Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project

Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project Recreation Resource Report Prepared by: Dale Schrempp Recreation Manager Priest Lake Ranger District Report completed: March 25, 2008

Abstract In summary, this report analyzed the issues identified through the public scoping process and disclosed the effects of implementation of the alternatives. The findings of this report is that if all project design features are implemented properly, the effects of the project on the recreation opportunities would be minimal and the risk of fire to developed facilities would be mitigated or reduced. All alternatives comply with Forest Plan forest wide goals for recreation by providing use of developed recreation areas and a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities. Each alternative also complies with specific MA goals because the ROS class would remain unchanged for each of the management areas.

Introduction The Lakeview-Reeder project area includes a variety of recreation opportunities. The existing forest transportation system in the project area provides access to recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, berry picking and motorized recreation. There is approximately 30 miles of system summer-use trails with five developed summeruse trailheads within the project area. Some, like the Lakeshore Trail #294 and Lakeview Mountain Trail #269 are very popular. The trails are designated for a mix of uses including motorized, foot travel, bicycle and equestrian. In addition to the variety of trails, the project area includes 50 miles of designated, groomed winter-use snowmobile trails and two winter-use snowmobile trailheads. These groomed snowmobile trails are a combination of system roads and existing non-system roads that are only used during the winter months for snowmobiling. Many of these trails are considered high use snowmobile trails such as Road #302, the primary travel route to the north end of the Ranger District. One developed campground is within the project area. Reeder Bay campground includes 24 campsites and operates from May thru September. There are many dispersed camping opportunities in the project area and approximately 20 dispersed campsites exist in the project area adjacent to roads and streams. The project area has no wilderness and no inventoried roadless areas. This report will outline the regulatory framework guiding recreation management within the analysis area, discuss the issues identified during the scoping process, describe the methodology for analysis, define the affected environment, detail the design features of the project, and disclose the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Regulatory Framework The regulations framework provides direction for the management and protection of individual resources. In part, this regulatory framework defines the methodology and scope of analysis (what needs to be analyzed and how) for individual resources. The applicable regulatory framework that provides direction for recreation management comes from the Forest Plan. Idaho Panhandle National Forest (IPNF) Forest Plan The Forest Plan for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests identifies these forest wide goals for recreation: 1. Provide for the projected use of developed recreation areas and complete the development of new sites as budget allows. 2. Provide for a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities. The project area includes Forest Plan Management Areas 1, 4 and 17. These Management Area (MA) goals are more specific to the project area than the forest wide goals. The IPNF Forest Plan used the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to evaluate the recreation

potential within each MA. This system defines five types of recreational settings and opportunities ranging from primitive, where human disturbance is minimal, to rural, where roads and users are concentrated. 1. MA-1 goal is to provide opportunities for dispersed recreation. Furthermore, the Forest Plan states to manage primarily for roaded modified and roaded natural ROS classes. 2. MA-4 goal is to provide for opportunities for dispersed recreation consistent with wildlife habitat needs. The ROS standard for MA-4 is also roaded modified and roaded natural classes. Motorized use is generally restricted to designated routes. 3. MA-17 goal is to manage for developed recreation opportunities in a roaded natural and rural recreation setting. Reeder Bay Campground is included in MA- 17. The Forest Plan further states to manage the campground to protect and enhance a natural appearing environment and the opportunities for social interchange between users. Issues The scoping process is used to help determine the issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant and non-significant issues related to the proposed action. Some issues relate to specific activities or areas while others pertain to the overall project. Several issues relating to recreation were identified from public comments received in response to multiple scoping efforts during the scoping process. In consideration with the regulatory framework discussed above, issues are used to help define the scope of analysis. Indicators were identified for each issue to measure how the issue was affected by each alternative. Issue indicators were selected for their ability to show the difference among the alternatives. The scoping process for this project identified the following issues regarding recreation at within the project area: 1. Potential effects on OHV use within the project area. Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) traffic may increase within the project area as a result of the activities that can create openings, skid trails or roads, which encourage this type of use. Increased OHV use may also damage other resources if noxious weeds are introduced, wildlife is disturbed or soils and water resources are impacted by OHV use. Some respondents asked that no additional OHV use results from this project due to the potential for damage to these other resources. Other respondents asked that current existing OHV opportunities be maintained after the project completion. Indicator 1: Change in the level of OHV use and type of opportunities. 2. Potential effects on access to National Forest lands and recreation opportunities. Some respondents asked that current access to recreation opportunities be maintained after the project activities are completed. Indicator 2: Change in access to recreation opportunities.

