r11-r15 - recreation capacity and suitability analysis ... 2-8 land ownership – lake shannon ......

Baker River Project Relicense Recreational and Aesthetics Resources Working Group

Recreation Capacity and Suitability Analysis (R11) and Recreational Trail Analysis (R15)

Final Draft Study Report

April 2004

Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.

Preliminary work product Copyright 2004 Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

Baker River Project Relicense i April 2004 Recreation Capacity & Suitability Analysis and Recreational Trail Analysis Final Draft Report

Baker River Project Relicense Recreational and Aesthetics Resources Working Group

Recreation Capacity and Suitability Analysis (R11) and Recreational Trail Analysis (R15)

Final Draft Study Report

April 2004

Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.

Preliminary work product Copyright 2004 Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

Baker River Project Relicense ii April 2004 Recreation Capacity & Suitability Analysis and Recreational Trail Analysis Final Draft Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1.1 Study Description .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 R11 Developed Recreation Facilities........................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 R15 Trails..................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Study Approach ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Study Area.................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Task Structure .............................................................................................................. 1-5

2. R11 Capacity and Suitability Analysis 2.1 GIS Analysis of Opportunities and Constraints..................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Constraint Mapping Results......................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.3 Composite Map Results ............................................................................................. 2-18 2.1.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 2-21

2.2 Facility Expansion Potential ................................................................................................ 2-22 2.2.1 Baker Lake ................................................................................................................. 2-22 2.2.2 Lake Shannon............................................................................................................. 2-29 2.2.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 2-30

2.3 Effects of Existing Recreation on Other Resources............................................................. 2-31 2.3.1 Methods...................................................................................................................... 2-31 2.3.2 Results........................................................................................................................ 2-32

2.4 Recreation Opportunity Classification................................................................................. 2-47 2.4.1 Methods...................................................................................................................... 2-47 2.4.2 Results........................................................................................................................ 2-48

3. R15 Recreation Trail Analysis 3.1 Table Top Study..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 GIS Overlay and Analysis of Resource Maps ....................................................................... 3-6 3.2.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 3-6 3.2.2 Constraint Mapping Results......................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Composite Map Results ............................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 Field Review of Potential Routes/Locations........................................................................ 3-12 4. References ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Appendices

A. Potential Trail Route Segment Lengths B. Ecological Constraints by Potential Trail Segment

Baker River Project Relicense iii April 2004 Recreation Capacity & Suitability Analysis and Recreational Trail Analysis Final Draft Report

List of Tables

Table Page Table 2-1 Constraint Layers and Component Themes ....................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2 Potential Development Nodes – Baker Lake.................................................... 2-22 Table 2-3 Ecological Constraints – Baker Lake Development Nodes.............................. 2-24 Table 2-4 Soils and Geologic Hazards – Baker Lake Development Nodes ..................... 2-25 Table 2-5 Slope Constraints – Baker Lake Development Nodes ..................................... 2-27 Table 2-6 Land Ownership – Baker Lake Development Nodes ....................................... 2-28 Table 2-7 Constraint Matrix – Lake Shannon Development Node .................................. 2-29

List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1-1 Baker River Project Location Map..................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2-1 Ecologically Sensitive Areas – Baker Lake ....................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-2 Ecologically Sensitive Areas – Lake Shannon................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-3 Soils and Geologic Hazards – Baker Lake ....................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-4 Soils and Geologic Hazards – Lake Shannon................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-5 Slope – Baker Lake .......................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-6 Slope – Lake Shannon...................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-7 Land Ownership – Baker Lake......................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-8 Land Ownership – Lake Shannon .................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-9 R11 Composite Constraint Map – Baker Lake................................................. 2-19 Figure 2-10 R11 Composite Constraint Map – Lake Shannon ............................................ 2-20 Figure 2-11 Recreation Sites and Old Growth Forest – Baker Lake.................................... 2-37 Figure 2-12 Recreation Sites and Wetlands – Baker Lake ................................................... 2-39 Figure 2-13 Recreation Sites and Wetlands – Lake Shannon............................................... 2-40 Figure 2-14 Recreation Sites, Sensitive Plants and Amphibian Habitat – Baker Lake ........ 2-42 Figure 2-15 Recreation Sites, Sensitive Plants and Amphibian Habitat – Lake Shannon.... 2-43 Figure 2-16 USFS ROS Classification Map – Baker Lake.................................................. 2-49 Figure 3-1 Potential Trail Routes – Lake Shannon.............................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-2 Potential Trial Routes – Baker Lake .................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-3 R15 Composite Constraint Map – Lake Shannon .............................................. 3-9 Figure 3-4 R15 Composite Constraint Map – Baker Lake................................................. 3-10

Baker River Project Relicense 1-1 April 2004 Recreation Capacity & Suitability Analysis and Recreational Trail Analysis Final Draft Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Study Description This document describes an evaluation of the capacity of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project study area to support existing and potential future recreation facilities and activities, and the suitability of the resources in the study area for such uses. The Project is located approximately 30 miles east of Sedro-Woolley and directly north of the Concrete, Washington in both Skagit and Whatcom Counties. Project features include Lower Baker Dam and Lake Shannon, Upper Baker Dam and Baker Lake, and a variety of ancillary facilities. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) owns and operates the Baker River Project under license (No. 2150) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The existing FERC license expires on April 30, 2006, and PSE has begun preparation for the process referred to as ‘relicensing.’ This report documents results for two studies conducted in support of the relicensing process, designated by the Recreational and Aesthetics Resources Working Group as Study R11, Recreational Capacity and Suitability Analysis and Study R15, Recreational Trail Analysis. The R11 study was implemented following a study plan dated November 15, 2001, which the working group approved at the January 28, 2002 meeting. The R15 study was conducted according to a study plan dated January 30, 2002, which incorporated draft study plan revisions adopted by the working group also at the January 28, 2002 meeting. The two study plans are based on study requests R-R11, Recreation Capacity and Suitability Analysis and R-R15, Recreational Trail Analysis. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) representative to the Recreational and Aesthetic Resources Working Group submitted the R-R11 study request, while the Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) representative submitted the R-R15 study request. Representatives from PSE prepared the study plans for these studies, under general direction from the working group. The R11 and R15 studies both address the capacity and suitability of the study area to support recreational development and activities, and both employ a similar approach to evaluating capacity and suitability. They were originally organized as separate studies primarily in response to expected schedule differences for completing the studies. Given the time and manner in which the study activities were actually accomplished, the R11 and R15 studies were conducted jointly and are documented in a single study report.

1.2 Study Objectives The objectives of the combined R11/15 study are to describe and quantify the capacity of the Baker River Project study area to support (1) developed recreational facilities and (2) trails. The respective study plans identify more specific study objectives applicable to each of these recreation resource components.

1.2.1 R11 Developed Recreation Facilities Study objectives with respect to developed recreation facilities are to determine the level of recreational development and use that could be accommodated in the study area, consistent with applicable management direction and without adverse effects on physical and ecological resources in the area and/or on the quality of recreation experiences. As stated in the R11 study


plan, the objective is to identify the “recreational carrying capacity” of the area; determination of the carrying capacity is based on the concurrent, integrated assessment of the recreational opportunities present and the physical, biological and social constraints on the use or development of those opportunities. The capacity and suitability analysis reflects a desire to provide recreational opportunities, facilities and experiences in response to anticipated demand over the term of the new license (a 30- to 50-year period), but to do so in balance with needs to protect the full range of environmental resources in the study area. (While the R11 study objectives refer to recreation demand, the actual scope of the study did not include assessment of demand; all analysis of demand for recreational opportunities is considered within the R16 Recreation Needs Analysis study.) Section 1.2 of the R11 study plan indicates that the specific objectives or components of the capacity and suitability analysis are to develop information needed to address the following issues or topics:

• The use capacity of existing developed recreation facilities in the study area • The use capacity of existing dispersed recreation sites in the study area • The extent to which existing recreation facilities and use patterns are adversely affecting

physical resources, ecological resources and/or social resources • Potential effects of the project on recreation resources, capacity and enhancement

opportunities • Potential for expansion of facilities at existing developed recreation sites to accommodate

future demand over the term of the license • Locations of opportunity for development of new recreation facilities to accommodate

future recreation demand • Desired future management conditions with respect to distribution of recreation

opportunities and experiences throughout the study area • Physical, ecological and social constraints on development of new or expanded recreation

sites

1.2.2 R15 Trails Similarly, the objectives of the trail analysis are to determine the level of recreational trail development and use that could be accommodated in the study area, consistent with applicable management direction and without adverse effects on physical and ecological resources in the area and/or on the quality of recreation experiences. Stated in different terms, the intent is to identify suitable routes and locations for non-motorized trails that serve people in local communities and activity centers. The trail analysis reflects a desire to provide recreational opportunities, facilities, and experiences in response to known statewide participation in trail-related activities including walking and bicycling on local facilities, but to do so in balance with needs to protect the full range of environmental resources in the study area. Section 1.2 of the R15 study plan indicates that the specific objectives or components of the recreational trail analysis are to develop information needed to address the following issues or topics:

• The range of opportunities provided by the existing trail network • The use capacity of existing trails in the study area • The extent to which existing trail use patterns might be adversely affecting physical

resources


• Potential for extensions of existing trails to accommodate future demand and/or provide new or different trail-based opportunities

• Locations of opportunity for development of new recreation trails to accommodate future recreation demand

• Desired future management conditions with respect to distribution of trail-based recreation opportunities and experiences throughout the study area

• Physical, ecological and social constraints on development of new or extended recreation trail opportunities

1.3 Study Approach This section summarizes the general approach for the combined R11/15 study, primarily with respect to the geographic scope of the study and the specific tasks included in each component of the study. More detailed discussion of specific methods used for the evaluation of capacity and suitability for developed recreation facilities and trails is provided in Sections 2 and 3 of the report, respectively.

1.3.1 Study Area In general, the geographic scope for the capacity and suitability analysis includes the Project Area (i.e., all lands within the Project boundary) and adjacent lands within a range of approximately 0.5 mile. The location of the study area and the surrounding region are included in Figure 1-1. In the vicinity of Baker Lake, the western and northern edges of the study area were extended somewhat to include resources within the corridor of the Baker Lake Highway (USFS Road 11), which in some locations is approximately 1.5 miles west of the Project boundary. This study area definition is assumed to cover the location of any recreation measures proposed by the working group for inclusion in the project settlement agreement. If the recreation needs analysis leads the working group to consider measures outside of this defined study area, the scope of the suitability analysis may need to be modified accordingly. This study area is consistent with the study area used for other Baker River Project recreation studies. It specifically includes the existing developed recreation facilities and dispersed sites that are associated with the Project and have been addressed in corresponding inventory studies (primarily Studies R12 and R13). The study area is also consistent with the extent of coverage for investigation and mapping of terrestrial resources in the relicensing studies, which will represent several of the mapping layers that are important for assessment of constraints in the suitability analysis. The geographic scope for the recreational trail analysis was expanded somewhat to specifically include the community of Concrete (where trail needs were identified in project scoping comments), and sufficient lands adjacent to the Project boundary to allow examination and possible consideration of linkage with existing recreational trails, including the Baker Lake Trail and Baker River Trail.


1.3.2 Task Structure As discussed above, this report documents results for two study efforts that were originally developed as separate studies. These include a capacity and suitability analysis for developed recreation facilities (study R11) and a recreational trail analysis (R15). Each study component is comprised of a series of tasks aimed at satisfying the objectives stated in Section 1.2. Both studies used much of the same data, and the same analysis methods were employed for the key tasks in each study. The task structure for each study component is summarized below.

R11 Capacity and Suitability Analysis The R11 study plan describes the organization of the capacity and suitability analysis for developed recreation facilities into five discrete tasks, as follows:

1. Geographic Information System (GIS) Analysis of Opportunities and Constraints 2. Facility Expansion Potential 3. Existing Recreation Effects 4. Recreation Opportunity Classification 5. Integration and Reporting

The first task involves GIS-based analysis of database layers for different resource characteristics that represent opportunities or constraints for the provision of recreation facilities or measures. The analysis included physical, ecological and human resource factors that the working group concluded were pertinent to recreation planning and suitable for capture and manipulation through GIS technology. In terms of addressing the objectives for the R11 study, the results from this task represent the key findings from the study. As defined in the R11 study plan, Task 2 was based on the assumption that expansion of capacity at existing developed sites would generally be preferred over developing new capacity at currently undisturbed sites. Consequently, this task was envisioned as a mapping exercise similar to Task 1, but focusing on a larger-scale investigation of existing conditions around existing developed recreation sites in the study area. Task 3 was defined to address the effects of existing recreational facilities and activities on the physical, ecological and social resources of the study area. These effects were assessed through review of information obtained from several sources, including other Baker River Project recreation studies and Project studies conducted by other working groups. Results of this task will be documented with a matrix arraying the known or suspected effects of developed facilities, dispersed sites and associated recreational activities on the respective resources. The last technical task in this study component is the recreation opportunity classification. The types of recreation settings and experiences appropriate for any given portion of the project area should be identified before site-specific recreation measures are selected. Consequently, a key task for the capacity and suitability analysis was to consider the desired distribution of recreation opportunities and settings within the study area. Following USFS methods, this task reviewed the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classifications assigned to the National Forest lands surrounding Baker Lake. The task also considered the characteristics of the lands adjacent to Lake Shannon with respect to the types of settings identified in the USFS classifications.


R15 Trail Analysis The R15 study plan describes the organization of the capacity and suitability analysis for recreational trails into four discrete tasks, as follows:

1. A “table top” study of Puget Sound Energy maps, USGS maps, Forest Service recreation maps, and other maps to identify existing trails and to delineate potential new trail routes connecting communities and activity areas.

2. GIS overlay and analysis of resource maps, as they become available, including wetlands and habitat, to determine potential opportunities for and constraints to trail routing.

3. Field review of potential routes to confirm opportunities and constraints. 4. Integration and Reporting

The first task was implemented by members of the Recreational and Aesthetics Resources Working Group, who identified potential new trail routes, continuations and connections based on review of maps and application of concepts for desired trail system features. The next task was a GIS overlay and analysis of resource maps, designed to compare the potential trail routes to a series of spatial constraint layers with the objective identifying appropriate placement of new trails. This task had the same orientation as Task 1 for the developed facility component of the study, and was conducted in tandem with that analysis. The last task for the trail analysis was a field review of potential routes. Based on the actual timing of the table-top study and the GIS constraint analysis, this field review was carried out in the summer of 2003.


2. R11 Capacity and Suitability Analysis This chapter of the report describes the methods and results for the capacity and suitability analysis relative to developed recreation facilities. The organization of the chapter reflects the task structure defined in the R11 study plan, as summarized previously in Section 1.3.2. Sections 2.1 through 2.4 address the four technical tasks that comprised this component of the study. For each task, the report content includes a description of the methods and discussion of the results.

