiences exist in other locations on the Flathead National Forest. It is expected, consistent with findings discussed earlier, that non-motorized trail users would either adapt their expectations or exhibit other coping mechanisms, as it relates to the encounters with the sights and sounds of motorized trails and trail users. PUBLIC SAFETY AND EFFECT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY The relative safety of trails and trail uses on NFS lands and the impacts on adjoining and adjacent private lands was considered for Alternative B - Proposed Action. A number of comments on the Proposed Action expressed concerns about the relative safety of the proposed trails, specifically as it relates to the potential for collisions or accidents between motor vehicles and between motor vehicles and pedestrians. Trail safety is directly connected to design standards and construction. For example, trails could be constructed with features to limit the speed of motor vehicles and bicycles, such as rough surfaces, rolling grade drainage dips that function like speed bumps, and other designs. Safety would also be improved by providing adequate site distances for trail users. These features would be incorporated into the trails proposed by Alternative B, as detailed in Chapter 2. 3-131

Chapter 3. Recreation Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Alternative B also proposes dual designation of 4.37 miles of currently open NFS roads as NFS trails. This administrative change would allow non-street legal ATVs and motorcycles to make use of open NFS roads as connectors between portions of the trail system. There are a variety of safety considerations when mixing motor vehicle types and operators on NFS roads. A separate Engineering Analysis consistent with 36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261 would need to be completed prior to dual designation. Safety concerns, such as collision probability and potential collision severity, could be mitigated using methods that range from as simple as improved signing where risks are relatively low, to as extensive as speed limiting and traffic calming road surface modifications. Specific mitigations in this case would depend on the findings of the Engineering Analysis and available funding. Any route authorized for dual designation would not be designated until required mitigations are in place. There is a potential that some mitigations, such as realigning a road curve, would require subsequent analysis under NEPA. Alternative B does present a slightly greater risk to the trail user safety with the two intersections between motorized and non-motorized trails. While there is a potential for collisions or close calls between hikers, bicyclists, or equestrians and motorized users at these trail junctions, the likelihood of such an incident would be miniscule. For example, a records search found no documented cases of collisions or close calls at the numerous existing intersections between both motorized and non-motorized trails, and open NFS roads and non-motorized trails across the Flathead National Forest. Adequate signing on both trails approaching the intersection could mitigate this concern. Another concern related to Alternative B is associated with public safety, as well as effects on property values on adjacent private lands. Comments on the Proposed Action expressed concerns about increased traffic on NFS and adjacent county roads and impacts from road dust. It is likely that implementation of Alternative B would lead to some increases in traffic on roads accessing the Island Unit and specifically on NFS road #917 (Blacktail/Radar Road), NFS road #2962 (Patrick Creek Road), and NFS road #916 (Truman Creek) and NFS road #213 (Wild Bill Creek), both of which emanate from Truman Creek Road, a Flathead County road. Traffic volume increases are difficult to predict for a project such as this. In comparison, use of NFS road #917 has increased significantly since the 1997 opening of the Blacktail Mountain Ski Area, with the primary increase coming in the form of winter traffic. This increase has resulted in wear to the running surface of the road, an increase in traffic accidents (again primarily in the winter on snow-covered road surfaces), and some increase in dust during the summer months. Traffic increases from Alternative B are expected to be less than the comparative volume associated with the BMSA. These increases would have the potential to lead to increased road dust and higher potential for traffic accidents. These increased risks are not considered to be significant. Monitoring of road dust and traffic safety for a period of 3 years after implementation could result in necessary mitigations, such as dust abatement, speed limits or other measures. UNAUTHORIZED/UNMANAGED RECREATIONAL USE Under Alternative B, noticeable effects on unauthorized/unmanaged recreational use in the Project Area would be expected. The current lack of managed trails for both motorized and non-motorized uses on the Island Unit would be rectified