3. Potential effects of project on the recreation experience due to increased noise, dust, smoke and traffic. Project activities would generate increased noise, dust, smoke and traffic. Indicator 3: Duration and intensity of disturbance and subsequent effects on recreation opportunities. Methodology of Analysis This section details the scope of analysis and describes analysis methods. The scope of analysis has been developed using the applicable laws and regulations and the issues identified during scoping. The analysis methods are based on the potential effects project activities might have on recreation uses within the project area. Scope of Analysis For this project, the scope of analysis refers to the activities and areas that need to be analyzed. The scope of analysis was established using issues identified from public comments received during the scoping process and from the regulatory framework pertaining to recreation management. After considering the regulatory framework and the issues identified during the scoping process, it was determined that the following activities or disturbances were of primary concern and could potentially affect recreation use or access: Harvest operations including logging and associated landing development and biomass removal, Fuel treatments including piling and burning, prescribed burning, chipping, and masticating, Temporary and permanent road construction, Road decommissioning, Off-road vehicle use and associated trail development, Fire suppression, and Wildfire risk. The area used to analyze the recreation resource was the project area and specific roads proposed for decommissioning outside the project area. The analysis was limited to these areas because effects to recreation use and access for dispersed recreation tend to be concentrated close to the activities taking place. Although, project activities may displace some use, the duration and scope would be minor and the effects to other recreation uses outside the analysis areas would be minimal. Therefore, there will be no further discussion on the effects of displacement on recreation uses outside the analysis areas. The duration of direct effects is very short. For example, noise, dust and smoke generated by project activities would end as soon as activities end. The duration of indirect and cumulative effects can last much longer depending on the activity. Increased fire risk, for example, can last for decades.

Methods of Analysis The first step of the analysis is to assess the existing condition of the analysis area and determine the principal recreational uses that occur within that area. Secondly, the potential effects of each alternative are determined for each of the recreational uses. The issue indicators are used in this step to compare the difference of effects among the alternatives. Lastly, based on the potential effects of the project, a determination is made as to whether or not the project complies with the regulatory framework. Affected Environment In 1995, a study was completed on travelers, including recreation and tourists, who use the Priest Lake Basin. The study was designed to measure recreation and travel patterns of users of the basin. The information received from interviews and survey questionnaires was assembled by the University of Idaho into a resource database. The report from this study, Human Dimensions of the Priest Lake Ecosystem (1996), provides information on types of recreation use, levels of use, and areas of use. The north half of the project area is included in Zone 2 of the Priest Lake analysis area while the south half is in Zone 4. Zone 2 had the second lowest recreation use level in the Priest Lake Basin while Zone 4 had the highest recreation use level (Morten, et al., p. 11). Emphasis of most recreation within the basin is lake-based, especially during the summer months. The 1995 study showed 63 percent of recreation focused on the lake (ibid, p. 5). These activities include boating, swimming, and fishing (ibid, p. 26). Use is concentrated along the lakeshore being adjacent to homes and recreational cabins, campgrounds and day-use areas, resorts, and dispersed recreational sites. Higher concentrations of these facilities are found in Zone 4 as compared to Zone 2. Land-based recreation is also popular during the summer months because of the large number of forest visitors. Land-based activities include picnicking, walking, day hikes, mountain bike riding, motorcycle and ATV riding, jogging, hunting and some horseback use. These activities are concentrated along the lake and near residential areas as well, but are also scattered throughout the project area. Huckleberry and mushroom picking and firewood cutting are other important recreation uses on National Forest lands. More recent national and statewide studies such as the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) and the Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) indicate continued growth in recreation activities (Statewide Trends in Outdoor Recreation p. 146). The following are descriptions of recreation uses within the project area that could be affected by project activities. The map in Figure 1 depicts the location of several of these important facilities. Recreation Trails The existing trail system is used for several of the above-mentioned land-based activities, especially day-hiking and Mountain biking. Developed trails include #365, Kalispell/Reeder Bay, #269 Lakeview Mountain, #294 Lakeshore, #265 Little Grass and #266 Roosevelt. The primary season of use for these trails is during the summer months