2.1 GIS Analysis of Opportunities and Constraints Task 1 for the developed recreation facility component of the R11/15 study involved a GIS-based analysis of database layers for different resource characteristics that represent opportunities or constraints for the provision of recreation facilities. The data layers applied to this task include existing files developed by the USFS and presented in the Baker River Watershed Analysis (USFS 2002); applicable portions of existing files obtained from other sources that maintain extensive GIS databases, such as the Washington Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey; and GIS files developed by PSE from various Baker River Project technical studies conducted to support the relicense.

2.1.1 Methods Section 2.3 of the R11 study plan provides general direction for the GIS analysis task. The study plan identifies a number of existing GIS data layers representing physical, ecological and human resource factors that may be potentially suitable for application in a GIS analysis of constraints and/or opportunities. The study plan also identifies the objectives of this task to (1) present a series of individual maps on which the resource characteristics can be and have been stated in degrees of opportunity or constraint with respect to recreational facilities and (2) develop a composite opportunity/constraint map based on simultaneous consideration of the individual maps. Presenting the degrees of constraint or opportunity on the individual maps and the composite map require the use of scaling factors. Identification of the specific constraints and scaling factors to apply in the GIS analysis represented key methods decisions for this task. A team comprised of members of the Recreational and Aesthetics Resources Working Group met on November 4, 2002 to develop an approach for the capacity and suitability analysis. While this meeting was specifically oriented to accomplishing one of the tasks for the R15 trail analysis, it included discussion of opportunity and constraint factors that applied to the GIS analysis task from the R11 study plan. The full working group reviewed a draft matrix of potential GIS data layers and scaling factors, based on the study plan and the November 4 discussion, at the November 18, 2002 working group meeting. The group discussed which categories of constraints should be represented in the GIS analysis and which should be deferred for evaluation at a later date, after preliminary composite GIS results were available. The working group concluded at the November 18 meeting that slope should not be applied as a constraint in the GIS analysis of potential trail routes. Feedback from this meeting was used to refine the draft matrix of constraint layers and scaling factors. Another team of working group members (including two members who also serve on the Terrestrial Working Group) met on January 7, 2003 to provide specific direction for the GIS


analysis of the constraints on both recreational facility and trail development. The specific objectives of the meeting were to identify the GIS layers to be included in the R11 and R15 GIS analysis tasks, the specific features and data sets to be included in those layers, the constraint scaling factors to apply to the GIS layers, and the process to be followed for developing composite constraint maps reflecting the integration of all of the constraints. The team provided additional comment on the revised matrix of constraint layers and scaling factors, which was incorporated into a final version of the matrix. The final matrix was provided to R2 Resource Consultants, the contractor responsible for technical conduct of the GIS analysis, as specifications for this component of the study. Discussion and decisions at this meeting established the specific approach to be used in the GIS analysis task, as summarized below.

GIS Layers and Scaling The working group team concluded that layers addressing sensitive ecological resources (including water features), land ownership and management, and soils and geologic hazards should be applied in the GIS analysis of constraints for both developed recreational facilities (R11) and trails (R15). The team also concurred with the November 18, 2002 determination that a slope constraint layer would also be used in the analysis for R11, but not for R15. The constraint layers, their specific components and the degree of constraint (scaling) they represent for siting of recreational facilities are summarized in Table 2-1. (Please note that, as applied in this GIS analysis, identification of a high constraint indicates low suitability for developed recreational facilities and a low constraint indicates high suitability.) The following discussion summarizes the mapping and technical factors that were considered for the respective layers. Ecologically Sensitive Areas The working group team present at the January 7, 2003 meeting concluded that the constraint layer for ecological factors should include component maps of wetlands, riparian areas/water features, ancient and old forest, grizzly bear spring core habitat, elk winter range, other locations shown in the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database, sensitive plants locations from the Washington Natural Heritage Program database, and USFS survey and manage species locations mapped from the Baker River T16 study (which may need to be updated). As noted in Table 2-1, wetland buffers and riparian areas were scaled as medium constraints, while all other features were analyzed as high constraints. The data source used as the layer for ancient and old forest (the USFS stand year origin [syo] layer) was applied with the recognition that there were some voids in this data layer that may be modified through a future update. As an additional caveat, it should be noted that decisions on identification, mapping and scaling of the ecologically sensitive areas were made internal to the Recreation Working Group. While two members of the Terrestrial Working Group were active participants in the January 7, 2003 meeting, the Terrestrial Working Group as a body did not review or endorse the GIS analysis approach used in the R11 study. Some potentially usable information on threatened and endangered species is not suitable for disclosure, and therefore was not applied in the GIS analysis. The study participants agreed that the Recreation Working Group would forward preliminary locations for proposed recreation measures to the Terrestrial Working Group for review with respect to potential threatened and endangered species concerns.


Table 2-1 Constraint Layers and Component Themes

Layer Description Contents Scaling*

1. Ecologically sensitive areas Wetlands (T5, PSE, and NWI) High Wetland buffers based on NW Forest Plan Medium Riparian areas/water features (USFS sgrr) Medium

Ancient/old forest (old and old, old from USFS syo) High

Grizzly bear spring core habitat High Elk winter range forage High (R11), medium (R15) Other PHS points and polygons High WNHP sensitive plants High T16 and USFS S&M High

2. Land ownership and management Other/small private lands High

PSE secure lands High Corporate resource lands (Crown, Glacier, IP) Medium Federal/state lands Low Other PSE lands No constraint

3. Soils and geologic hazards USFS unstable soils (WSA Figure 3-14) High - very unstable/landslide origin

USFS landslide/avalanche (WSA Figure 3-15) Medium - very unstable soils Low - unstable soils No constraint - everything else

4. Slope (apply to R11 only) Steep slopes (>=20 %) High Moderate slopes (10-20%) Medium Low slopes (5-10%) Low Very low (<=5%) No constraint

*High constraint in this application indicates low suitability for developed recreation. Early drafts of the matrix of constraint layers and scaling factors included a layer for water features. The riparian areas layer included as an ecologically sensitive area by definition incorporates all water features; therefore, the working group team concluded that it would not be necessary to include a separate water features layer for this analysis. Land Ownership and Management Treatment of this layer in the GIS analysis remained generally as prescribed in the initial draft matrix of constraint layers and scaling factors. The working group team decided at the January 7, 2003 meeting that the USFS late-successional reserve (LSR) management designation did not need to be represented in this analysis. Factoring the locations of old and ancient forest stands into the ecological resources layer will capture the most sensitive elements of the LSR designation, which applies to almost all USFS lands in the study area and would not otherwise be much of a discriminator in terms of recreational facility suitability.


As noted in Table 2-1, the team concluded that PSE lands that are within fences and need to be secure from unauthorized entry should be treated as a high constraint, while all other PSE lands at the Project would be treated as no constraint. Detailed mapping of the fenced/secure areas was not available for the initial GIS analysis, however, so the constraint maps displayed in this report do not distinguish between secure and other PSE lands. The consensus of the group was that securing agreement for possible development of recreational facilities would likely be most difficult in areas of small parcels of privately-owned lands; lands within this category were treated as a high constraint in the GIS analysis. Large parcels of resource lands owned by corporations were considered to represent a medium constraint, as the owners might regard recreational use as an incompatible or undesirable activity, but might (depending on the circumstances) be willing to consider a sale or exchange of land or granting of easements. Soils and Geologic Hazards For the initial analysis, the team concluded that USFS map layers of unstable soils and landslide/avalanche areas (Figures 3-14 and 3-15, respectively, from the watershed analysis [USFS, 2002]) would be used to represent soil limitations. The former layer covers the entire basin and classifies areas of unstable and very unstable soils, based on the USFS soil resource inventory. The latter identifies (generally as point data) a variety of features including avalanche zones, landslides of several types and dates, rotational failures, debris flows and slide initiation points. The landslide tracks and slide initiation points appear to be of greatest interest and applicability for the R11/15 study. The group concluded that joint locations of soils classified as very unstable and landslide origin areas should be scaled as high constraints. Very unstable soils not associated with landslide origins would be scaled as medium constraint. Soils classified as unstable would be shown as low constraint, and all other areas would be considered as no constraint for recreation facilities. The team decided to apply the same constraint factors and scaling to both the R11 and R15 GIS analyses. The group considered, but elected not to include, other data layers of potential physical factors. Specifically, the Aquatics working group commissioned a shoreline erosion study (Study A14a) that resulted in a map showing areas of severe, high, low/moderate and nonexistent shoreline erosion conditions. These erosion conditions could be taken into account in evaluating potential locations for developed recreational facilities and trails, but need not be incorporated into the initial GIS analysis. Once the initial GIS analysis results are available and are used to identify specific facility or trail proposals, it would be helpful to check those proposals against the shoreline erosion conditions layer. Slope As noted above, slope was applied as a constraint layer for the R11 GIS analysis, but not for the parallel R15 analysis. While steep slopes do not necessarily preclude trail development and a variety of gradients are often preferred for trails, slope is typically considered as a limitation for construction of developed recreational facilities. For example, the USFS avoids slopes exceeding 10 percent for construction of campground facilities, and prefers such development to occur on slopes of less than 5 percent. These USFS planning factors were used to set the scaling of the slope constraint for the R11 analysis, as indicated in Table 2-1.


The slope layer applied in the R11 analysis is based on a digital elevation model (DEM) developed by the USGS from elevation contours on the corresponding 1:24,000-scale quadrangle maps for the study area. In review of the April 2003 draft report, USFS staff noted what appeared to be errors, specifically certain areas that were known to be relatively flat that showed on the constraint map as areas with steep slopes. PSE suspects that this is an issue of data resolution rather than data accuracy; what appear to be anomalies on the slope map likely are unavoidable artifacts resulting from the relatively large pixel size (30 meters) for the DEM and the relatively large contour interval (40 feet) for the USGS elevation data. This condition will need to be accounted for in site-specific evaluation of proposed PM&E actions. Future Considerations The group deliberations over constraint layers and scaling factors for the GIS analysis task addressed several suitability considerations that might have been applied, but were not selected for inclusion in the initial GIS task. In general, these cases involved resource data for which there are disclosure concerns, such as the threatened and endangered species data discussed previously, or data from ongoing Project studies that are not yet completed. The working group team identified several specific types of relevant information that should be considered in the future before proposals for recreation facility or trail measures are finalized. Additional information on ecological resources will likely be consulted once initial GIS analysis results are available. Specific examples include stream classification data, such as identification of stream reaches used by or important to anadromous fish, that will be developed through a study in progress for the Aquatics Working Group. The Aquatics group also commissioned a study of reservoir erosion conditions, Study A14a, which includes information applicable to future planning and evaluation of specific recreation development proposals. The Wildlife and Terrestrial Working Group had two studies in progress at the time of the R11 draft report, an elk study and a grizzly bear spring forage study, which will likewise identify locations of sensitive habitat within the study area. A similar screening process will be used relative to consideration of cultural resources constraints. A layer showing cultural resource locations is not currently available, and use of such a layer would not be possible in any event due to disclosure concerns. The working group team recognized that interim R11/15 study results and/or locations for proposed recreation actions will need to be submitted to the Cultural Resources Working Group for review before such proposed measures are finalized or adopted.

Composite Constraint Mapping The January 7, 2003 meeting of the working group R11/15 team also resulted in adoption of procedures for developing composite constraint maps for the R11/15 GIS analysis. The group decided to follow a simple approach, directing R2 Resource Consultants to sequentially apply the various constraint levels for all of the layers. For any given location within the study area, the composite constraint map depicts the highest applicable level of constraint from any of the layers. For example, a wetland area represented as a high constraint on the ecological constraint layer is also displayed as a high-constraint polygon on the composite constraint map, regardless of the level of constraint for that polygon on the other individual constraint layers.


The result of the composite mapping process is a color map indicating the levels of high, medium, low and no constraints aggregated across all of the applied constraint layers. Because the layers and scaling differ somewhat between the R11 and R15 applications, R2 produced a separate map for each analysis. As shown in Table 2-1, the R11 analysis included slope, soils and geological hazards, ecological and land ownership factors that are pertinent to recreation planning and suitable for capture and manipulation through GIS technology.

2.1.2 Constraint Mapping Results This section of the report presents and describes the constraint maps developed for each of the four constraint categories. The aim of this presentation is to describe the spatial distribution of the constraints and identify broad patterns relevant to consideration of suitability for developed recreation facilities. Relatively small-scale maps for each layer are included in the report, with one sheet each for the Baker Lake and Lake Shannon portions of the study area. R2 produced large-scale versions of the constraint maps for review and analysis by the working group in the implementation of the GIS task.

Ecologically Sensitive Areas The ecological constraint maps for the Baker Lake (Figure 2-1) and Lake Shannon (Figure 2-2) sectors of the study area present a patchwork pattern of high, medium and no constraint. None of the ecological resource features included in this constraint layer were scaled as low constraint. The riparian areas adjacent to lake shorelines and streams appear as linear features that are scaled as medium constraint. The small polygons in the lowlands that are scaled high constraint, particularly near the lakeshore and streams, are typically wetlands. Resource features scaled as high constraint occupy most of the total area in the Baker Lake sector (see Figure 2-1). Areas mapped with no constraints are also relatively extensive, although not in large continuous blocks, both to the east and west of the lower (southern) part of Baker Lake. The immediate shoreline area along Baker Lake is displayed as either medium constraint, based on the riparian areas, or as high constraint in areas of ancient or old forest. Most of the upland high-constraint areas surrounding Baker Lake are ancient/old forest stands and lands with priority habitats and species features. These high-constraint lands make up a significant portion of the area east and south of Baker Lake, as well as directly north and northwest. A heterogeneous mix of constraint levels characterizes the lowlands and shorelines around the lake. The largest uninterrupted areas of no constraint are located approximately 500 to 600 yards beyond the lakeshore north and south of Boulder Creek and along the south and east of the lake, from the dam up to the bend in the lake. Lands north of the lake from Swift Creek to the Baker River and south of the lake from the bend to Noisy Creek are predominantly high constraint with patches of medium and no constraint. The patterns of mapped ecological constraints are quite different around Lake Shannon. In general, the Lake Shannon area is characterized by large expanses of no ecological constraint separated by linear features of medium constraint that typically represent streams. There are long patches of high-constraint area along the western and northeastern shores of the lake, which are typically riparian areas and wetlands. There are also large expanses of high-constraint lands located northwest of Bear Creek and between Concrete and Lake Tyee. Similar to the Baker Lake area, the entire shoreline of the lake is categorized as either medium or high constraint.


There are two possible reasons for differences in ecological constraint patterns between Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. The first is simply differences in resource conditions such as topography, vegetative cover and hydrology between the upper and lower parts of the basin. The lower basin lands have been more heavily harvested, for example, so old and ancient forest stands are much less extensive near Lake Shannon than they are around Baker Lake. The second reason relates to differences in data sources and data coverage. For some resources, such as streams and water features, spatial data are available uniformly for the entire basin. For other ecological resources, such as grizzly bear or other priority species habitats, research effort has been concentrated on national forest lands and other lands within the basin show relatively little presence of such features.