by the Proposed Action. Providing managed opportunities could result in a reduction of unauthorized and unacceptable uses, such as motorized use of closed roads and trails. While no management action or prohibition would be 100 percent effective meaning all users would abide by all regulations and use facilities in their intended manner the Proposed Action would be more effective at resolving unmanaged/unauthorized recreation issues than Alternative A - No Action. Some comments received on the Proposed Action expressed a concern that additional motorized routes would lead to additional motorized incursions into closed areas and onto closed roads. In order to evaluate this concern, a field review of existing motor vehicle use on the Island Unit was conducted to determine the scope and extent of unauthorized/unmanaged recreation. Field work indicated the central factor at play in unauthorized/unmanaged recreation was ineffective route closure devices. Unauthorized use of closed roads by motor vehicles occurs in many locations on the Island Unit with those users accessing the roads around failed or ineffective gates or berms. The same is true of the two power line corridors crossing the Island Unit. 3-132

Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Chapter 3. Recreation Due to the relatively dense timber and underbrush, there is relatively little unauthorized cross-country motor vehicle travel. Along the open road system, there are many instances where motor vehicles have left the road and traveled short distances cross country. A field review of these routes found they were largely created by firewood cutters, as indicated by the short distances of the routes and evidences of tree falling and removal. These routes were generally not being used by recreational users. Regardless of whether these unauthorized routes are created and used by firewood cutters or recreationists, they are unacceptable. Ensuring the incorporation of effective closure devices at intersections with closed routes and unauthorized routes, and monitoring for new unauthorized route development into the project s Design Criteria would help mitigate this concern. Alternative B s designation of 30 miles of new motorized trails and about 12 miles of new non-motorized trails would also be expected to help mitigate the current problem of unauthorized/unmanaged use. A central component of the construction process detailed earlier in this document would be the reconstruction or improvement of closure devices on the Island Unit, concurrent with the development of the new trail system. A similar effort was undertaken during the maintenance of the Blacktail Wild Bill OHV Trail over the last 5 years and has proven effective. The evidence of unauthorized off trail travel by motor vehicles adjacent to the trail has declined significantly. This is partially due to the inability of most firewood cutters to access the trail corridor after the placement of large drainage and challenge features. Effective and maintained closure devices and legitimate recreation opportunities would be only a part of the equation to address unauthorized/unmanaged recreation. Enforcement of travel and resource management regulations would be critical. It would not be reasonable to assume or assert that the Flathead National Forest would have the ability to provide a significant increase in law enforcement patrol presence on the Island Unit. However, law enforcement would not be the only means of improving compliance with rules and regulations. A method that has proven successful at limiting unauthorized/unmanaged recreation is the use of volunteer partners to patrol and educate fellow trail users in safe and responsible motor vehicle use. Two area motor vehicle user clubs have formal partnerships with the Forest Service to provide trail maintenance and visitor education and information sharing. The creation of a formalized volunteer trail patrol, such as the Arapeen Trail System Good Will Riders in central Utah (Project File Exhibit P-14) that incorporates existing volunteer partners and others could provide the additional patrol presence necessary for the successful resolution of unauthorized/unmanaged recreation use issues. With its focus on providing legitimate trail opportunities, enlisting trail user support, and improving closure devices, Alternative B would be expected to have a beneficial effect in limiting unauthorized/unmanaged recreational use on the Island Unit. ALTERNATIVE C PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Alternative C - Preferred Alternative would designate 41.60 miles of new motorized trails and 11.46 miles of new non-motorized trails, construct or improve 7 trailheads, and implement a variety of mitigation measures, such as closure device improvements on other routes. Of these 41.60 miles, 20.94 miles would be from the conversion of existing closed roads, 2.98 miles from new trail construction, and 17.68 miles of dual designated NFS roads. What follows is an analysis of the effects of the Alternative C on the four factors detailed above: 1. Conflict between motorized and non-motorized uses, 2. Quality recreation experiences, 3. Public safety and effect to property values, and 4. Unauthorized/unmanaged recreational use. 3-133

