SCIENCE
--
-
º y //
DA
wº -º-
º º ºn. -
Land Management Plan U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement Wenatchee and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests
Summary O.
\

Cº - /
oversize shelf
- - º -
- -
Alpine Lakes Area
º
yº
"Tºº- º
}% º żº
ſº
Land Management Plan U.S. Department of Agriculture
* : * - Forest Servi
DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement wºma-maw ºne ºn tº
Summary O








. summary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Alpine Lakes Area Management Plan
Chelan, King, Kittitas, Snohomish Counties
Lead Agency:
Responsible Official:
For further information
Contact:
Abstract: \
Washington
USDA — Forest Service
R.E. Worthington, Regional Forester
Pacific Northwest Region (for National Forest lands)
Dale R. Potter
Alpine Lakes Area
Planning Team Leader
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee
National Forests
1601 Second Avenue Building
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 442-7160
The Environmental Impact Statement displays five alternatives which describe the management and resources
within the Alpine Lakes 393,360 acre Wilderness and Intended Wilderness and the 547,155 acre management unit.
The “No-action” or current management carried into the future alternative is one of the five alternatives that are
described. The estimated short and long term effects of implementing each of the alternatives are discussed and
evaluated. The Forest Service preferred alternative is identified and the rationale for this is shown.
Comments regarding this Statement must be received by the Forest Supervisor of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie or
Wenatchee National Forest by
Cover photo by Asahel Curtis. Reproduction of photogravure
published in 1900 in Artwork of the State of Washington by Edmond
S. Meany.
Asahel Curtis (1874-1941) was the younger brother of the celebrated
Edward Curtis, whose photographic studies of Native Americans are
a primary link with the American past. Attention is turning increas-
ingly to work by the younger Curtis, much of which captured for the
first time scenery in the Cascade Range. A nature trail and memorial
grove of old growth trees in the Alpine Lakes Area were named after
Curtis in 1964. His photograph of Mt. Index on the cover of this
document was taken prior to the turn of the century. It testifies to
the enduring hold which this region exerts on the sense of wonder.
SC \
a 79 Vicinity Map
Canada
washington
|-5
Alpine
E t!
"" Lakes Area
º
3. 2
8 3
.92
§
^_-_TY, Oregon
Évºr Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Wenatchee
National Forest H. National Forest
To Seattle
North
Bend
Ellensburg
2
Wilderness
Intended Wilderness
- Management Unit Boundary
The Alpine Lakes Area Management Act of 1976
instructed the Forest Service to “prepare, complete
and implement a single multiple-use plan for the
Federal lands in the Alpine Lakes management unit.”
This is a summary of a document which addresses
the first portion of that instruction. The Forest
Service included the most pertinent information and
explanation in its Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). Because of the size of the area,
the number and value of resources involved and the
intensity of interest which has been expressed, a
large document was necessarily produced. This sum-
mary is intended to supplement, not replace, the
larger DEIS. The latter should be consulted for more
details.
Five alternative management plans for the Alpine
Lakes Area were developed by the Forest Service in
the DEIS. Decisions about the use of resources and
management of activities were guided by issues,
concerns, and resource opportunities as well as by
local, regional and national goals and laws. Each
alternative was designed to be both legal and
feasible to implement. Alternative E is the Forest
Service preferred management plan. If this
Alternative becomes the Selected alternative in the
Final EIS, it is likely that it will be modified to some