although some use occurs in both the spring and fall seasons as well. Weekends and holidays are the heaviest use periods because of the higher number of recreationists and summer home owners. The trails are used by residents, seasonal residents, and visiting recreationists. Trail #365 is 4.2 miles long and is a popular trail for day use and resort guests. The most popular access is from Elkins Resort with the terminus at Kalispell Bay Road. Trail #269 is 5.3 miles long; the trailhead is located on Highway 57 and terminates at Trail #365. A popular destination on this trail is Lakeview Mountain, providing an expansive view of Priest Lake. Trail #294 is 7.0 miles long with three trailheads off of Forest Road #2512 with the southernmost trailhead near Granite Creek. The trail terminates at Beaver Creek Campground. Trail #265 is 1.0 mile long and is accessed from either the terminus of Forest Road #1014 or Trail #266 and terminates at the peak of Little Grass Mountain. Trail #266 is 4.5 miles long, begins at Forest Road #302 with no developed trailhead and terminates at Trail #265. The number of OHV trails in the project area could be described as limited. Generally, the terrain features and heavily forested vegetation limit OHV use to open roads and a few multiple-use trails. Some user-built trails exist in the project area but these too are limited by steep terrain and dense vegetation. These trails occur adjacent to private homes and cabins mainly on the north side of Nickelplate Mountain and south and east sides of Copper Mountain. Lakeview Mountain and Kalispell/Reeder trails are the only motorized trails within the project area. Developed Recreation Another important recreational activity is the use of developed recreation sites for camping and picnicking. The majority of users at these sites are forest visitors who reside outside the Priest Lake Basin. In a 1995 study of recreation users, 22 percent of all travel parties did some form of camping with about half staying at Forest Service campgrounds (Sanyal, et. al, p.10). The Reeder Bay campground is a developed facility that includes 24 campsites, a campground host site, paved roads and sites, water system, toilets, swimming beach and handicapped accessible sites. The Ledgewood Day Use Area is near the campground and is a popular swimming area during the heat of the summer. The day use area includes picnic facilities (tables, barbecue grills), toilets and changing rooms, potable water system and a large designated swim area. Dispersed Recreation Dispersed recreation provides outdoor recreation activities that occur apart from sites developed for concentrated activities. Such activities as huckleberry picking and mushroom picking are examples of dispersed recreation. Other activities include mountain bike riding, jogging, hunting, fishing, walking, pleasure driving, OHV use, and horseback riding. Most of these activities are located close to open roads or trails in the project area. The major season is summer for these activities. Dispersed sites typically used for camping are undeveloped sites with none of the improvements found in developed campsites, such as toilets and potable water systems, tables or fire rings. Dispersed sites are most common near streams or other water sources.