Soils and Geologic Hazards Unlike the ecological constraints map, the soils and geologic hazards constraint map has large patches of land with low, medium and no constraint. There no areas of high constraint around Baker Lake (Figure 2-3), while there are a number of high-constraint spots scattered around Lake Shannon (Figure 2-4), particularly near the northern part of the lake. The patches of low-constraint area are typically unstable soils and the patches of moderate constraint are typically very unstable soils. The high-constraint patches represent either landslide debris or landslide origins in conjunction with very unstable soils. The landslide origins are mapped as point features with radial buffers and the landslide debris locations are either linear or polygon features. Around Baker Lake, the most significant high-constraint feature is located along the creek that enters the lake just north of the Maple Grove Campground. Almost all of the other patches of high constraint due to soils and geologic hazard are located in upland areas well away from the lakeshore. Nearly the entire area west and north of Baker Lake has no constraint due to soils or geologic hazard, based on the approach employed for this task. Areas below Upper Baker Dam, along Sulphur Creek and around Glover Mountain are categorized as low and medium constraint because of unstable soils. The lands east and south of the lake are almost entirely categorized as low and medium constraint. This is typically due to the steeper slopes and numerous stream drainages on the east side of Baker Lake. Soils and geologic hazards are considerably more extensive around Lake Shannon, particularly within about ½ mile of the lakeshore. Nearly the entire shoreline area of Lake Shannon is categorized as either low or moderate constraint due to unstable soils. Point and linear features representing landslide debris and landslide origins are more numerous around Lake Shannon than around Baker Lake. They are most frequent in the southwest shoreline area and around Thunder Creek. A large patch of high-constraint land, representative of a past landslide, also surrounds Thunder Creek. The area near the west shore of the lake is categorized as low constraint from the dam as far north as approximately Lake Tyee, and primarily as medium constraint the rest of the way up to Upper Baker Dam. The east side of Lake Shannon has one stretch of medium constraint north of Thunder Creek and one patch of no constraint between Thunder Creek and the Lake Shannon Boat Ramp.


Slope The slope constraint maps for Baker Lake (Figure 2-5) and Lake Shannon (Figure 2-6) are both characterized by minimal patches of no, low and medium-constraint areas among the predominantly high-constraint portions of the landscape. Not surprisingly, lands with little slope are limited in a mountainous river basin. It should be noted, however, that the digital terrain models used to generate the slope layer have a relatively coarse scale of resolution. Use of finer-scale terrain data for small segments of the study area would indicate that there are some relatively small areas of low slope that are mixed within generally steeper segments of the landscape, and therefore are not displayed at the scale employed for the GIS analysis. The general pattern evident from the Baker Lake slope map is one of steep slopes (greater than or equal to 20 percent) almost exclusively in the area east of the lake and north of the lake beyond Swift Creek, and predominantly moderate slopes on the west side of the lake up to approximately Swift Creek. East of Baker Lake and along the upper north shore, the valley walls rise sharply from the lake and provide minimal valley-bottom or bench terrain with low slope. Most of the lands with no, low and medium slope constraint are located on the western lakeshore, within the general area that includes most of the existing campground development and most of the larger dispersed campsite clusters. The largest low-slope area lies between Sulphur Creek/Depression Lake and Sandy Creek. The Shadow of the Sentinels Trail, Kulshan Campground and Horseshoe Cove Campground all lie within this area, which extends from the lakeshore to FS Road 11. A second large low-slope area extends from Little Sandy Creek through the Boulder Creek fan to Swift Creek. From the lakeshore this area extends for some distance up Little Park, Park and Morovitz Creeks. A third large area of low slope lies near the northern end of the lake and the lower segment of the Baker River near where it enters the lake; most of this area has very low slope (less than 5 percent) and is classified as no constraint. The slope of the landscape surrounding Lake Shannon is markedly different from that around Baker Lake. Whereas Baker Lake has an extensive bench near its western shore, the landscape on either side of Lake Shannon is quite steep. The slope map for the lower portion of the study area is dominated by areas of steep slopes/high constraint, particularly the area within approximately 1 to 2 miles of Lake Shannon. Lands of low or moderate slope and categorized as no, low or medium constraint exist in limited number and area around the lake. These include several scattered and relatively small polygons east of Lake Shannon and generally north of Threemile Creek, and two other areas east and southeast of Lake Tyee. Lands of low or moderate slope are concentrated in three general areas near the margins of the study area. One such area of low-slope lands is the valley-bottom area along the Skagit River near Concrete. Another is located on either side of the Burpee Hill Road south of Lake Tyee and Vogler Lake. A large area with extensive patches of low- and moderate-slope land straddles the Baker Lake Highway and extends from approximately the Whatcom County line down past Bear Creek nearly to Lake Tyee.


Land Ownership and Management Land ownership patterns differ considerably between the Baker Lake and Lake Shannon portions of the study area. As shown previously in Table 2-1, constraints due to land ownership and management were based on broad ownership categories and the known or assumed management direction and interests for each category. Small private and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) secure lands were categorized as high constraint; large-parcel corporate lands were categorized as medium constraint; federal and state lands, primarily administered by the USFS and Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) were categorized as low constraint; and other, non-secure PSE lands were categorized as no constraint. As shown in Figure 2-7, the lands surrounding Baker Lake are almost entirely in federal ownership and administered by the USFS, and are therefore categorized as low constraint. The exceptions are a parcel owned by IP Forestry extending from Depression Lake to Horseshoe Cove Campground, categorized as medium constraint, and a large area of PSE property from West Pass Dike extending past the dam that is categorized as no constraint. (It should be noted that much of the central area within this PSE parcel is fenced, secure land that has not yet been incorporated into this layer.) The lands around Lake Shannon are a patchwork of ownership, as indicated in Figure 2-8. The State of Washington (with lands administered by WDNR) is the largest government landowner in the lower portion of the study area. WDNR manages large tracts on both sides of the lake, both adjacent to the lakeshore and in the upland area. WDNR lands along the shoreline are concentrated along the east side of the lake, generally from near Thunder Creek almost to the Lake Shannon Boat Ramp, and along the southwestern portion of the lake. Corporate resource lands comprise the largest land ownership category. These lands, which also lie on both sides of the lake and in both lakeshore and upland areas, are classified as medium constraint. Small-parcel private lands, which are categorized as high constraint, comprise a small portion of the total area in the lower basin, particularly near Lake Shannon. The largest patches of small-ownership private lands lie south of Bear Creak, both along the Baker Lake Highway and near the midpoint of the lake, and around Lake Tyee. PSE lands classified as no constraint are limited, but are mostly located on or near the lakeshore. These lands include the lands around Lower Baker Dam and extending north along the eastern shore to the Lake Shannon Boat Ramp. There are also scattered, small parcels of PSE holdings on the west lakeshore, inland along Thunder Creek, and north along the lakeshore in selected locations.


2.1.3 Composite Map Results The next step in the GIS analysis task was to combine the four resource constraint maps into a single composite constraint map. The composite maps are, essentially, overlays of all four resource-constraint maps, on which lands are categorized by the highest applicable level of constraint from any of the individual resource maps. Therefore, a patch of land with low ecological constraint and high soils/geologic hazard constraint is shown on the composite map as high constraint.

Baker Lake Areas of high constraint dominate the composite resource constraint map for the lands around Baker Lake (Figure 2-9). Almost the entire east/south side of the lake, as well as the area north of the lake and east of Swift Creek, is categorized as high constraint. This pattern is very similar to the constraint classifications shown on the slope map for this area (Figure 2-5), and indicate the slope constraints are the primary factor determining the composite map display. Much of the area west of the lake is also categorized as high constraint, primarily to the west of FS Road 11. There are three sizable patches of relatively low-constraint area, which generally correspond to the areas of low and moderate slope reflected in Figure 2-5. The first such area is generally east of FS Road 11 between Sulphur Creek and Sandy Creek. The low-constraint lands are discontinuous within this larger area, but include several relatively large patches of low-constraint lands just south of Horseshoe Cove Campground, south of the Shadow of the Sentinels, and along FS Road 1118. The second large area containing lands of low or moderate constraint is located between Little Sandy Creek and Swift Creek on the west side of Baker Lake. This general area includes relatively large patches of moderate constraint on either side of Park Creek both east and west of FS Road 11. The third location of lands with relatively low constraint is located at the northern end of the lake and to the northwest of the Baker River. This area is much smaller in extent than the first two areas discussed, and has an irregular shape.

Lake Shannon Areas of high composite constraint also dominate Figure 2-10, the composite resource map for Lake Shannon. Nearly the entire area east of the lake and a majority of the area west of the lake are classified as high constraint. With the four resource layers composited, there are no lands in this part of the study area in the no-constraint category. As with the Baker Lake part of the study area, the composite results for Lake Shannon are very similar to and primarily reflect the distribution of slope classes. In addition, the more complicated landownership matrix on both sides of the lake may make siting developed recreational facilities more complex in this area. The composite constraint map for Lake Shannon does show three relatively large areas of medium constraint, although none are located near the lakeshore. Two sizable patches are located near Bear Creek on lands managed by WDNR. One of these areas straddles the Baker Lake Highway and the other lies to the south on Road 1070. Another relatively large patch of land with medium constraint is southeast of Everett Lake on WDNR land. There are also scattered, relatively small patches of medium-constraint lands in the area east of Lake Shannon and north of Threemile Creek. The majority of the lands that are not classified as high constraint are located well to the west of Lake Shannon on either side of the Baker Lake Highway.


2.1.4 Discussion The four resource constraint layers used to evaluate preliminary suitability for developed recreation capacity expansion were ecological features, soils and geologic hazards, slope and land ownership. When combined into a composite constraint map reflecting the combined influence of these resource considerations, as indicated by the resource components and scaling factors shown in Table 2-1, the result indicates there are quite limited areas within the upper or lower basin that have no mapped constraints for recreation facility expansion or development. The vast majority of lands within the study area are categorized as high constraint, with relatively few patches of medium constraint and fewer patches of low constraint. These results reflect a large-scale mapping analysis of the study area. While the composite constraint maps indicate there are likely to be limited options for facility development (barring revised specification of the constraint levels or the composite mapping process), it is conceivable that more detailed evaluation at a finer scale of resolution would identify feasible space for additional facility development. In particular, more specific evaluation of areas adjacent to existing development nodes within the study area might indicate that some of these areas could accommodate expanded development without encountering substantial resource constraints. This subject is addressed in more detail in Section 2.2 of the report. In addition, there area some areas of low and medium constraint around Baker Lake that are relatively close to the lake and may be suitable for developed recreation. As stated in Section 2.1.3, the constraints on facility development and expansion around Lake Shannon appear to be more limiting than those around Baker Lake. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is that the slopes on either side of the lake are generally quite steep and there are a relatively high number of geologic hazard features. The second reason is the different pattern of land ownership, which includes a varied mix of state trust lands managed by WDNR, corporate resource lands, limited PSE lands and a number of other small private parcels. The variations in land management interests are assumed to raise the constraint level for several of these land ownership categories.


2.2 Facility Expansion Potential Based on the assumption that additional capacity for recreational use in the study area will be warranted over the life of the license, it is likely that expansion of capacity at existing sites would generally be preferred over developing new capacity at currently undisturbed sites. The methods employed for this task generally follow those for the GIS constraint mapping. Estimation of feasible facility expansion potential was based primarily on the availability of land near existing development locations and in acceptably low constraint categories.

2.2.1 Baker Lake The USFS identified 18 potential development nodes in the Upper Baker basin. The nodes were identified as areas where facility construction or expansion might be acceptable, pending detailed evaluation of other resource considerations, and therefore would be the most logical sites of future recreation facility development over the life of the license. The development nodes are listed with their areas (in acres) in Table 2-2; their locations are shown in the previous figures displaying constraints for the Baker Lake portion of the study area.

Table 2-2 Potential Development Nodes – Baker Lake

NAME AREA (Acres)

Baker River Trailhead Shannon Creek NE

Noisy Creek Lakeside (BN14)

Scott Camp (BN15) Baker Lake Resort

Park Creek Panorama Point Boulder Creek

Lower Sandy (BW12) Maple Grove

Bayview North & South Bayview Central Horseshoe Cove

Dry Creek Anderson Point

Depression Lake Kulshan

16.50 6.00 5.27 2.28 4.60

22.89 9.65 6.06

10.29 18.69

5.58 20.75 14.59 40.59 18.05

3.74 7.54 9.98


For each node the four constraint layers that underlie the boundary were measured. The total areas in each of the constraint layers as well as the percentages are reported. Ecological constraints are shown in Table 2-3, soils and geologic hazards in Table 2-4, slope in Table 2-5 and land ownership in Table 2-6. The constraint level (i.e. no, low, medium or high) is presented as the coloration in the table cells. The colors respond to constraint levels shown in the legend of Figure 2-9. All of the potential development nodes lie in riparian areas. The node with the lowest percentage of its area in riparian areas is Kulshan Campground, which is 4 percent in riparian areas and classified as medium constraint. The other 17 potential nodes have at least 58 percent riparian area and six of them are 100 percent within riparian areas. All of these sites are positioned near the lakeshore or Baker River because of the water-related recreational opportunities those locations provide. Medium-constraint riparian areas surround all of the water features in the basin. Therefore, it is unlikely that a popular site attractive to recreational users would not have a significant footprint in a riparian area. A number of nodes also lie within high ecological constraint areas. Three quarters of the area of the potential Depression Lake site is within land categorized as high constraint, with 56 percent in ancient forests and 20 percent in wetlands. This is the most ecologically constrained site. Nearly 40 percent of the Horseshoe Cove node is also mapped as ancient forest, although no other high-constraint features are present. No other sites have more than 15 percent ancient forest. The Bayview Central and Panorama Point nodes contain 40 percent and 36 percent wetland area, respectively. Three other sites have between 20 and 26 percent wetland area, while nine have none. The Anderson Point location is within an area designated as having rare plants, but the exact area of high constraint is not known. The areas of ecological constraint and percentages are shown in Table 2-3.