Chapter 3. Recreation Island Unit Trail System Additions Project CONFLICT BETWEEN MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USES Alternative C would significantly reduce the likelihood of conflict between non-motorized and motorized users in comparison to Alternative B. With the elimination of the proposed motorized trails in the Upper Stoner Creek Drainage that intersected the proposed non-motorized trails, the potential for encounters between motorized and non-motorized users would be reduced significantly. There would remain a potential for conflict between users on the proposed Truman Creek motorized trails and during the motorized season on the Nordic trails. Visitors making use of these trails for non-motorized recreation could have a less satisfying experience, as a result of motorized encounters. These visitors, however, have a choice of where to recreate and could simply avoid using motorized trails. The effect of motor vehicle sounds on non-motorized trail users was considered for Alternative C, as well. In this case, there would be little to no noticeable increase in motor vehicle sound along the non-motorized trails from use of the motorized trails due to the distance, topography and volume of forest cover between the proposed trail routes. As a result motor vehicle sounds are unlikely to contribute to the potential for user conflict in Alternative C. QUALITY RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES Alternative C would offer a mix of motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities for user types, including hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, motorcycle, ATV, and full-size motor vehicle drivers, as would Alternative B. In Alternative C, the motorized trails include both sections of existing NFS roads and newly constructed routes. Experientially, existing roads converted for trail use would provide a lower quality recreational experience than purpose-built trails. While roads can meet the need for recreational trails, the wide and often smooth travel surface combined with the minor slopes and grades would provide less physical and skill-based challenge or diversity. Table 3-26 shows the breakdown of the proposed motorized trails by construction type and length. For Alternative C, a total of 20.94 miles of currently closed roads would be converted to motorized trails. An additional 17.68 miles of open NFS roads would be dual designated as trails to provide connectivity for trail vehicles. Approximately 2.98 miles of new trail would be constructed specifically for motor vehicle use. Alternative C would provide slightly fewer miles of dedicated motorized trails than Alternative B. Like Alternative B, however, there would be an increase in managed motorized trail opportunities on the Island Unit. Specifically, this considers motorized trail miles rather than total open road miles currently available for motor vehicle use. While driving for pleasure on Forest Roads is a popular recreational activity (Project File Exhibit P-10), this activity is only available to licensed drivers operating street-legal vehicles limiting the opportunity. Alternatives B and C propose the same non-motorized trail routes, offering a total of 11.46 miles of new nonmotorized trails. With the distinct separation of the proposed non-motorized trail from any motorized trails, Alternative C presents an improvement in the quality of the non-motorized trail opportunities over Alternative B. The separation limits the potential for user conflict and degraded satisfaction from direct encounters or impacts from nearby motor vehicle sounds while still providing ample and high quality motorized trail opportunities. TABLE 3-26. ALTERNATIVE C MOTORIZED TRAIL SEGMENTS TRAIL SEGMENTS SEGMENT TYPE KERR MOUNTAIN (NORDIC) SEGMENT NFSR 2898 Convert Closed Road To Trail 3.25 NFSR 10141 Convert Closed Road To Trail 2.36 NFSR 917B Convert Closed Road To Trail 0.74 NFSR 5232 Convert Closed Road To Trail 2.17 NFSR 10138 Convert Closed Road To Trail 4.11 TOTAL TRAIL BY TYPE 12.63 14.75 3-134

Island Unit Trail System Additions Project Chapter 3. Recreation TABLE 3-26. ALTERNATIVE C MOTORIZED TRAIL SEGMENTS TRAIL SEGMENTS SEGMENT TYPE Truman Creek Dual Designated Roads SEGMENT Z-Descent Modify Nordic Trail for Motorized 0.70 Trailhead Connector Modify Nordic Trail for Motorized 0.13 Low Descent Modify Nordic Trail for Motorized 0.48 Telemark Descent Modify Nordic Trail for Motorized 0.45 Lower Z-Descent Modify Nordic Trail for Motorized 0.36 NFSR 9891 Convert Closed Road To Trail 3.20 NFSR 9888 Convert Closed Road To Trail 0.55 NFSR 9892 Convert Closed Road To Trail 3.60 NFSR 9892A Convert Closed Road To Trail 0.96 Truman Creek New Motorized Trail 0.24 Connector Wild Bill Creek New Motorized Trail 0.09 Connector Blacktail Connector New Motorized Trail 