The Granite Creek dispersed site shown on the map in Figure 1 is a typical dispersed site and access to sites such as these are popular. The project area is included in three Outfitter-guide permit areas. These permits cover a variety of dispersed recreation activities. Full Spectrum Tours provides rentals and outfitted services for day and overnight trips using sea (i.e. touring) kayaks. Selkirk Guiding and Outfitting provides outfitted services for lake fishing, hunting, snowmobile rentals and guided tours, and horseback riding. Four Season Rentals provides outfitter and guide services and snowmobile tours. Winter Recreation Winter recreation has been growing over the past several years. Snowmobiling is the main activity within the project area, and lasts generally from December 15th to March 1st. The weekends and winter holidays are the heaviest use periods. The majority of the winter use occurs on groomed trails. There is a Cost Share Agreement with the Priest Lake Groomer Association for grooming of the snowmobile trails. The map in figure 1 depicts the location of these groomed snowmobile routes. While most use is on groomed trails, a minor amount of dispersed snowmobiling is scattered through the project area. Groomed snowmobile trails within the Project area include roads #2242, #2231, #1362, #302, #2512, #638 and #2249. These groomed snowmobile trails are part of a much larger system throughout the Priest Lake Basin. There are approximately 20 miles of snowmobile trails within the project area. Annual permitted recreation events for dog sled races and snowmobiling occur on National Forest lands in the southwest corner of the project area on the airfield. No activities are proposed in this area and planned activities are not anticipated to affect the dog sled races. Therefore, there will be no further discussion on this winter recreation activity. Project Design Features The following features would be incorporated into the design of the project to minimize effects of the proposed action on recreation opportunities. If a planned road closure or decommissioning would close access to a dispersed site or recreation opportunity, mitigation would include an alternate route or an opportunity for non-motorized access. For example, for the Kalispell road #308 obliteration, mitigation would include non-motorized access or a foot trail to provide opportunity for hiking or fishing access to Kalispell creek. Effectiveness: High Roads that were decommissioned and converted to trails in the past have provided non-motorized access into area s of dispersed recreation. Any harvest activity adjacent to any system trails would require contract provisions to protect the trail and provide for 100 % slash disposal and removal of hazard trees within the trail right-of-way. Effectiveness: High This design feature, as required under normal contract provisions, has been used successfully in recent projects like Lakeface-Lamb Fuel

Reduction. This project area has a larger amount of trails and recreation use than the Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Project and all trails within the Lakeface-Lamb project area remained in pre-project condition or were improved. Any harvest or fuels treatment activity adjacent to any system trails that would create openings at the trailhead or near the trail that could allow motorized user-built shortcuts to the trail or off trail use would require barriers to prevent this. In addition, any skid trails that could be easily accessed by OHVs would have logs and other debris spread over the trail to create a barrier. Effectiveness: Moderate This design feature has been used with some success in the past. However, terrain and predicting where new trails might be built has not always provided for success. Activities that are planned during the winter and are adjacent to groomed snowmobile trails, coordination with the Bonner County Groomer Advisory board must occur so alternate routes can be provided or trails may be closed temporarily. Effectiveness: High Although, longer, alternate routes currently exist that provide access into key destination areas and activities could be timed to create the least possible disturbance to snowmobile riders. Any operation of heavy equipment and chainsaws nearby Reeder Bay campground would follow established quiet hours in Reeder Bay campground. Effectiveness: High This design feature has been implemented without difficulty for past projects like Lakeface-Lamb. In addition, activities could also be accomplished when the campground is closed. The road decommissioning in Granite Creek would provide alternate access to the nearby dispersed camping site. Effectiveness: High Alternate access currently exists to this site. Environmental Consequences The following is a discussion of the effects to recreational opportunities within the project area. The focus of the discussion is land-based recreation. There would be no direct effect to lake-based recreation. The indirect effects would be related to facilities along the lakeshore such as boat launches and campgrounds; these are discussed below. Direct effects analyzed for these different facilities would be noise and disturbance caused by the project activities. Other direct effects could be impacts to the site itself as a result of fuel treatments. Indirect effects would include fire risk to the site. The effects of implementing the proposed action as disclosed in this analysis incorporate the design features discussed above. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No Action Recreation Trails