Baker River Project Relicense 2-24 April 2004 April 2004 Recreation Capacity & Suitability Analysis and Recreational Trail Analysis Final Draft Report

Table 2-3 Ecological Constraints – Baker Lake Development Nodes

Riparian Areas Grizzly Habitat Ancient Forests Wetlands T16 Rare Plants WDNR WNHP WDFW PHS

Development Node acres % of total acres

% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total

Baker Rvr. Trailhead 10.5 64% 1.3 8% 3.7 22% Shannon Creek NE 5.9 98% 0% 0% Noisy Creek 5.3 100% 0.5 7% 0% Lakeside (BN14) 2.3 100% - 0% 0% Scott Camp (BN15) 4.6 100% 1.0 15% 0% Baker Lake Resort 16.3 71% - 0% Park Creek 8.6 89% Panorama Point 4.2 73% 0% 2.3 36% Boulder Creek 6.0 58% 1.4 14% 0.3 3% Lower Sandy (BW12) 15.8 87% 2.3 10% 4.3 22% Maple Grove 5.6 100% 0% 0% Bayview North&South 15.2 73% 0.8 4% Bayview Central 11.4 78% 0% 5.9 40% Horseshoe Cove 30.6 75% 15.8 39% Dry Creek 18.0 100% 0% 0% Anderson Point 3.7 100% 0% 0% Depression Lake 7.4 98% 4.2 56% 1.5 20% Kulshan 0.4 4% 0%


Only three of the potential development nodes are constrained by soils or geologic hazards considered in the initial GIS analysis. The Noisy Creek site includes low-constraint, unstable soils occupying 60 percent of the area. Eighty-three percent of the Maple Grove site and 90 percent of the Anderson Point site lie on medium constraint, very unstable soils. Both the latter are on the east side of Baker Lake, where soils are more unstable because of slope and hydrology. There are no other sites constrained by soils or geologic hazards. Table 2-4 shows the areas of soils and geologic hazard constraints and percentages.

Table 2-4 Soils and Geologic Hazards – Baker Lake Development Nodes

Unstable Soils Unstable Soils

(V) Landslide

Debris Landslide

Origin


% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total

Baker River Trailhead 0% 0% 0% 0% Shannon Creek NE 0% 0% 0% 0% Noisy Creek 3.6 60% 0% 0% 0% Lakeside (BN14) 0% 0% 0% 0% Scott Camp (BN15) 0% 0% 0% 0% Baker Lake Resort 0% 0% 0% 0% Park Creek 0% 0% 0% 0% Panorama Point 0% 0% 0% 0% Boulder Creek 0% 0% 0% 0% Lower Sandy (BW12) 0% 0% 0% 0% Maple Grove 0% 4.9 83% 0% 0% Bayview North&South 0% 0% 0% 0% Bayview Central 0% 0% 0% 0% Horseshoe Cove 0% 0% 0% 0% Dry Creek 0% 0% 0% 0% Anderson Point 0% 3.6 90% 0% 0% Depression Lake 0% 0% 0% 0% Kulshan 0% 0% 0% 0%

Subsequent to release of the draft R11/15 study report, PSE produced revised maps of erosion conditions around the shoreline of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon as part of Study A14a undertaken for the Aquatics Working Group. As discussed in Section 2.1.1, Recreation Working Group members elected not to incorporate draft erosion maps from the A14a study into the initial GIS analysis for the R11 study, but concluded it would be advisable to review the erosion information in future evaluation of site-specific potential or proposed recreation development actions. Review of the November 2003 erosion maps prepared for the A14a study (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., 2003) support the following observations concerning erosion conditions at and near the potential development nodes:

• The Baker River Trailhead, Park Creek, Boulder Creek, Depression Lake and Kulshan nodes are not on the Baker Lake shoreline and therefore are not characterized in the A14a study.


• Shoreline areas along the Lakeside, Scott Camp and Maple Grove nodes are all entirely classified as Category 3 (low to moderate) and/or Category 4 (not eroding or bedrock) erosion areas. Possible recreation development in these areas presumably would not be constrained by concerns relating to identified erosion problems.

• The shoreline along the Lower Sandy node is entirely classified as Category 3 or 4 (low-moderate or not eroding). A possible concern relative to potential development at this location would be an extensive Category 1 (severe) erosion area along most of the opposite bank of the cove formed by Sandy Creek.

• Virtually all of the Panorama Point node is within Category 3 or 4 areas, with the exception of a small area of Category 2 (high) erosion area at the boat ramp.

• The shoreline areas along the Horseshoe Cove, Bayview North & South and Bayview Central nodes are entirely classifies as Category 3 and/or 4. There are extensive shallow areas in the reservoir offshore of these nodes that are exposed when the reservoir is drafted, and portions of the offshore edges of these terraces are classified as Category 2 erosion areas.

• The entire shoreline of the Anderson Point node is classified as Category 2, as is most of the shoreline at the end of the cove adjacent to the Dry Creek node. There are segments of Category 2 erosion areas along the west edge of the campground at Shannon Creek and just uplake from the boat ramp, although the potential development area northeast of the ramp is classified as Category 3.

• While most of shoreline on the peninsula occupied by the Baker Lake Resort is within Category 3 or 4 erosion areas, most of the south/west bank of Swift Creek is classified as Category 1 or 2. There is also a section of Category 2 area along the east/north bank of Park Creek.

• Most of the west side of the peninsula at Noisy Creek (the east bank of the creek) is classified as Category 1 or 2. The remainder of the shoreline in this location is within Category 3 or 4 erosion areas.

Specific application of the Study A14a results should be done in the future, in conjunction with development and evaluation of site-specific proposals for recreation actions within any of the potential development nodes. For some of the nodes, it is conceivable that the erosion information would support a conclusion that recreation development would exacerbate erosion problems and should not be undertaken. In other cases, the outcome might be that some form of recreation development would still be acceptable, but would need to include applicable erosion control measures.


All but three of the potential development nodes have substantial percentages of high-constraint, steep slope areas. These three areas are the Baker River Trailhead (3 percent), Bayview Central (15 percent) and Kulshan (1 percent). Areas mapped as steep slopes cover at least 25 percent of the remaining nodes. The highest percentages of steep slopes are found at Shannon Creek NE (100 percent), Lakeside (100 percent), Maple Grove (100 percent), Anderson Point (94 percent), and Lower Sandy (81 percent). Bayview North & South (64 percent) and Bayview Central (59 percent) have the highest percentages of area in the medium slope category. All the others have 40 percent or less medium slope. The potential nodes with the highest percentages of no and low slope constraints are the Baker River Trailhead (64 percent), Kulshan (52 percent), Depression Lake (35 percent), Horseshoe Cove (31 percent) and Baker Lake Resort (28 percent). Table 2-5 shows the areas of slope constraints and percentages.

Table 2-5 Slope Constraints – Baker Lake Development Nodes

Low Slope (V) Low Slope Mod Slope Steep Slope


% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total

Baker River Trailhead 0.1 0% 42,612 64% 22,210 33% 1,737 3% Shannon Creek NE 0% 0% 0% 26,369 100% Noisy Creek 0.1 11% 605 2% 1,550 6% 21,679 81% Lakeside (BN14) 0% 0% 0% 2.3 100% Scott Camp (BN15) 0% - 0% 1.0 21% 3.6 78% Baker Lake Resort 2.5 11% 3.8 17% 5.7 25% 11 48% Park Creek - 0% 0.1 1% 3.1 32% 6.4 66% Panorama Point 0% 0.3 5% 1.6 27% 4.2 69% Boulder Creek 0.2 2% 3.3 32% 6.9 67% Lower Sandy (BW12) - 0% - 0% 3.4 18% 15.2 81% Maple Grove 0% 0% 0% 5.6 100% Bayview North&South 0.4 2% 3.8 18% 13.3 64% 3.2 15% Bayview Central 0% 2.4 16% 8.6 59% 3.6 25% Horseshoe Cove 3.6 9% 9.1 22% 15.6 38% 12.4 31% Dry Creek 0.6 4% 1.3 7% 7.2 40% 50% Anderson Point 0% - 0% 0.2 5% 3.5 94% Depression Lake 2.0 27% 0.6 8% 0.8 11% 4.1 54% Kulshan 1.6 16% 3.6 36% 4.3 43% 0.5 1%


The land ownership pattern for the upper Baker Basin is very simple. The only potential development nodes that are not wholly within low-constraint USFS land are Scott Camp (BN15), which includes 0.9 acres of PSE-owned land ( a feature too small to be visible on Figure 2-7) categorized as no constraint, and PSE-owned Kulshan Campground. Table 2-6 shows the areas of land ownership constraints and percentages. (Note that the 1 acre of corporate land shown for the Hoseshoe Cove node is probably based on imprecise delineation of the node that is not consistent with actual property boundaries, as a result of mapping tolerance.)

Table 2-6 Land Ownership – Baker Lake Development Nodes

PSE Lands Public Lands Corp Lands Private Lands


% of total acres

% of total acres

% of total

Baker River Trailhead 0% 16.5 100% 0% 0% Shannon Creek NE 0% 6 100% 0% 0% Noisy Creek 0% 5.3 100% 0% 0% Lakeside (BN14) 0% 2.3 100% 0% 0% Scott Camp (BN15) 0.9 20% 3.7 80% 0% 0% Baker Lake Resort 0% 22.9 100% 0% 0% Park Creek 0% 9.7 100% 0% 0% Panorama Point 0% 6.1 100% 0% 0% Boulder Creek 0% 10.3 100% 0% 0% Lower Sandy (BW12) 0% 18.7 100% 0% 0% Maple Grove 0% 5.6 100% 0% 0% Bayview North&South 0% 20.8 100% 0% 0% Bayview Central 0% 14.6 100% 0% 0% Horseshoe Cove 0% 39.6 98% 1.0 2% 0% Dry Creek 0% 18.1 100% 0% 0% Anderson Point 0% 3.7 100% 0% 0% Depression Lake 0% 7.5 100% 0% 0% Kulshan 8.4 84% 1.6 16% 0% 0%


2.2.2 Lake Shannon The Lake Shannon Boat Ramp is the only potential development node in the lower Baker River basin. It is located approximately 1 mile north of Lower Baker Dam on the eastern lakeshore. The entire site lies within the medium-constraint riparian area. There are no other ecological constraints at the site. The entire site is also within a band of low-constraint soils and geologic hazard associated with unstable soils. Nearly the entire east side of Lake Shannon is categorized as steep slope and, therefore, high constraint. The Lake Shannon Boat Ramp is predominantly (81 percent) included in that mapped high constraint area. (However, there actually is a narrow band of relatively flat land along the lakeshore at this site.) Based on current property mapping, only 10 percent of the site is shown as PSE-owned land and therefore with no ownership constraints; the remaining 90 percent of the site itself and the access route to the site are on land owned by Glacier Northwest, Inc., which is categorized as medium constraint. Long-term access to this site is therefore limited. Table 2-7 shows the areas of constraints and percentages for all the constraint layers.

Table 2-7 Constraint Matrix – Lake Shannon Development Node

Constraint Layers

Riparian Areas (ac.) %

Grizzly Habitat

(ac.) %

Ancient Forests

(ac.) % Wetlands

(ac.) % Ecologically Sensitive Areas 5.9 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

PSE

Lands (ac.)

Public Lands (ac.)

Corp Lands (ac.)

Private Lands (ac.)

Land Ownership and Management 0.6 10% 0 0% 5.3 90% 0 0%

Unstable Soils (ac.)

Unstable Soils (V;

ac.)

Landslide Debris (ac.)

Landslide Origin (ac.)

Soils and Geologic Hazards 5.9 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Low Slope (V; ac.)

Low Slope (ac.)

Mod Slope (ac.)

Steep Slope (ac.)

Slope - 0% 0.1 2% 1.0 18% 4.8 81% As discussed in Section 2.2.1, information from other Project studies will be considered in development and evaluation of proposed actions for the Lake Shannon Boat Ramp node. With respect to erosion concerns, the contents of Study A14a indicate that the shoreline area along this node is entirely within Category 3 (low to moderate) or Category 4 (not eroding or bedrock) erosion areas.


2.2.3 Discussion The preceding results show that all of the proposed development nodes are limited, to varying degrees, by at least one constraint layer. All of the proposed sites are located on the lakeshore or riverbank. This has obvious attraction advantages for water-related activities and views, but it places all of the potential sites and their associated activities in riparian areas. Some of the sites are located in ancient forests and/or wetland areas, but only one (Depression Lake) has more than half of its area in an ecologically high-constraint area. Soils and geologic hazards are not a constraint on facility development, as only three of the potential Baker Lake development nodes include areas of unstable soils. All three sites are located on the east side of the lake and have lands classified as low- or medium-constraint unstable soils. Placing new facilities would be more difficult on the east side of Baker Lake because the frequency of unstable soils is much higher than on the west side (see Figure 2-3). Slope appears to be the largest concern for siting new developed recreation facilities. Developed recreation facilities typically require low or moderate slope areas. Steep slope areas are very difficult to develop for camping, picnicking areas, and day use activities. All of the potential development nodes are mapped in areas of steep slopes classified as high constraint. Eleven of the 18 Baker Lake nodes have more than 50 percent of their area on steep slopes. Only two sites, the Baker River Trailhead and Kulshan Campground, have more than half of their area on low-slope land. There are four other sites that have approximately one third of their area on low-slope land. As noted previously, however, the relatively large mapping resolution for the slope layer may be obscuring some areas of low slope and overstating the predominance of steep slopes. Land ownership is not a significant constraint for the potential developed nodes around Baker Lake. All of the land is either national forest land, which is categorized as low constraint, or PSE land categorized as no constraint. The Lake Shannon Boat Ramp is partially on PSE land, which is categorized as no constraint, but the remaining area and access to the site is through corporate resource property categorized as medium constraint. The long-term prospect of securing access to the existing boat ramp site has been discussed in the working group, but resolution has not been achieved at this time.


2.3 Effects of Existing Recreation on Other Resources Task 3 for the developed recreation facility component of the R11/15 study involved assessment of the extent to which use of existing developed recreation facilities and dispersed campsites might be affecting other resources in the study area. As described in the R11 study plan, input to this task was to be obtained from a variety of sources, primarily consisting of other studies conducted to support the Baker River Project relicense. Task 3 is essentially an effort aimed at identifying cross-resource concerns involving recreation. PSE and the other participants in the relicensing process are continuing efforts to define and try to resolve such cross-resource issues, and have additional work remaining in that area. Consequently, documentation for Task 3 of the R11 analysis that can be completed at this writing may need to be updated in the future. Progress to date for this task is summarized below. Information concerning the effects of existing recreation facilities and activities on other resources is also pertinent to the identification of recreation needs, as discussed in the R16 Recreation Needs Analysis study report.

2.3.1 Methods The R11 study plan indicates that effects of existing recreational activities on the physical, ecological and social resources of the study area will be assessed and documented with a matrix arraying the known or suspected effects of developed facilities, dispersed sites and associated recreational activities on the respective resources. Information needed to complete this matrix is to be obtained from several sources. The recreation site inventory study (R12, conducted in 2001) is expected to provide some applicable information for both developed facilities and dispersed sites, although the focus of this study was to document facility/site characteristics and not to assess site-specific environmental impacts. Selected responses from the recreation visitor survey study (R13, also conducted in 2001) address some of the social/human factors, particularly those relating to the visitor experience, and may provide information suggesting the existence of effects from existing recreation facilities and activities. Additional input from recreation provider and land management staff may be applicable to this task. Task 3 for the R11 capacity and suitability analysis was defined largely in response to concerns over the potential effects of dispersed recreation sites on the physical, ecological and cultural resources of the study area. With respect to dispersed sites, this task is intended to determine whether some of the dispersed sites are in undesirable locations, where they are likely having adverse effects on other resources, and/or whether some of the sites are in low-constraint areas where they could be formalized, improved and/or expanded without adverse effects on other resources. As indicated above, at this writing the status of the full range of Baker River Project studies does not allow for complete information exchange regarding relationships between recreation and terrestrial, aquatic and cultural resources. The approach followed for Task 3 to date has been primarily to review the results from other recreation studies concerning the potential effects of recreation on other resources. Some additional input concerning other resources has been developed through a cross-resource workshop involving all relicensing process participants March 4-6, 2003, a meeting between terrestrial and recreation working group members on March 28, 2003, and a joint field trip by members of the recreation and terrestrial working groups in August 2003. Reports for two draft studies conducted by the Terrestrial Resources Working Group were also reviewed for information pertinent to this question. Further information exchange among the working groups in the future may provide additional information relevant to this task.