extend in response to comment by the public and
other reviewers. This summary is intended to
facilitate response by people who care about the
future of the Alpine Lakes Area and wish to help
complete the management plan. A limited number of
copies of the complete DEIS are available at the
headquarters of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and
Wenatchee National Forests.
In reading this summary it is important to distinguish
between the 393,360 acres of Wilderness (both the
existing Wilderness and the Intended Wilderness
which Congress ordered the Forest Service to
acquire) and the surrounding 547,155 acres manage-
ment unit. The Wilderness is managed under authori-
ty of the Wilderness Act and the management unit
under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act and both
areas come under authority of the Alpine Lakes Area
Management Act of 1976. The 23,000 acre Nason
Ridge unit adjacent to the Alpine Lakes Area boun-
dary was included in the management plan as
directed by the Chelan Planning Unit Environmental
Statement to insure coordination and continuity of
management. Since the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was
established by Congress, questions about its size or
boundaries are not at issue.
Background
The birthdate of the Seattle based Mountaineers,
1906, attests to the long standing public attachment
to natural areas in this region. As early as 1920,
members of this organization and Oregon
Outdoorsmen sought the inclusion of the Alpine
Lakes Area in a Washington Cascades National Park.
The Forest Service designated 243,000 acres of the
º Cascades as the Alpine Lakes Limited Area
in 1946.
The onset of the environmental movement during the
1960's focused public attention on diminishing
wildlands and the importance of preserving a
relatively undisturbed area of great scenic beauty
almost immediately adjacent to the Puget Sound
Metropolitan population center. Proposals were set
forth by environmentalists, recreation associations,
industry and public resource agencies. A Forest
Service study team developed three alternatives and
made its boundary recommendations in 1973. Several
pieces of legislation were introduced. A compromise
was reached in February of 1976 which called for a
Wilderness surrounded by a management unit. On
July 12, 1976, President Gerald Ford signed the bill
designating the Alpine Lakes Area.
Using This Summary
Any effort to systematically study an area the size of
the Alpine Lakes inevitably results in a profusion of
categories which can be confusing. The Alpine Lakes
Area was temporarily divided into eight Resource
Complexes (see allocation maps for their locations).
This temporary subdivision assisted planners with
their inventory of resources and activities and helped
them determine the impact of various management
alternatives on different portions of the area.
Reviewers of this document can find out what is pro-
posed in any specific area of the Alpine Lakes of
special importance to them by referring to the rele-
- vant Resource Complex.
Resource Complexes are a planning tool and should
not be confused with Ranger Districts, the establish-
ed administrative division of National Forest land.
The boundaries of six Ranger Districts extend into
the area and the District Rangers will implement the
plan after its adoption. To avoid confusion between
this and other categories and subdivisions, a
glossary is included on every alternative map.
Maps included in the summary package are more
than supplemental material. They are central to the
understanding of this DEIS; the nature of manage-
ment which would occur under each alternative can
be seen by consulting them.
A number of management requirements would apply
regardless of which alternative or combination of
alternatives is finally selected. Some of these direc-
tions common to all alternatives are quite important
and a few are indicated in this summary. The re-
mainder can be found in Appendix A of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.