Alternative 1 would cause no direct effects. The existing trail system would be maintained for use with no disruption resulting from any timber harvest or fuel treatments. No road construction or decommissioning would occur so current access to trails would remain unchanged. No clean-up of existing fuels adjacent to recreation trails would be completed. Concentrations of heavy fuels would remain, and would continue to be areas of high risk of ignition by smokers, arson, motorbikes, and other sources compared to Alternative 2. Developed Recreation Alternative 1 would cause no direct effects. There would be no actions within the campground or day use area except continuing maintenance. No piling of existing fuels would occur nor any removal of high risk trees. The increase in traffic and noise adjacent to the facilities that could occur in Alternative 2 would not happen in Alternative 1. No clean-up of existing fuels in the developed recreation sites or in adjacent stands would be completed. Concentrations of heavy fuels would remain, and would continue to be areas of high risk of ignition compared to Alternative 2 Dispersed Recreation Alternative 1 would cause no direct effects. The noise, dust and smoke generated by proposed activities would not occur. Roads would not be constructed or decommissioned. Access to the existing recreation opportunities would remain unchanged. No clean-up of existing fuels would be completed. Concentrations of heavy fuels would remain, and would continue to be areas of high risk of ignition by smokers, arson, motorbikes, and other sources compared to Alternative 2. Winter Recreation Alternative 1 would cause no direct or indirect effects. The existing winter recreation trail system would be maintained for use with no disruption resulting from any treatments. The existing high fuels on National Forest lands along the major snowmobile routes or groomed cross-country ski trails would not be treated. However, no risk of wildland fire occurs from these activities. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Recreation Trails Only about four miles of summer-use trails have the potential to be affected by project activities trail numbers #365, #269 and #294. Concentrations of heavy fuels would be decreased in the vicinity of the trails and risk of ignition would be low compared to Alternative 1. Trail #365 has three proposed burn units and one treatment unit adjacent to different portions of the trail. Activities would increase noise, create smoke and may force portions or the entire trail to be shut down for public safety. However, these effects would be of short-term duration, occurring only a few days over the course of the project. The treatment unit would be located just above the trail and no skid trails would cross the trail.

OHV use is very low in this area and restricted to roads only. Proposed activities would not create increase OHV opportunities. Trail #269 has three treatment units that are adjacent to the trail. Activities would mostly create increased noise, but would most likely not warrant trail closures. Again, these effects would be short-term duration, occurring in only a few days. The treatment unit would be located below the trail and skid trails would not cross the trail. OHV use is low in this area and restricted to roads only. Proposed activities would not create increased OHV use. Trail #294 has one treatment unit proposed near the southern trail head. Activities would mostly create increased noise, but would most likely not warrant trail closures. Again, these effects would be short-term duration, occurring in only a few days. The treatment unit would be located above the trail and skid trails would not cross the trail. OHV use is moderate in this area and user created trails exist just west of the proposed unit and trail. Because of terrain and timber stand density, the design feature that discourages trail building by OHV users would be successful here and proposed activities would not create increased OHV use. Decommissioning road 1014 would limit some access to trail #266, however, alternate access routes currently exist for this trail and the design feature that would create a foot trail on this road would provide for non-motorized access. Decommissioning road #308 and creating a foot trail on this road would provide for nonmotorized access. Developed Recreation By following project design features that limit treatment activities quite hours, many times activities are accomplished when these sites are not in use or at their lowest use. This greatly lowers the direct effects to these sites. However, short-term levels of noise, dust, smoke and traffic will still impact some of the recreating public do to treatments in adjacent areas. The risk of catastrophic fire would be lower in this alternative, which would greatly lower the risk that recreation facilities could be damaged or destroyed. Dispersed Recreation Proposed activities would cause some short-term disruption in recreation patterns within the project area. Increased noise and dust associated with treatment activities would decrease some recreation use within and near the areas proposed for treatment. Effects to hunting and pleasure driving would be greatest. Activities such as huckleberry and mushroom picking, jogging, fishing and horseback riding would be least affected because opportunities for these activities are few within the analysis area and because the proposed treatments are removed from the areas that these activities do occur. The increase in openings, skid trails and roads associated with the harvest and vegetation management activities may increase OHV use. The roads to be decommissioned or closed could limit access to these recreation opportunities, while new roads would provide some new recreation opportunities. By following project design features that allow alternate access into areas where roads would be decommissioned, recreation access would continue but some recreation activities like driving would be decreased.