2.3.2 Results R12 Site Inventory Study An inventory of developed and dispersed recreation sites within the study area was conducted in 2001 and 2002 as Study R12. The developed-site component of this study was oriented primarily toward identifying or confirming the capacity of the sites, and secondarily toward visual evidence of facility condition. A detailed field inventory of dispersed campsites undertaken in 2001 included observation of several types of site characteristics that could be indicative of potential resource damage from recreational use of these sites. The R12 dispersed site inventory results are documented in a draft report issued by PSE in mid-April 2003 and a final draft report issued in February 2004 (Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., 2004a). The R12 dispersed site inventory effort included recorded observations on seven categories of site characteristics for all dispersed sites identified:

• Nearly 60 percent of the inventoried dispersed sites are located in young forest settings, and about 30 percent in old forest. Approximately 35 percent were considered to be located in riverbed areas or on the lakebed of one of the Project reservoirs and below the normal full-pool shoreline elevation.

• Large trees of 21 inches or greater in diameter were present at or near 20 percent of the sites.

• Half of the sites were considered to have potential for enlargement through continued or expanded use, while the other half were limited by terrain, vegetation or other features.

• Nearly two-thirds of the sites were estimated to be located within 50 feet of a water body, which in most cases was Baker Lake.

• Entries on the site inventory forms for the closest water body or wetland in all cases identified Baker Lake, another lake, the Baker River, or a tributary stream. Wetlands were not identified on any forms; wetland areas no doubt exist near some of the sites, but the orientation of the sites appears to be toward lakes and streams.

• The inventory crew was requested to judge whether each site had the potential for an adverse effect on a nearby water body or wetland. For 62 percent of the sites, proximity alone was the basis for such a potential, while the crew noted evidence of vegetation loss, erosion or runoff/sedimentation evidence at 41 sites (19 percent of the total).

• Forty percent of the sites were categorized as showing evidence of recent and/or heavy use. The remainder showed evidence of occasional or minimal use.

• Nearly half of the dispersed sites had trees with hatchet marks, while 16 percent had one or more trees with nail damage and 6 percent contained trees with exposed roots.

• At the time the site inventory was conducted (primarily during May 2001), human or animal waste was reported as abundant at 2 percent of the sites and common at another 11 percent.

• Trash was considered abundant or common at about 20 to 30 percent of the sites. • Trampling and loss of vegetation was estimated as widespread (covering 76 to 100

percent of the site area) at 65 percent of the sites.


To some degree, the meaning and significance of the R12 dispersed site inventory results are open to interpretation. The R12 inventory was implemented as a one-time activity that provided a snapshot of site conditions at the time of the inventory, and not as an ongoing process in which physical conditions at the sites were monitored on a periodic basis. In particular, it is possible that the early-spring timing of the inventory fieldwork was such that the evidence of human waste and trash was considerably less than if the inventory had been conducted at the end of the summer. On balance, however, the inventory records concerning the physical characteristics and human use conditions at the sites do not appear to indicate that there are obvious problems of extensive, systemic resource impacts from use of the dispersed sites in the study area. There may be instances of small-scale, localized damage to physical, biological or cultural resources that would be detected through site-specific technical analysis, but the inventory crew did not identify noteworthy, readily apparent cases of environmental damage at the dispersed sites. R13 Visitor Survey Study PSE issued a draft report on results of the survey component of study R13 in March 2003 and a final draft report in March 2004 (Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 2004b). Responses to survey questions that most directly relate to potential recreation needs in the study area were also reviewed and interpreted in the recreation needs analysis (Study R16), for which PSE issued a draft report in mid-April 2003 (Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., 2003; a final draft report is scheduled for April 2004). Survey results that relate to the potential effects of recreation activities on study-area resources are summarized below, based on the documentation provided in the reports for the respective recreation studies:

• Question 28 of the visitor survey asked participants for their level of satisfaction with a long list of developed recreation facility/service items. Responses indicating low satisfaction concentrated on items such as showers, toilets and the campsite reservation system. Features that could be indicative of adverse recreation effects, such as cleanliness, garbage collection and campsite conditions were cited for low satisfaction by very small percentages of the survey population.

• Question 32 asked survey participants to rate their satisfaction with specific attributes of the recreation setting or experience applicable to their visit. The response “seeing/hearing few others” received a relatively high level of low-satisfaction responses, although those amounted to 13 percent of the total population. Responses indicating dissatisfaction with the level of development were small, typically 5 percent or less for the various groups in the population. Among dispersed campers, 10 percent gave low-satisfaction ratings for the attributes “high level of safety/security” and “little evidence of land management activity.”

• Responses to a question about the acceptability of the number of other people encountered suggest that the existing level of recreational use within the study area has not resulted in a widespread perception of crowding among visitors. Weekday visitors were more likely than any other survey group to rate the area as “not at all crowded,” but their percentage for this response was not much higher than the same response from weekend visitors.

• From 75 to 95 percent of the respondents in the various survey groups indicated they had not changed the things they did at Baker Lake/Lake Shannon in response to the amount of use or the behavior of others. Among those who answered affirmatively, the responses typically involved avoiding use of busier sites or busier use periods.


• Overall visitor satisfaction with their experience at Baker Lake/Lake Shannon was high, with around 90 percent of the respondents indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied.

• Visitor responses to questions of what they liked least about their visit or what could have made the visit better were not indicative of adverse effects from existing recreation uses and facilities. The open-ended, verbatim responses to these questions most commonly identified phenomena such as bugs/insects and weather or social aspects such as rude people. Twenty-five percent of Baker Lake dispersed campers identified “trash” as what they liked least about their visit, while from about 3 to 8 percent of respondents in the various groups objected to personal watercraft. Specific statements that could be interpreted as resource damage from recreation, such as “vandalism of cultural sites” or “water pollution from recreation sites” were minimal or nonexistent.

In summary, the results from the R13 visitor survey study do not highlight evidence of adverse effects from existing recreation facilities and activities. Responses to questions relating to visitor satisfaction and the influence of other recreational users do not indicate a substantial level of visitor concern over activity patterns that would represent adverse social or human resource effects. While the survey was not designed specifically to query visitors about perceptions of potential environmental problems associated with recreational use, little evidence of such perceptions was found in the responses. Cross-Resource Information Exchange Members of the recreation and terrestrial working groups met on March 28, 2003 to discuss cross-resource concerns, specifically including potential issues regarding adverse effects of recreation on terrestrial resources. Discussion at this meeting included identification of general concerns such as possible effects from dispersed sites in the reservoir drawdown zone on terrestrial and cultural resources, need for protection of rare plants and wetlands, introduction of noxious weeds, development activities in late-successional reserve forest areas, and potential human disturbance of mountain goats and elk. Specific adverse effects on terrestrial resources from developed recreation facilities were apparently not identified. Limited site-specific concerns related to existing or potential trails and dispersed sites were identified. Discussion of this nature included the observations that most mudding (illegal vehicle operation on the exposed lakebed of Baker Lake) originates from Lower Sandy; wetlands and rare plants are located at or near Lower Sandy and Panorama Point; mountain bike use on trails leading into the national park or wilderness areas would be a concern; and the existing Swift Creek trail should not be maintained, to avoid terrestrial resource conflicts. With respect to potential new measures, terrestrial working group feedback suggested that opportunities for wildlife viewing should be optimized; new trails should be confined to the area between FS Road 11 and the lake, in the area that is already heavily used; use of existing roads to link trails and short loop trails to connect developed sites would likely be acceptable; new dispersed sites should not be allowed; and a trail from Swift Creek to Morovitz Meadows would raise terrestrial resource concerns. Eight members of the recreation and terrestrial working groups conducted a joint field visit of the Baker Lake area on August 18, 2003. The objective for the trip was to observe existing conditions at recreation sites and discuss the terrestrial resource implications of potential recreation actions under consideration at the time within the recreation group. The focus of the field visit and discussion was on the dispersed recreation sites in the study area, and on site hardening or other potential measures applicable to dispersed recreation management. Members of the terrestrial


working group in attendance documented general observations concerning litter, signs and monitoring and adaptive management, as well as site-specific observations concerning eight dispersed recreation locations visited in the field (personal communication, Baker Project Relicense Terrestrial Resource Working Group, September 4, 2003). The general observations reflected concerns that human litter around recreation sites attracted ravens, crows and jays that preyed on other birds, making litter control and user education important needs; that signs at dispersed sites should not be visible from the lake, so as not to attract additional use; and that members of the two working groups develop triggers or thresholds relative to potential recreation impacts that could be applied in periodic reevaluation of potential human-wildlife conflicts. The site-specific observations included the following summary points:

• Management that continued the current level and type of use at Noisy Creek (BE1), Silver Creek (BE3), White Rocks East (BE6.5) and Anderson Cove (BE7) would be consistent with plant and animal objectives for the Project area, while measures that might promote or facilitate increased use should be avoided. Site hardening or toilets were not considered necessary for Silver Creek or White Rocks East.

• Improvements that would facilitate existing use or even promote moderate increases in use at Lakeside (BN14) and Lower Sandy (BW12) would be consistent with plant and animal objectives, provided that the improvements lessened the impacts of human use and/or alleviated pressure on smaller dispersed sites in the vicinity.

• Existing erosion at the Anderson Point location (BE8) is not a serious terrestrial concern, and remedial measures would be expected to have minimal impacts on plants and animals. Assuming campsite locations were shifted away from the bank, the site should be monitored to ensure the area of disturbance does not increase.

• Maple Grove (BE6) appears to get a high level of use that has caused trampling. The site is not in habitat that is of particular terrestrial concern, however, and is considered a good location for dispersed use on the east side of Baker Lake because it can relieve pressure on more sensitive habitats. A minor increase in use would be consistent with terrestrial objectives if the area of physical disturbance did not increase, while measures to lessen existing vegetation impacts would be desirable.

Additional Review of Ecological Resource Layers Information from several of the Project studies implemented by the Terrestrial Resources Working Group was used directly in the GIS analysis for the R11 study, as discussed in Section 2.1. Aside from helping to identify suitable or constrained areas for potential recreation development, this information is also applicable to the question of whether existing recreation sites and activities might be having adverse effects on terrestrial resources.


Figure 2-11 displays the distribution of existing developed and dispersed recreation sites relative to old growth forest habitat in the area surrounding Baker Lake (corresponding data are not available for the Lake Shannon part of the study area). The “old growth” and “old-old growth” polygons shown as green areas on this map comprised the ancient forest layer used as part of the set of ecologically sensitive areas applied in the R11 GIS analysis. In general, Figure 2-11 indicates that most of the developed recreation facilities and dispersed recreation sites are not impinging on areas of ancient forest. Among the developed sites, notable overlaps are an area of old-old growth forest around the Baker River Trailhead and mapped inclusions of both old-growth types within the Horseshoe Cove potential development node (see note below). The Shannon Creek and Boulder Creek nodes appear to be adjacent to old-growth forest stands on the opposite side of Road 11. The map does not show any old growth in the near vicinity of any other developed sites. (In review of the draft R11 study USFS staff noted two apparent errors in the syo layer used for this map; they indicated the forest in the Horseshoe Cove area was primarily second growth rather than old growth, but that the back half of the Baker Lake Resort peninsula was actually old growth.) Similarly, based on Figure 2-11, most of the dispersed recreation sites inventoried in the R12 study are not located in or near old-growth forest. The sites at the Baker River Trailhead (locations BN1, BN2 and BN3) are shown as partially overlapping old-old growth (although this area is primarily second growth, and the inventory records show only 2 of these sites with trees over 21 inches in diameter). The map also shows an extensive area of ancient forest around the west end of Depression Lake, presumably adjacent to the cluster of dispersed sites in location BW16. Old-growth polygons are also located relatively close to most of the dispersed sites near the Baker Lake Trail along the upper end of the lake (locations BE1 through BE5 and BE6.5, BE14 and BE15), and to the dispersed sites adjacent to the Boulder Creek Campground. The map also indicates there are some remaining stands of old growth near the north shore of Baker Lake above Swift Creek. A number of the roadside dispersed sites in the BN zone of the study area (e.g., BN6 and BN10 through BN15) are located near such old-growth stands, although they are situated along the lakeshore and on the opposite side of Road 11 from the older forest areas. With the previous exceptions of the Depression Lake and Boulder Creek locations, all of the dispersed sites in the BW zone (road-accessible sites near the west side of Baker Lake) and in the southern part of the BE zone (boat-in/hike-in sites on the east side) are located some distance from old-growth stands.


Wetland areas also comprised one of the components of the ecologically sensitive areas layer used in the R11 GIS analysis. Figures 2-12 and 2-13 provide additional detail on wetland areas in and near Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, respectively. The wetland features indicated on these maps include wetlands identified previously in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), wetlands identified through the T5 study conducted for the terrestrial working group, and lacustrine wetlands below the normal full-pool shoreline of the reservoirs that are exposed during seasonal drawdown periods. These graphics readily illustrate that these lacustrine wetlands are very extensive within and along the margins of both reservoirs, and that all of the developed and dispersed lakeshore recreation sites are situated within or immediately adjacent to areas classified as wetlands. Aside from the close relationship with lacustrine wetlands, few of the recreation sites appear likely to interact with wetlands identified through the NWI or the T5 study. The NWI classified the Baker River floodplain as wetland, and many of the dispersed sites in the Baker River Trailhead vicinity (including all of the BN4 sites) are located within this wetland feature. One of the dispersed sites at Upper Sandy (BW11) appears to be adjacent or close to a wetland identified in the T5 study, and there is a T5 wetland at the head of the cove near the BW19 sites. The remaining T5 and NWI wetlands are reasonably separated from existing recreation sites.


Figures 2-14 and 2-15 display the distribution of existing developed and dispersed recreation sites relative to sensitive plant and amphibian habitat locations. These features were also included in the ecological constraint layer for the R11 GIS analysis, and were identified from both existing data sources and Project field studies, primarily the T16 study. Figure 2-14 shows that the known locations of sensitive plants and suitable amphibian breeding habitat in the study area are relatively few, scattered, and small in extent. (While the entire study area has not been surveyed for sensitive plants or amphibians, the T16 study was partially focused on areas of dispersed recreation activity.) Based on Figure 2-14 and supporting information from the terrestrial studies, sensitive plant and amphibian concerns can be summarized as follows:

• Amphibian breeding occurs in a pond within the reservoir drawdown zone near Channel Creek and location BN5.