0.26 Truman Saddle New Motorized Trail 0.27 Connector NFSR 2990 From NFSR 917 to NFST 918 15.07 NFSR 916 From NFSR 917A to NFSR 2990 0.94 NFSR 917A From NFSR 916 to NFST 917 1.67 TOTAL TRAIL BY TYPE 2.12 8.31 9.17 0.86 17.68 17.68 PUBLIC SAFETY AND EFFECT TO PROPERTY VALUES In comparison with Alternative B, Alternative C presents a somewhat greater risk to public safety. The distinct separation of motorized and non-motorized trails, however, offers an increase in safety for non-motorized trail users. Again, the likelihood of collisions between motorized and non-motorized users is slim overall, and the preferred alternative will further reduce this concern. The greater concern comes from the increased number of miles of dual designated roads in Alternative C. As for Alternative B, an independent analysis of motorized mixed use on these currently open routes could result in mitigation measures, such as improved signs to alleviate potential concerns. Effects to adjacent and adjoining private lands from Alternative C are expected to be very similar to Alternative B. Access routes to the proposed motorized and non-motorized trails would be essentially the same for the two action alternatives. These increased risks are not considered to be significant. Monitoring of road dust and traffic safety for a period of three years after implementation may result in necessary mitigations, such as dust abatement, speed limits or other measures. UNAUTHORIZED/UNMANAGED RECREATIONAL USE Alternative C is expected to have a similar effect on unauthorized/unmanaged recreational use to Alternative B. Despite the different locations of the proposed motorized trails, the two action alternatives share the same Design Criteria, focus on providing managed trail opportunities, improvement of closure devices, and expansion of trail patrol presence. With the separation of motorized and non-motorized trail in Alternative C, it is reasonable to expect that the Preferred Alternative would be slightly more effective at addressing unauthorized/unmanaged recreational use. The elimination of motorized and non-motorized trail intersections reduces the number of locations where effective closure devices would have to be designed, implemented and maintained, improving the long term viability of Alternative C over Alternative B. 3-135

Chapter 3. Recreation Island Unit Trail System Additions Project ALTERNATIVES B AND C ACTION ALTERNATIVES CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A variety of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in the cumulative effects analysis for recreation including other recreation and trails management, commercially provided recreation, and resource management activities. Over a number of years, the available miles of NFS trails open to motor vehicle use on the Flathead National Forest has declined, including approximately 60 miles of trails open to motorcycles in the Swan Range. The decision to close trails and other routes to motor vehicle use was often driven by specific resource protection needs, including to aid in the recovery of the grizzly bear. These decisions have reduced the amount of motorized trail opportunities Forest-wide, which may have led to displacement of motorized uses, as well as unauthorized/unmanaged motorized use. It is reasonable to expect that demand for recreational opportunities on public lands would continue to increase, and as such demands for both motorized and non-motorized trails would also increase. Increases in demand could lead to additional use of existing facilities, as well as additional unauthorized/unmanaged uses where facilities are inadequate or not available. Forest vegetation management projects would likely continue, and these operations would be noticeable from the proposed trail routes. While trail surfaces are protected during harvest operations, it is reasonable that vegetation management operations would have ongoing effects to recreation. The Wild Cramer Project has proposed harvest and vegetation management activity across the Island Unit. This proposed timber project would construct or reconstruct about 27 miles of road for timber management. Roads would be closed to the public and barriers or reconstruction would be implemented upon completion of harvest. Some of the routes proposed for use are coincident with routes proposed to be used as trails by this project. It is reasonable to assume that harvest of some units by the Wild Cramer Project would leave vegetative conditions that would allow for cross-country travel by motor vehicles. As such, closure devices proposed by both the Wild Cramer Project and the Island Unit Trail System Additions Project would need to be affected and monitored. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CONSISTENCY This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan, Forest Plan EIS, and ROD, as amended. Chapter 2 of the Forest Plan establishes forest-wide goals and standards. This project is consistent with Forest Plan direction for management of recreation and trails. 3-136