Concentrations of heavy fuels would be decreased within the project area and risk of ignition would be lowered compared to Alternative 1. Access from the 302 road to the Granite Creek dispersed site would be removed but a new access would be created from the 1362 road. Winter Recreation There is approximately 10 miles of groomed snowmobile trails in the project area that have the potential to be affected by project activities. These routes include the southern portion of the 2242 and 2516 roads. The effects, however, would be short-term lasting only portions of two or three seasons depending on which design feature is implemented. The duration of activities could be limited to the periods of November 15th to December 15th and March 1 st to April 1 st. This would keep both snowmobile routes open during the most active part of the season but limit snowmobile use of the trails to this period. This operation would limit the operating period for harvest treatments potentially causing harvest operations to be extended into multiple years The other option is to stagger the operating period for treatments in these areas. The 2242 road would be closed to snowmobiles and grooming while harvest operations occurred in the area and road 2516 would be left open for all snowmobile traffic going north. Operations could not commence on road 2516 until harvest was complete on the 2242 road and all snowmobile traffic and grooming could be shifted to road 2242. This option would guarantee at least one snowmobile route was open through the entire season while providing for an extended period for winter harvest operations allowing proposed treatments to be completed within two seasons. Cumulative Effects Effects Common to All Alternatives Past Activities Recreation Trails Trail construction in the early and mid-1900 s created a vast network of trails throughout the analysis area. This trail construction, which was originally done to facilitate fire suppression activities, provided a great amount of access and opportunities for recreational trail users. Over the years, as recreational uses and fire suppression technology changed many of these trails faded from the landscape. Only those trails that have been maintained because of their popularity are the trails that exist on the landscape today. Developed Recreation Forest Service recreation projects built these recreation facilities in response to public requests. Every year, maintenance activities that occur before the facilities are opened for use allow the public to enjoy a naturally appearing environment. Dispersed Recreation Past harvests and wildfires created the forest compositions and structures that support some of the dispersed recreation opportunities (berry and mushroom picking and hunting) that occur in the analysis area today. Past road construction has provided access to these

opportunities and has created additional opportunities such as pleasure driving and OHV use. Road decommissioning and lack of road maintenance has decreased some access. Non-native fish introductions have provided some increased fishing opportunities. Winter Recreation Past road construction has provided access for snowmobile routes and cross-country ski trails. However, road decommissioning has decreased some access. Alternative 1 No Action Ongoing and Foreseeable Future Activities Recreation Trails Continued development on private lands would lead to more trail use in future due to increases in the recreating public. Ongoing mortality due to insects and diseases would require continual trail maintenance. Maintenance activities such as clearing windfall and removing brush would add additional fuels along trails. The risk of a wildland fire would be highest with this alternative because of the existing fuel loading adjacent to the recreational trails and future fuels resulting from continuing trail maintenance. In the event of wildfire the intensity and severity of the fire is potentially greater in Alternative 1, with no fuel reduction, than in Alternative 2. Wildfire could result in temporary closure of trails for health and safety of the public. Developed Recreation Continued development on private lands may lead to heavier recreation use in the future due to increases in the recreating public. Continued maintenance activities such as clearing windfall would reduce some fuels but only a very limited amount. The risk of a wildland fire would be highest with this alternative because of the existing fuel loading in adjacent stands. In the event of wildfire the intensity and severity of the fire is potentially greater in Alternative 1, with no fuel reduction, than in Alternative 2. A catastrophic fire would, at the least, change recreation patterns and lessen opportunities, and at the most, damage or destroy recreation facilities such as Reeder Bay campground. Catastrophic fires often increase maintenance of facilities because fire-killed trees become hazards to campers. This situation can persist for years after a fire as trees decay and fall. Ultimately, wildfire could result in temporary closure of facilities for health and safety of the public. Fire prevention policies that ban open fires during very dry times during the active burning season can limit the risk of human caused ignitions, but this has a minor effect on overall fire risk. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in a higher hazard level and greater probability of recreation resources being damaged by wildfire. Dispersed Recreation Continued development on private lands may lead to heavier recreation use in the future due to increases in the recreating public. The risk of a wildland fire would be highest with this alternative because of the existing fuel loading. In the event of wildfire the intensity and severity of the fire is potentially greater in Alternative 1, with no fuel reduction, than in Alternative 2.