• A small intermittent ponded area near where Road 1148 meets the reservoir at Scott Camp (BN15) is a potential seasonal amphibian breeding area. This feature is not technically a wetland.

• Swift Creek (BN17) may be the dispersed recreation location with the greatest potential for interaction with sensitive terrestrial resources. There are several known rare plant occurrences at this location. Ponded sections of an old roadbed are amphibian breeding habitat.

• A number of rare plant sightings were made along Park Creek just to the north of dispersed recreation location BW1.

• Ponds and wetlands that support amphibian breeding are located north of the north shore of Baker Lake and within Little Park Creek near location BW3.

• An amphibian breeding area is located near the southern end of Panorama Point Campground.

• The rare plant studies identified one occurrence to the east of location BW8, near Boulder Creek.

• The Upper Sandy (BW11) area has multiple concerns relative to sensitive terrestrial resources. A rare plant location was identified near this site and several others were found in quality wetland areas near the mouth of Little Sandy Creek. Amphibian breeding occurs in nearby ponds above the full-pool shoreline. These resources are also within walking distance of Lower Sandy (BW12).

• A rare plant occurrence and a wetland are located along a portion of the Depression Lake dike and the overflow ditch area to the east. These features appear to be approximately ¼ mile distant from the dispersed sites at Depression Lake.

• Rare plant sightings were recorded at or very close to location BE10 (Welker Creek) and several hundred feet east of location BE14 (Hollow Trunk).

The above observations are based simply on the proximity of mapped recreation sites and terrestrial resource features, and are not intended to indicate that use of these recreation sites is known or expected to have an adverse impact on the nearby terrestrial resources. Because of the proximity of sensitive resources, further investigation may be warranted and the potential for resource damage should be specifically considered in evaluating any proposed recreation measures for the subject sites.


Applicable Terrestrial Resource Studies Two other studies implemented by the Terrestrial Resources Working Group have particular applicability to the results of the R11 study and related future recreation planning. PSE released draft reports for both studies, designated as T21, Elk Habitat Mapping Study (Tressler and Davis, 2003) and T12, Grizzly Bear Spring Foraging Habitat Study (Tressler, Mohagen and Zablotney, 2003), in September 2003. T21 Elk Habitat Mapping Study The objectives of the Elk Habitat Mapping Study were to characterize the quality of the existing habitat in the T21 study area, based on the quality and quantity of the forage it could provide for elk; identify the areas in the watershed most often used by elk; and identify the areas where human use had the potential to diminish habitat quality, based on proximity to roads, recreational trails, developed recreation facilities and dispersed recreation sites (Tressler and Davis, 2003). The T21 study area generally consists of the portion of the Baker River watershed west of Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. Nearly one-third of the study area could not be assigned a habitat quality rating because applicable data were not available. Poor-quality habitat comprised nearly 85 percent of the remaining area that was characterized, while moderate- and good-quality habitat accounted for about 12 percent and 4 percent of the area, respectively. The draft study report noted that several patches of moderate and good habitat were located close to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. The area habitat area potentially affected by recreation use was determined by assigning variable distance buffers to the recreation features (roads, trails and sites) incorporated into the model analysis. The buffers ranged from 61 meters (from secondary roads) to 800 meters (from developed recreation sites), and were derived from a review of literature addressing observed relationships between elk use and various types of human disturbance (such as distances from roads or trails within which reduced elk use had been observed in field research in the western U.S.). Application of the distance buffers resulted in the conclusion that 72 percent of the modeled elk habitat was beyond the assumed range of potential human disturbance (while 28 percent was within the distance buffer of one or more recreation feature). The distance buffers around roads included 20 percent of the modeled elk habitat, accounting for over two thirds of all elk habitat assumed to be diminished by human use. Approximately 27 percent of the good- and moderate-quality elk habitat was within the buffer area around roads. The distance buffers applied to developed and dispersed recreation sites, plus associated roads, almost entirely cover a broad swath from Upper Baker Dam to the Baker Lake Resort and extending approximately 2 km (1.2 miles) west from Baker Lake (see Figure 3 in the September 2003 draft T21 study report). There are pockets of elk habitat in this zone outside of the assigned human disturbance buffers, but they are essentially surrounded by the buffers and isolated from other unaffected habitat. The elk habitat within this zone has predominantly poor forage quality, although there are several locations with multiple cells of moderate-quality habitat; most of these are concentrated in the lower reaches of Boulder Creek and Park Creek. With a few exceptions, such as one small patch near Boulder Creek, virtually all of the good-quality elk habitat appears to be located in the upper elevations of the T21 study area and outside of assigned human disturbance buffers.


Interpretation of the T21 results with respect to identifying specific effects of existing recreation sites on elk use in the Project vicinity is unclear. Based solely on a review of the applied distance buffers (e.g., Figure 3 of the T21 study), most reviewers would likely conclude that recreation sites and related features (roads) were reducing the quality of a sizable portion (nearly 30 percent) of the available elk habitat within the T21 study area, including a broad swath along the west side of Baker Lake. Alternatively, the study results include the observations that good- and moderate-quality elk habitat are limited in the study area, and that the primary determinant of any landscape to support elk is the quality of the foraging environment. Combined with the fact that the human disturbance buffers overlap comparatively little of the good- and moderate-quality elk habitat, those observations suggest that the actual effect of existing recreation on elk use of habitat in the Baker River basin may be relatively limited. In addition, it should be noted that the T21 study assumed that recreation use was adversely affecting elk habitat quality within the specified distance buffers, but the study scope did not include field confirmation of the existence or extent of those disturbance effects. The draft T21 report also noted in the rationale for the developed-site buffer that animals could become habituated to regular human activity, but retained the buffer distance at the 800-meter figure cited in a literature source. T12 Grizzly Bear Spring Foraging Habitat Study The objectives of the T12 study were to (1) determine the relative values of potential grizzly bear spring foraging habitats currently available in the Baker River watershed; (2) provide data that could be used to estimate the potential habitat values that could be provided in the future in the absence of the Project reservoirs; and (3) provide data that could be used to identify opportunities for enhancing the values of existing habitats (Tressler, Mohagen and Zablotney, 2003), in September 2003). The T12 study area was defined as the western hemlock and Pacific silver fir forest zones of the Baker River watershed. Within these vegetation zones, the study identified upland deciduous, riparian deciduous, forested wetland, shrub wetland and wet meadow habitat types as resources that could provide potential grizzly bear spring forage habitat. The distribution of these five habitat types within the study area was mapped using available GIS data, and a number of sites within each habitat type were sampled in the field for forage biomass measurements. Field biomass measurements included both all plant species considered to provide potential grizzly bear forage (species that have been documented in grizzly bear diets) and a subset of those species considered to be “important” forage (species with a high nutritional value that have been used regularly by bears). Analysis of the sampling data indicated that the wet meadow habitat type had the highest value as potential grizzly bear spring forage habitat, providing about twice as much forage biomass (in pounds per acre) as the forested wetland and shrub wetland types and nearly five times as much biomass as the deciduous and riparian forest types. The latter two habitat types had relatively little variation among the sampling sites and consistently low potential forage values. Sampling sites among the three wetland types all showed considerable variability in the amount of potential forage biomass available. The analysis of important forage yielded similar results, as the three wetland habitat types were determined to be similar and to provide substantially more (by a factor of up to 18) biomass of important species than the two forest habitat types. It is unclear how the results of the T12 study can or should be generalized with respect to the possible effects of existing recreation sites and uses on potential grizzly bear spring forage habitat. Figure 1 of the T12 draft report is identified as a map of the study area showing “potential spring forage habitats.” The map legend identifies three deciduous forest types; four shrub or grass/forb habitat types; and four wetland types, including the lacustrine reservoir-bottom


wetlands discussed in reference to Figures 2-12 and 2-13. When the distribution of recreation sites is compared to the distribution of all potential spring forage habitat types, it is apparent that many (if not most) of the recreation sites are in or very close to potential grizzly bear spring forage. For example, the Baker River trailhead area, the Baker Lake Resort, Panorama Point Campground, the Lower Sandy and Depression Lake dispersed camping areas and Kulshan Campground are all within ar adjacent to both deciduous forest and lacustrine intermittent wetland habitats. In addition, most of the remaining Baker Lake shoreline dispersed camping locations and the Bayview and Horseshoe Cove Campgrounds are adjacent to lacustrine intermittent wetland areas, most of which are relatively extensive. If the focus is restricted to the wet meadow, forested wetland and shrub wetland habitat types that provide by far the greatest amount of both potential spring forage and important forage, however, it appears that there are few, if any, recreation sites that are close to these wetland habitats, which are geographically quite limited within the study area. In addition, a larger unanswered question concerns whether any of the potential spring forage habitats could or would actually be used by grizzly bears, based on the current or likely future population distribution of the animals.


2.4 Recreation Opportunity Classification The fourth task defined for the R11 capacity and suitability analysis addressed the types of recreation settings and experiences appropriate for any given portion of the Project area, as a key consideration to be reviewed before site-specific recreation measures can be selected. The R11 study plan indicated this task would be conducted using a generalized adaptation of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) concept employed by the USFS for land use planning and management.

2.4.1 Methods The ROS is a conceptual framework for defining the types of recreation opportunities, physical settings and experiences a visitor can expect. As applied by the USFS, there are six ROS classes defined in terms of the degree to which they satisfy certain recreation experience needs, the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreational use. The six ROS classes form a continuum of recreation settings that range from Urban (highly developed) to Primitive (essentially unmodified). The USFS uses the ROS as both an inventory system and a management tool. National forest lands within the Baker River basin have been classified and mapped according to their existing ROS conditions, and the land management allocations reflected in the Forest Plan incorporate desired future ROS conditions. Because ROS classifications have already been developed for the USFS lands within the study area (i.e., the USFS lands surrounding Baker Lake), this information was applied directly in the capacity and suitability analysis, primarily based on a USFS GIS data layer indicating the ROS assignments to Baker River basin lands. The ROS concept can only be loosely applied in assessing recreational opportunities and experience types on the non-USFS lands within the study area, most of which are in private ownership. Because PSE and FERC do not have jurisdiction over such lands that are outside the Project boundary, it would be inappropriate to assign ROS classifications to all lands within the study area. Therefore, recreation opportunity classification for the Lake Shannon portion of the study area was considered through a broad-brush, qualitative adaptation of the ROS system. Segments of the study area around Lake Shannon were characterized with respect to the key ROS components (types of experience, natural environment modification, density of use, management status, etc.), and the ROS classification that would be most consistent with the existing conditions in each segment of the study area was identified. Because PSE does not have the authority to specify desired future conditions on lands outside of the Project boundary, however, the study did not include actual designation and mapping of ROS classifications for the Lake Shannon portion of the study area.


2.4.2 Results

Baker Lake Figure 2-16 depicts the distribution of the ROS classifications within the national forest lands surrounding Baker Lake. (This map was actually generated from the USFS GIS layer for visual quality objectives [VQO], which identifies the ROS classification corresponding to each VQO assignment.] Most of the land adjacent to Baker Lake is accessible by road and is assigned the Roaded Natural (RN) ROS classification. This designation applies to virtually the entire shoreline area from the Baker River southward to Upper Baker Dam, and the eastern shoreline area in the vicinity of FS Road 1107 up to approximately Anderson Creek. Small areas of existing development nodes within the expanse of RN lands are classified as Rural; these primarily include the developed campgrounds, sites such as the Shadow of the Sentinels and the former Koma Kulshan Guard Station (now used as a smokejumper base), and Project features such as the spawning beaches and the Upper Baker compound. A relatively narrow band along the eastern shoreline of Baker Lake from the Baker River down to Anderson Creek is classified as Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). This ROS assignment reflects the less-developed, unroaded setting in this area of the lake and the existence of motorized boat travel on the lake itself, which is a common form of access to the eastern shoreline. Near the upper part of Baker Lake, an area classified as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) the SPM zone, Designated wilderness occurs farther up the Noisy Creek drainage, above the SPNM area. The upper basin area also includes a number of relatively large patches of land classified as Roaded Modified (RM). These are areas where past timber harvests were concentrated. Most of these RM polygons are located north and west of Baker Lake and on the opposite side of FS Road 11 from the lake. One RM area is located in the upper reaches of the Anderson Creek drainage east of Baker Lake. Recreation measures proposed in the settlement agreement for implementation within the Baker Lake portion of the study area will need to be reviewed for consistency with the existing ROS classifications.


Lake Shannon Lands in the Lake Shannon portion of the study area have not been and will not be assigned ROS classifications. Based on the existing level of development and access around Lake Shannon, however, the correspondence of the existing settings to the ROS classifications on national forest land is reasonably evident. Within the immediate vicinity of the shoreline, the area on the east side of the lake from Lower Baker Dam up to the Lake Shannon Boat Ramp would presumably be considered Roaded Natural or, more likely, (based on the landscape modification from quarry operations) Roaded Modified. The shoreline area at the extreme northern end of the lake, in the vicinity of Sulphur Creek and Upper Baker Dam, would be considered Roaded Natural (as is indicated on Figure 2-16). All other shoreline areas of Lake Shannon have a recreation setting similar to that along most of the eastern shoreline of Baker Lake, i.e., a semi-primitive setting with motorized access, and would presumably be considered equivalent to the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS classification on national forest lands. The remainder of the Lake Shannon portion of the study area away from the shoreline zone has little development but is managed primarily as industrial forest land. The upland areas have extensive road networks and show considerable evidence of historical and recent timber harvests. Based on the degree of landscape modification, recreation settings in the vast majority of the area near Lake Shannon would probably be considered equivalent to the Roaded Modified classification on national forest lands. The developed lands within and adjacent to the community of Concrete would fit the Urban ROS classification.


3. R15 Recreation Trail Analysis This chapter of the report describes the methods and results for the capacity and suitability analysis relative to recreational trails. The organization of the chapter reflects the task structure defined in the R15 study plan, as summarized previously in Section 1.3.2. Sections 3.1 through 3.3 address the three technical tasks that comprised this component of the study. For each task, the report content includes a description of the methods and discussion of the results. The recreation trail analysis (R15) was accomplished through use of many of the same methods and materials described in Chapter 2 for the developed-facility capacity and suitability analysis. Three of the four constraint layers used in the R11 GIS analysis were also applied in a parallel GIS application for the trail analysis. The GIS analysis aggregated these three constraint layers to develop a composite constraint map. Therefore, most of the following discussion for the trail analysis refers to methods and results already described in Chapter 2 of this report.