A catastrophic fire would, at the least, change recreation patterns and lessen some opportunities. Ultimately, wildfire could result in temporary closure of roads and trails for health and safety of the public. OHV use off designated routes may increase because stands would be more open. Fire prevention policies that ban open fires during very dry times during the active burning season can limit the risk of human caused ignitions, but this has a minor effect on overall fire risk. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in a higher hazard level and greater probability of recreation resources being damaged by wildfire. Road decommissioning would create an additional reduction in recreation access. Repairs to the Granite and Beaver Creek bridges would maintain existing access on two main roads. Fish improvement structures may improve fishing opportunities in some creeks. The Granite Reeder land sale would decrease recreational opportunities, mostly hunting, by 80 acres or less than a percent of the project area. Winter Recreation With no direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects with the implementation of Alternative 1 on winter recreation. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Ongoing and Foreseeable Future Activities Recreation Trails Continued development on private lands would lead to more trail use in the future due to increases in the recreating public. Ongoing mortality due to insects and diseases would require continual trail maintenance. Maintenance activities such as clearing windfall and removing brush would add some additional fuels along trails. However, the risk of a wildland fire would be lower with this alternative because the existing fuel loading adjacent to the recreational trails would be reduced. In the event of wildfire the intensity and severity of the fire would be lower than in Alternative 1 with no fuel reduction. Fire suppression efforts would be more successful at keeping fires small and would be less likely to result in temporary closure of trails for health and safety of the public. Developed Recreation Recreational use in the day use area and campground way increase as population increases from private development. The risk of a wildland fire would be lower with this alternative because of fuel reduction activities in these sites and in adjacent stands. In the event of wildfire the intensity and severity of the fire would be lower in this alternative than in Alternative 2. Ongoing mortality due to insects and disease would necessitate continued maintenance activities such as clearing windfall and disposing of debris, which would maintain reduced fuel loadings in the future. With a lower risk of a catastrophic fire a change recreation patterns, a decrease in recreation opportunities and threat to public safety would be lower with this alternative because the risk of damage or destruction of recreation facilities would be less. Fire prevention policies that ban open fires during very dry times during the active burning season can limit the risk of human caused ignitions, but this has a minor effect on overall fire risk.

Dispersed Recreation Continued development on private lands may lead to heavier recreation use in the future due to increases in the recreating public. The risk of a wildland fire would be lower with this alternative because the existing fuel loading would be reduced. In the event of wildfire the intensity and severity of the fire would be lower in Alternative 2 than in Alternative 1. With a lower risk of a catastrophic fire a change recreation patterns, a decrease in recreation opportunities and threat to public safety would be lower with this alternative. Fire prevention policies that ban open fires during very dry times during the active burning season can limit the risk of human caused ignitions, but this has a minor effect on overall fire risk. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a lower hazard level and less probability of recreation resources being damaged by wildfire. Road decommissioning would create an additional reduction in recreation access. Repairs to the Granite and Beaver Creek bridges would maintain existing access on two main roads. Fish improvement structures may improve fishing opportunities in some creeks. The Granite Reeder land sale would decrease recreational opportunities, mostly hunting, by 80 acres or less than a percent of the project area. In 2009, planning for the Motorized Travel Management Plan, including OHV use will begin on the Priest Lake Ranger District. OHV use is increasing; between 2002 and 2006, registrations for OHV vehicles increased by 66% (citation). This is expected to increase in the future as population growth in the Priest Lake area increases. Although, specifics of this plan are not available at this time, implementation of the plan may impact OHV use on existing roads and motorized trails. OHV use off designated routes and trails may increase as proposed activities create openings. However, features designed to discourage this user built trails would decrease some the potential of this to occur in some areas. Winter Recreation Continued development on private lands may lead to heavier winter recreation use in the future due to increases in the recreating public. Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 1 would cause no change in the level of recreation trail use, use of developed recreation sites or amount of dispersed and winter recreation opportunities. Alternative 1 would, however, have a higher wildfire risk than Alternative 2, which creates an increased threat to public safety and may decrease recreation opportunities or damage or destroy recreation facilities should a wildfire occur. Indicator 1: The level of OHV use and type of opportunities would remain unchanged unless large wildfire occurs, in which case there could be a decrease in opportunities. Indicator 2: Access to recreation opportunities would remain unchanged unless large wildfire occurs, in which case there could be decreased access. Indicator 3: Disturbance associated with proposed activities that create increased noise and dust would not occur and therefore, recreation opportunities would not change. However, if a large wildfire occurs there would be an increase in the

duration and intensity of noise, dust and smoke and subsequently recreation opportunities would decrease. Alternative 2 may cause short-term trail closures but create new recreation trial opportunities. Short-term disturbance to recreation sites and dispersed and winter recreation opportunities would occur. Alternative 2 would have a lower wildfire risk than Alternative 1 and decrease the threat to public safety and damage or loss of recreation facilities should a wildfire occur. Indicator 1: The level of OHV use could increase slightly due to openings and skid trails. Motorized opportunities would change but new road building and road relocation would balance road obliterations. Impacts do to a large fire would be diminished with this alternative. Indicator 2: Would cause short-term decrease in access for some types of recreation while creating new, long-term access for other recreation opportunities. New road building and trail conversion would balance road obliterations. The risk of losing access to recreation opportunities due to wildfire would be less with this alternative. Indicator 3: Would increase duration and intensity of noise, dust, and smoke, which may change some recreation patterns but this would be temporary and short-term. Risk of increased duration and intensity of wildfire and subsequent effects to recreation opportunities would be reduced with this alternative. Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction All alternatives comply with Forest Plan forest wide goals for recreation by providing use of developed recreation areas and a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities. Each alternative also complies with specific MA goals because the ROS class would remain unchanged for each of the management areas. Dispersed recreation opportunities would be provided for in MA-1 and the ROS class would remain roaded modified and roaded natural. In MA-4, opportunities for dispersed recreation would continue while meeting the needs for wildlife habitat. The ROS class would also remain roaded modified and roaded natural and motorized use would be restricted to designated routes. Reeder Bay Campground, which is included in MA-17, would continue to be managed to protect and enhance a natural appearing environment and the opportunities for social interchange between users in a roaded natural and rural recreation setting.

References Morten, Krista, Nick Sanyal and Josie Parrish. 1996. Human Dimensions of the Priest Lake Ecosystem: Spatial Analysis of Recreation and Tourism Activities. University of Idaho. National Visitor Use Monitoring. 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ Sanyal, Nick, Krista Morten, Josie Parrish, Bill McLaughlin and Stuart Leidner. 1996. Human Dimensions of the Priest Lake Ecosystem: Recreation and Tourism. University of Idaho. Statewide Trends in Outdoor Recreation. 2005. http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/2003-2007_final.pdf