3.1 Table Top Study

3.1.1 Methods A team of recreation and aesthetics working group members convened on November 4, 2002 to implement the first task of the R15 analysis. They discussed the ecological, soils and geologic hazards, and landownership constraint layers to identify existing recreational trails and to make an initial identification of potential trail routes. The trail routing considerations included landownership and management, desired trail experience, topography, and environmental factors. Potential new trail routes were identified to accomplish specific goals based on identified opportunity factors. Some of these opportunity factors were to provide linkages to existing trails and developed recreation facilities, or to provide walking, hiking, and/or bicycling routes between communities and activity areas such as campgrounds or watchable wildlife areas. Others were to utilize existing routes (road conversions, informal trails) and opportunities for support facilities (for example, an existing parking lot that could double as a trail head in the future) to provide new opportunities for trail-based recreation with minimal construction effort. In initial discussion of status and objectives for study R15, the Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) representative indicated that the highest priorities identified in the SCORP were for community walking and biking trails. IAC also wanted to see connections between or short trails from developed recreation sites, such as campgrounds and picnic areas. The IAC representative also stated the belief that mountain bikers are probably the most underserved user group in the project area, and suggested that when exploring family-based trail opportunities, trail surface, distance and terrain limitations relative to children and non-serious riders must be considered. These observations were incorporated into the objectives used to define trail routes in Task 1.

Trail Routing Constraints The team discussion of routing criteria and similar considerations included a number of important points representing constraints on the identification of potential trail routes.


There was general agreement that it would be preferable to keep any proposed trails on public lands (i.e., USFS and WDNR). However, the USFS indicated that the highest priority for the USFS would be to maintain the existing trail infrastructure and reduce the backlog work, which would include maintenance and resource protection on the existing trails. Building new trails on national forest land would therefore be a second priority. Questions over the limitations posed by grizzly bear habitat and the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) designation on USFS lands still need to be resolved. Potential new trail locations would probably have to stay away from the Swift Creek valley to avoid the bear migration corridor north of Baker Lake, which would likely confine any potential trail location in this area to the immediate corridor of Road 11. The area across Road 11 from Panorama Point is also used by black bears as spring habitat. The Mt. Baker National Recreation Area (NRA) is not within the LSR designation, so in that sense there would be more trail opportunities in the NRA (although any such trails would have less connection to Baker Lake). The USFS staff reported that the east side of Baker Lake was designated “semi-primitive non-motorized” in the 1990 Forest Plan, so motorized use is not permitted there. The area west of Baker Lake was designated “roaded natural,” which would allow more options for trail use. The Mt. Baker District had looked at the possibility of mountain bike use on the Baker Lake Trail when the trail was extended, but apparently concluded that bike use should not be authorized because of safety concerns in some locations. Soil limitations in this area also have to be recognized. The USFS indicated that the national forest lands generally do not have soils that can handle disturbance well. The USFS indicated the area near the southwestern part of Baker Lake was regarded as their most highly developed area in the basin. The highest level of recreation development should occur at Horseshoe Cove and Bayview, which could include short loop trails and trail connections to private lands in the vicinity, with decreasing intensity in areas farther up the lake. Existing ownership and access rights in some specific areas may need further investigation. One need is to determine who owns the roads on the east side of Lake Shannon. Another is to find out what specific access rights apply to PSE’s transmission line between Baker and Shannon, with respect to both use of the right-of-way and access rights to the roads used to get to the line. (It was subsequently learned that PSE has limited land rights for the 115 kV transmission line east of Lake Shannon. The easements give PSE the right to access the poles, via roads that are owned by others, and to control tall, woody vegetation in the right-of-way. They do not specify any other rights, such as building any other facilities within the ROW.) The range of PSE’s existing easement rights on the IP Forestry property on Baker Lake also is not entirely clear. Crown Pacific apparently gives permission to an organized trail bike group for an annual rally on CP lands east of Lake Shannon and south of Baker Lake, via the CP road intersecting FS Road 1107.

Trail Routing Opportunities The working group team also discussed trail-based recreation opportunities and needs. (The discussion of trail-based recreation needs should be considered an informal scoping discussion, as opposed to an in-depth needs assessment. The team conducting this part of the R15 study did not perform a quantitative analysis of trail conditions and needs. Needs for trails and all other recreation opportunities are addressed in the R16 Needs Analysis study.) This discussion essentially attempted to relate the current recreation opportunities, conditions and facilities to any proposed additions to the recreation infrastructure. Specific points are summarized as follows:


• The quality of the ride experience is the most important factor to mountain bike riders,

and it is not as important to have great aesthetics in a pristine setting around the trail. The IAC representative suggested the target trail situation would provide for 4 to 6 hours of good riding. Assuming an average travel rate of 8 mph, a trail route covering about 48 miles would be ideal for a single-day experience.

• The Forest Service would be interested in actions that would maintain cultural/historical

trail routes. One example of such a route might be the Swift Creek Trail, although it crosses grizzly bear habitat. There was an historical trail route from Concrete up to the Baker Lake area, and there were side trails from the main trail to fire lookouts. In addition to historical features, visual and wildlife interests would provide good features or opportunities for trail development. There are several interest features in the area north of Panorama Point and the Resort, including Park Creek, the old Morovitz homestead and some ponds. The Forest Service is considering closing some roads in that area, which could provide opportunities for mountain biking loops.

• Many of the users staying at the campgrounds are thought to be primarily interested in

having convenient and reasonably attractive places to walk, especially for families, as opposed to hiking trails (which imply a longer distance and/or more difficult activity). The IAC representative suggested it would be good to link, by trail, all of the sites owned by PSE, from Concrete on up to Upper Baker.

3.1.2 Results Using large-scale (1”=1,500’) maps indicating ownership, topography, water features and developed sites, the group marked out potential trail route locations or concepts that appeared to be worth further consideration. In general terms, these are described as:

• Rail-trail extension east from Concrete (depending on plans and limitations on the old rail ROW in this area)

• In-town connections from Concrete to the project • Trail from Concrete/Lower Baker running east of Lake Shannon up to Upper Baker,

possibly via the transmission line ROW or existing roads, and connecting to trails in the major developed-use around Kulshan and Horseshoe Cove

• Trail connections among developed facilities near the southwest part of Baker Lake • Trail along the west/north side of Baker Lake, from Horseshoe Cove to the Baker

River Trailhead; a route could generally follow the lakeshore or Road 11 • Trail route(s) through the Morovitz/Swift Creek area • Mountain bike loops on (prospective) closed logging roads north of Road 11,

between Baker Lake Resort and Shannon Creek The potential trail routes identified through this working group team meeting were drawn on the maps following the discussion above. Trail routes were defined to adhere as closely as possible to working group suggestions, physical and ecological constraints and opportunity factors. The potential trail routes resulting from this exercise were digitized and are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.


3.2 GIS Overlay and Analysis of Resource Maps

3.2.1 Methods This task involved GIS-based analysis of database layers for the resource characteristics that represent opportunities or constraints for the development of recreational trails. The data layers and methods applied to this task are essentially the same as those used in Section 2, the R11 capacity/suitability study. As discussed in Section 2, the same constraint layers were used for the trail analysis, with the exception of slope. Composite maps were also constructed for both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon using the ecological, soils and geologic hazard, and ownership constraint maps. Layer descriptions and component themes are shown in Table 2-1.

3.2.2 Constraint Mapping Results Results from the constraint mapping exercise were previously shown in Section 2.1.2. Descriptions of general patterns for the three constraint layers used for the R15analysis can be found in that section. Ecological constraint maps for Baker Lake are shown in Figure 2-1 and for Lake Shannon in Figure 2-2. Soils and geologic hazard constraints are shown in Figure 2-3 for Baker Lake and Figure 2-4 for Lake Shannon. Ownership constraints are shown in Figure 2-7 for Baker Lake and Figure 2-8 for Lake Shannon. For the purposes of this trail analysis, the potential trail routes defined in Task 1 were divided into 10 areas generally bounded by identifiable geographic features. Each area was further subdivided into a variable number of segments. The trail areas and segments are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. For each segment a linear measurement of that segment’s intersection with any of the constraint layers was calculated. Lengths of each segment are provided in Appendix A and specific lengths and constraint layer intersections are provided in Appendix B. The 10 areas are described as follows: Area 1: Concrete Area 1 includes all potential trail routes within and adjacent to the Town of Concrete. One potential trail route begins in Concrete and extends northward to Lower Baker Dam, with several possible options in the area between SR 20 and the Project operations complex. This area also includes several potential trail segments representing eastward extensions along SR 20 from the existing terminus of the Cascade Trail in Concrete. Area 2: Lake Shannon SE This area extends north from Lower Baker Dam to Thunder Creek. A single potential route parallels the eastern shore of Lake Shannon and includes a segment past the Lake Shannon Boat Ramp. The route identified on Figure 3-1 is based generally on the location of existing roads in this area; alternative concepts for a trail in this area, such as a route generally parallel to the shoreline, might merit consideration.


Area 3: Lake Shannon NE Area 3 includes the northeastern quadrant of Lake Shannon. The main route in this area extends from the north bank of Thunder Creek to the southernmost point of Baker Lake, just north of the Whatcom/Skagit county line. As in the case of Area 2, the potential route shown on the map is generally based on the location of existing roads east of Lake Shannon. Area 2 includes a spur route heading east up Thunder Creek. Area 4: Baker SW This area extends from the south Baker Lake trailhead on Road 1107 around to Bayview Campground along the west shore of Baker Lake. The main route follows the Baker Lake shoreline; it crosses Upper Baker Dam, continues along the eastern edge of Glover Mountain, crosses West Pass Dike and along the eastern edge of the IP Forestry property, and runs through Horseshoe Cove Campground before reaching Bayview. The potential network in this area includes a loop around Depression Lake, with a spur connection to Kulshan Campground, and a spur up the south side of Glover Mountain (which would link to an existing PSE trail). Area 5: Road 11 SW Area 5 is the landlocked area between FS Road 11 and the intensively developed campground area around Kulshan and Horseshoe Cove. The potential trail network for this area consists of a loop that begins and ends near Road 11 a short distance south of the junction with Road 1118 (the access road to Horseshoe Cove). Area 6: Road 11 W Area 6 extends from the Shadow of the Sentinels Trail to the Baker Lake Resort. The main possible route identified for this area primarily parallels FS Road 11 to its east. The route passes through Boulder Creek Campground and near Panorama Point Campground, and extends northward up Little Park Creek for a short distance before turning east and south to reach the Baker Lake Resort. The potential network for this area includes two connections eastward to the Baker Lake shoreline in the vicinity of Boulder Creek and a short loop near Little Park Creek. Area 7: Baker W This area includes the shoreline zone of Baker Lake from Bayview Campground to the Baker Lake Resort. The main potential route for this area generally follows the shoreline for the entire distance, including trail access through Panorama Point Campground. Figure 3-2 shows an alternate route that loops inward at Beaver Creek to avoid wetlands and other sensitive resources near the mouth of Little Sandy Creek. It intersects with two potential spur trails in Area 6, forming a loop in the Boulder Creek area, and with the main Area 6 route at two locations to provide a loop that would access Panorama Point, Little Park Creek and the Baker Lake Resort. The Area 7 route terminates at FS Road 11 south of Park Creek Campground.


Area 8: Park - Swift Area 8 includes the lower portions of the Park, Morovitz and Swift Creek drainages north of Baker Lake. The potential trail segments defined for this area describe a single route extending northwest from FS Road 11 along Park Creek, then north across Morovitz Creek and continuing to the Rainbow Creek (a tributary of Swift Creek) rock-hounding area. Area 9: Baker N Area 9 includes the shoreline zone along the upper part of Baker Lake. The main potential route for this area also begins at FS Road 11 north of the Baker Lake Resort and extends along the north shore of Baker Lake to the Baker River. The network includes a loop that would serve the Shannon Creek Campground and a short loop located at the trail terminus near the Baker River. Area 10: Road 1152 This area generally corresponds to the upland area north of Baker Lake and between Swift and Shannon Creeks. Potential trail routes identified for this area are located on existing spur roads that are part of the Road 1152 system that extends north from Baker Lake. The main route and three short spur segments were defined in response to the objective of providing suitable opportunities for mountain biking.

3.2.3 Composite Map Results This section points out general patterns for the location of the potential trail network as they relate to the composite constraint maps for Lake Shannon (Figure 3-3) and Baker Lake (Figure 3-4). The 10 potential trail areas (3 near Lake Shannon and 7 near Baker Lake) all traverse multiple constraint categories, as shown on the composite constraint maps. None of the potential routes are entirely on low- or no-constraint land. The potential trails in the lower Baker Basin are primarily to the east of Lake Shannon. The possible routes in the upper basin are primarily on the west and north sides of Baker Lake. The east side of Lake Shannon and west/north side of Baker Lake both have relatively large areas of lower constraints and appear more amenable to trail development.

Lake Shannon The majority of the trail mileage in Area 1 lies within medium-constraint lands. A single spur that extends from SR 20 north lies on high-constraint land. The high constraint is due to land ownership. The trail route in Area 2 travels north from Lower Baker Dam toward Thunder Creek on the east side of the lake. This stretch of trail runs almost entirely on low- and medium-constraint land. It crosses two small patches of high constraint that can be seen on the soils and geologic hazards constraint maps. The third and final section in the lower basin also traverses almost entirely medium-constraint land. It passes through two patches of low-constraint WDNR land. It also crosses two patches classified as high constraint, related to geologic hazards. The first is located along the trail spur that runs northeast along Thunder Creek, and the second lies directly under the PSE transmission lines.


Baker Lake Area 4, the first section of potential trail routes in the upper basin runs along the south and west lakeshore from the Baker Lake Trailhead to Bayview Campground. This trail traverses land almost entirely categorized as medium constraint. It also crosses a small amount of low constraint and high constraint. The most substantial area of high constraint is a wetland on the southern tip of the lake. The trail could easily be routed to the south of it. This section of trail runs almost entirely along the shorelines of Baker Lake and Depression Lake, which are in riparian areas and, therefore, classified as medium constraint. There are no ownership constraints and no soils and geologic hazard constraints. The next area is the loop west of Horseshoe Cove Campground. The loop would act as a connection between the trails along the lake and those that run along FS Road 11. Approximately half of this area is on high-constraint lands and the other half on low constraint. Nearly all of the high-constraint lands in this trail section are ancient forest. Area 6 runs parallel to FS Road 11 all the way to the Baker Lake Resort. It includes two loops along Boulder and Little Park Creeks. The section of the trail from Shadow of the Sentinels to Boulder Creek traverses equal amounts low and high constraint and minimal amounts of medium-constraint land. The medium-constraint areas are primarily associated with riparian areas where the route crosses steams and creeks. Most of the high-constraint areas are ancient forests. Trail routes that avoid these high-constraint areas would be difficult because the area is a complex patchwork of ancient forest. The only constraints from Boulder Creek to Park Creek are ecological. The spurs that run along creeks are typically sited in riparian areas and are therefore on medium-constraint land. Moving the trail back from the stream would, in most cases place them in low-constraint land, but would also lower their visual attractiveness. The trail area from Bayview Campground to the Baker Lake Resort and Park Creek parallels the lakeshore. Most of the land in this area has low and medium constraint. Much of the trail runs along the lakeshore and Park Creek, in the riparian areas and thus of medium constraint. There are minimal patches of high constraint along the route. They are the result of grizzly bear habitat, ancient forest and wetlands. The exact lengths of trail route crossing these high-constraint areas can be found in Appendix B. The eighth section of the potential trail routes extends from FS Road 11 north from Baker Lake Resort between Morovitz and Swift Creeks. This trail section is the most constrained of the 10. After passing through a section of medium constraint along Park Creek, nearly the entirety of the remaining path is high constraint. The high-constraint areas include substantial grizzly bear habitat, ancient forests, wetlands, and areas with sensitive plants (see Appendix B). Area 9 begins at the same point as the previous section. It extends east along the north shore of the lake and terminates on the west bank of the Baker River. The potential trail passes through a mix of low-, medium- and high-constraint lands. Most of the medium constraints are riparian areas along creeks and the lake. There are two substantial high-constraint areas, one north of the lake west of Shannon Creek and the other just past the north end of the lake. The small loop route near the Shannon Creek Campground currently passes through a mix of constraint levels, but could be shifted within a low constraint patch.


The final potential trail route heads north from FS Road 11 in the area of FS Road 1152. This route switches back twice through high-constraint land and then enters a patch of mixed high and low constraint. The high-constraint area includes grizzly bear habitat and ancient forest. The trail also passes through a low-constraint area that is associated with unstable soils near Chadwick Creek.

3.3 Field Review of Potential Routes/Locations An initial field reconnaissance of potential trail routes was undertaken in the summer of 2003. Interested participants from the Recreation Working Group and two members of the Terrestrial Resources Working Group walked and drove potential trail routes, using the maps presented in Section 3.2 as a guide. The field review was intended to provide a “reality check” on the opportunities (e.g., viewpoints, sites with potential for interpretation, favorable topography, existing roadbeds) and constraints (e.g., need for structures, observed presence of wetlands or other sensitive features, and so on). The objective of this task was to confirm whether the potential routes identified through mapping analysis are likely to be feasible and desirable. The field review effort concentrated on two key areas in which potential trail routes were identified as proposed measures for inclusion in the draft settlement agreement for the Project. General observations resulting from this field trip included the following:

Baker Lake Resort to Panorama Point Campground: • Opportunities for road-to-trail conversion exist north of Little Park Creek. • Due to the presence of extensive wetlands, bridging/crossing Little Park Creek would be

difficult in its lower reaches upstream from FS Road 11. • Elevated land to the north of Little Park Creek may be suitable for trail development and

could provide several potential elevated viewing opportunities of the creek and wetland. However, a trail routed along this rise would need to cross the FS Road 11 causeway to reach Panorama Point Campground, which could have safety implications.

• Potential trail sections pass through or are adjacent to recent clear cuts, mixed deciduous and “old growth” forests.

• Opportunities may exist to create multiple loops in this area.

West end of Depression Lake to Horseshoe Cove Campground: • Considerable road-to-trail conversion opportunities exist throughout this area. • User-made trails already exist along the shoreline of Baker Lake south of Horseshoe

Cove. • Potential trail sections pass through or are adjacent to recent clear cuts and mixed

deciduous and old-growth forests. • Opportunities may exist to create multiple loops in this area.

Future action on the results of the R15 trail analysis will occur through continued development of trail-related PME measures included in the Project settlement agreement. In general terms, the relicensing participants will review the results of the R16 Recreation Needs Analysis that apply to needs for trail-based recreation opportunities and identify specific proposed trail development actions that would address those needs and appear suitable based on the R15 analysis.


4. REFERENCES Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2003. Figure 12, Erosion and

Deposition. Unpublished maps (12 sheets) prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Baker River Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2150, Reservoir Erosion and Deposition Study. November 7, 2003.

Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 2004a. Dispersed Site Inventory Study (Study R12) Final Draft Report, Baker River Project Relicense. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy. Kirkland, Washington. February 2004.

Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 2004a. Recreation Visitor Survey Study (Study R13) Final Draft Report, Baker River Project Relicense. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy. Kirkland, Washington. March 2004.

Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 2003. Recreation Needs Analysis (Study R16) Draft Report, Baker River Project Relicense. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy. Kirkland, Washington. April 2003.

Tressler, Ronald and Ron Davis. 2003. Elk Habitat Mapping Study, Baker River Project Area. Relicense Study T21 Draft Report, FERC Project No. 2150. Draft 1, September 4, 2003. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. for Puget Sound Energy. Seattle, Washington.

Tressler, Ronald, Thomas I. Mohagen II and Joetta Zablotney. 2003. Baker River Relicensing Project, Grizzly Bear Spring Foraging Habitat Study. Relicense Study T12 Draft Report, FERC Project No. 2150. Prepared by EDAW, Inc., Hamer Environmental, L.P. and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. for Puget Sound Energy. Seattle, Washington.

U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Baker River Watershed Analysis. U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Seattle, Washington. August 2002.

Appendices

Appendix A Potential Trail Route Segment Lengths

Area Segment Length (m) Area Segment Length (m) Area Segment Length (m)1 1 1871.55 5 3 1509.27 8 6 786.221 2 411.30 5 4 409.10 8 7 1179.301 3 203.42 5 5 793.40 8 8 1064.281 4 946.03 5 6 1129.68 9 1 378.431 5 916.95 5 7 866.83 9 2 528.741 6 668.86 6 1 730.69 9 3 1012.891 7 538.64 6 2 247.29 9 4 713.231 8 645.26 6 3 425.33 9 5 514.781 9 1020.00 6 4 707.27 9 6 1079.682 1 1381.13 6 5 1233.78 9 7 1206.132 2 940.30 6 6 369.41 9 8 1034.862 3 1118.83 6 7 979.55 9 9 371.722 4 670.74 6 8 1283.01 9 10 644.372 5 638.62 6 9 1789.33 9 11 431.232 6 447.10 6 10 522.95 9 12 792.962 7 875.86 6 11 1253.46 9 13 742.382 8 1144.67 6 12 800.28 9 14 737.302 9 669.38 6 13 758.08 9 15 1037.163 1 854.26 6 14 297.22 9 16 1193.973 2 896.23 6 15 344.09 9 17 742.303 3 937.34 6 16 763.38 10 1 808.573 4 1227.92 6 17 729.11 10 2 1255.013 5 694.00 6 18 617.50 10 3 1571.133 6 1526.99 6 19 564.62 10 4 1238.383 7 1891.34 6 20 448.52 10 5 771.544 1 988.94 7 1 890.05 10 6 388.484 2 245.25 7 2 852.73 10 7 1383.434 3 794.70 7 3 963.38 10 8 1023.304 4 369.42 7 4 817.72 10 9 1077.444 5 201.68 7 5 821.854 6 466.58 7 6 546.154 7 1030.79 7 7 1292.344 8 368.79 7 8 1165.134 9 418.70 7 9 731.444 10 207.57 7 10 361.844 11 2099.71 7 11 825.144 12 380.36 7 12 521.564 13 325.71 7 13 1112.384 14 1610.40 7 14 667.854 15 470.86 7 15 229.324 16 1182.85 7 16 626.344 17 787.64 8 1 548.934 18 678.53 8 2 755.554 19 494.04 8 3 393.155 1 971.24 8 4 346.135 2 603.49 8 5 642.05

Area NamesArea 1: Concrete

Appendix APotential Trail Route Segment Lengths

Area 2: Lake Shannon SEArea 3: Lake Shannon NEArea 4: Baker SWArea 5: Road 11 SW

Area 10: Road 1152

Area 6: Road 11WArea 7: Baker WArea 8: Park-SwiftArea 9: Baker N

Appendix B Ecological Constraints by Potential Trail Segment

(in meters)

Begins in City of Concrete and extends to Lower Baker Dam. Includes all potential trail routessouth of Lower Baker Dam, including those in City of Concrete and east and west along SR 20.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat

Ancient Forests Wetlands

WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 1335.82 97.534 627.25 116.06 586.8 75.87 413.4 41.589 60.9

North from Lower Baker Dam to Thunder Creek.Parallels eastern shore of Lake Shannon and includes segment past Lake Shannon Boat Ramp.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 1381.12 649.93 539.94 348.75 291.36 185.97 401.98 197.09 257.8

From north bank of Thunder Ck to southernmost point of Baker L just north of Whatcom/Skagitcounty line. Includes route along east shore of L Shannon and spur heading east up Thunder Ck.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 155.32 57.63 165.14 451.15 208.96 173.37 594.8 56.5

Appendix B1Ecological Constraints by Potential Trail Segment

Area 1. Concrete.

Area 2. Lake Shannon SE.

Area 3. Lake Shannon NE.

1/4

From the south Baker L trailhead to Bayview CG along west shore of Baker L. Includes trail around Depression L. and Horseshoe Cove CG.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 851.52 198.03 794.7 145.54 369.45 201.76 163.17 1030.8 156.48 368.89 418.7 7.510 22.711 2099.7 330.6 250.612 380.413 325.714 1610.4 1.5 410.015 457.516 1182.8 380.017 787.618 678.5 52.819 494.0 326.1

Loop west of Horseshoe Cove and east of Road 11; begins, ends at Area 6 junction, near Road 11.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 14.2 223.5 424.12 603.53 219.2 255.74 59.65 429.26 53.9 517.67

Area 5. Road 11 SW.

Area 4. Baker SW.

2/4

From Shadow of the Sentinels trail to Baker L Resort, primarily parallels Road 11 to its east.Passes through Boulder Ck CG and includes western portion of Little Park Ck loop.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 71.7 237.62 132.53 131.6 87.94 221.8 588.15 91.6 466.16 187.9 76.77 104.2 808.18 197.3 1026.99 1662.8 115.610 382.8 109.1 7.811 280.5 42.1 35.9121314 240.115 344.116 763.417 134.618 111.21920 123.1

Follows western shore of Baker L from Bayview to Baker L Resort. Includes loop at Boulder Ck and eastern portion of Little Park Ck loop. Terminates at Road 11 south of Park Ck CG.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 890.1 246.2 21.82 852.7 91.83 963.4 70.44 817.7 280.9 446.45 505.9 178.1 211.36 529.3 172.2 37.87 233.9 529.88 1027.0 490.09 37.110 176.611 353.1 94.512 521.1 52.013 1076.7 138.8 133.314 667.915 212.516 617.1

Area 7. Baker W.

Area 6. Road 11 W.

3/4

From Road 11 at Park Ck, heads north along Park Ck, across Morovitz Ck toward Rainbow Ck. Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 129.3 209.92 134.8 117.0 232.7 547.83 147.9 229.5 176.04 208.1 316.55 97.1 535.66 107.1 663.37 431.2 109.88 49.8

From Road 11 at Park Ck, extends along/parallel to north shore of Baker L to the Baker River. Includes loop to Shannon Ck CG and loop at area terminus near Baker R.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 144.12 528.7 116.13 801.04 275.1 157.95 184.8 94.16 224.9 288.77 278.2 1076.48 243.0 510.69 371.710 644.411 143.0 129.712 495.0 306.613 742.414 737.3 50.9 68.815 899.1 492.0 73.816 1157.7 1030.717 621.7 29.5 528.0

Heads north from Area 9; uses part of Road 1152 system between Swift and Shannon Cks.Segment Number

Riparian Areas

Grizzly Habitat


WDNR WNHP

WDFW PHS

T16 Rare Plants

1 261.9 339.02 355.3 879.83 323.3 1571.14 42.7 1238.45 771.5 230.36 388.57 167.2 581.28 115.3 337.39 308.0 277.2

Area 9. Baker N.

Area 10. Road 1152.

Area 8. Park - Swift.

4/4

(in meters)


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

123 20.04 742.95 917.0678 643.89 160.5


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

1 1129.0 218.32 767.63 802.24 297.85678 159.19 119.8


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

12 777.73 319.54 203.656 84.37 112.2

Appendix B2Soils and Geologic Hazard Constraints by Potential Trail Segment

Area 1. Concrete.



1/4


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

123456 308.87 54.8 485.089

10111213141516171819


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

1234567

Area 5. Road 11 SW.

Area 4. Baker SW.

2/4


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

123456789

1011121314151617181920


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

123456789

10111213141516

Area 7. Baker W.

Area 6. Road 11 W.

3/4


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

12345678


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

1234567 422.58 229.09

10111213 358.114151617


Unstable Soils

Unstable Soils (V)

Lndslide Debris

Lndslide Origin

1 236.52 948.83 155.54567 190.88 321.79 248.5

Area 9. Baker N.

Area 10. Road 1152.


4/4

(in meters)


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 1871.52 411.33 9.9 193.54 567.6 378.45 538.8 378.26 203.1 465.87 193.5 108.9 236.28 88.6 530.7 25.99 92.9 927.1


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 1149.6 231.62 94.3 32.2 813.83 1059.5 59.34 670.75 638.66 447.17 471.5 404.38 216.6 928.19 349.6 319.8


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 621.7 232.62 313.8 582.53 924.8 12.54 930.9 284.8 12.25 694.06 438.2 1088.87 922.4 10.8 958.2

Appendix B3Land Ownership Constraints by Potential Trail Segment

Area 1. Concrete.



1/4


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 988.92 245.33 784.4 10.34 257.4 112.05 71.9 129.86 375.4 91.27 808.8 222.08 147.4 221.49 331.3 87.4

10 207.611 21.2 1288.1 790.412 380.413 325.714 631.8 978.615 470.916 1099.0 83.917 787.618 678.519 494.0


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 971.22 603.53 1509.34 409.15 793.46 1129.77 866.8

Area 5. Road 11 SW.

Area 4. Baker SW.

2/4


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 730.72 247.33 425.34 707.35 1233.86 369.47 979.58 1283.09 1789.3

10 522.911 1253.512 800.313 758.114 297.215 344.116 763.417 729.118 617.519 564.620 448.5


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 890.12 852.73 963.44 817.75 821.86 546.27 1292.38 1165.19 731.4

10 361.811 825.112 521.613 1112.414 667.915 229.316 626.3

Area 7. Baker W.

Area 6. Road 11 W.

3/4


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 548.92 755.53 393.24 346.15 642.06 786.27 1179.38 1064.3


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 378.42 528.73 1012.94 713.25 514.86 1079.77 1206.18 1034.99 371.7

10 644.411 431.212 793.013 742.414 737.315 1037.216 1194.017 742.3


PSE Lands

Public Lands

Corp Lands

Private Lands

1 808.62 1255.03 1571.14 1238.45 771.56 388.57 1383.48 1023.39 1077.4

Area 9. Baker N.

Area 10. Road 1152.


4/4

r11-r15 - recreation capacity and suitability analysis ... 2-8 land ownership – lake shannon ......

Documents