Looking southwest across Ewing Basin. Photo by
U.S. Forest Service.

What To Look For On Maps
Land Allocations
An initial task of the planners was the determination
of the land's capability to support various activities
in different portions of the area. The next step was
to determine suitability of these activities in light of
direction set forth in the Alpine Lakes Area
Management Act.
Capability/Suitability Analysis led to the development
of five land use allocations: Developed Sites, Special
Areas, General Forest, Scenic Forest and Dispersed
Recreation. Each calls for a different management
emphasis and the five alternatives all prescribe a dif-
ferent mix. Each of the allocations is depicted in a
different color on the maps immediately providing the
reviewer with a general sense of the management
emphasis called for in each alternative.
Different recreational experiences are provided in
four Wilderness use zones which reflect the ease or
difficulty of access. Transition, Semi-Primitive,
Primitive and Trailless Use Zones are identified on
the maps within the Wilderness.
Roads and Trails
Five Service Levels for the most critical roads and
four for trails and four wheel drive vehicle routes
have been established and are indicated on the alter-
native maps. Access is a critical element in use of
Alpine Lakes. The differences in Service Levels, as
indicated on the maps, provide important information
about the types of uses that would likely occur under
each alternative. Proposed roads and trails indicate
corridors through which access routes will eventually
pass—they do not show actual locations.
On the reverse side of each larger alternative map
four smaller resource maps appear. Included are:
Timber Component
Commercial timber harvest could occur on lands in-
cluded in three of five timber components—stan-
dard, special and marginal. Land in the unregulated
and unproductive components are not included in
the timber harvest base of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
and Wenatchee National Forests. Marginal compo-
nent lands can be harvested to salvage insect,
disease, fire, or wind damaged trees.
Visual Quality Objectives
The scenic value of land in the Alpine Lakes Area
was systematically inventoried and four visual
quality objectives defined. The “preservation” objec-
tive prohibits all but alteration by nature; “retention”
permits human alterations which are not evident to
the average viewer, “partial retention” allow changes
which remains subordinate to the surrounding land.
scape and “modification” accepts management
activities which visually dominate the natural setting
but borrow from naturally established form, line,
color and texture to minimize obtrusiveness. The
amount and location of land assigned to each objec-
tive varies in each alternative, as indicated on the
maps.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
This system for locating and managing the most
suitable sites for a broad range of recreational ac-
tivities includes five categories appropriate to the
Alpine Lakes Area. They range from “primitive” to
“rural” and are defined in terms of the degree to
which each satisfies a certain recreation need based
on area size, the extent to which the natural environ-
ment has been modified, the type of facilities
developed and the level of outdoor skills required.
The ROS maps show how much of the area would be
available for the different types of recreation in each
alternative.
Land Ownership
A considerable portion–30 percent—of the Alpine
Lakes management unit is in private ownership. To
realize the objective of each alternative and to pro-
tect and enhance certain values or improve ad-
ministration efficiency, future land purchases or ex-
changes may be desirable. To facilitate that possi-
bility, land was classified into five categories in each
alternative to display optimum ownership patterns.
Adjustments indicated in these recommended land
ownership patterns would require the agreement of
private landowners. This classification effort is a
planning guide, not an inflexible requirement.
%.
Photo by Richard F. Buscher.


Information on Maps
Figure 1 is an example demonstrating how informa-
tion about a specific area can be derived simply
by consulting the maps. The location involved is at
the end of the Cle Elum River road near Fish Lake
and the kinds and levels of activity allowed under
each alternative can be determined (definition of
terms can be found next to maps). This process can
be repeated for any site within the Alpine Lakes Area
of concern to you.
In this example the Forest Service Preferred
Alternative E indicates:
1. Emphasis would be on dispersed recreation.
2. The area would be managed for “semi-primitive
motorized” recreation experiences and to main-
tain a predominantly unmodified natural environ-
ment with minimum evidence (sights and
Sounds) of humans.
3. Visual management would be retention; manage-
ment activities would be permitted, but should
not be visually evident to the average viewer.
4. Timber would be classed in unregulated and un-
productive components. The unregulated lands
shown on the map are commercial forest land
that would not be managed for timber produc-
tion, and therefore, not harvested under normal
circumstances. Noncommercial forest land -
which produces less than 20 cubic feet per acre
of wood is considered unproductive.
5. Land ownership calls for a pattern emphasizing
the retention of national forest land.
6. The existing road would be obliterated.(Service
Level E).
7. The road would be replaced by a Service Level A
trail. Such trails are designed to accommodate
heavy use and at the same time blend into the
natural setting. Solitude could not be expected.
The horse symbol indicates that the area would
be maintained for horse and hiker use only.
Alternatives A through D display other options that
were studied by the Forest Service for the manage-
ment of this particular area.
Tables
While maps provide much information about where
various activities and developments could occur in
each alternative, reference to the equally important
tables is necessary to gain a sense of the
magnitudes involved.
A number of tables including the critical tabulation
of “acres” and “benefits” are included with the
maps. Table 1 displays a summary of these for the
alternatives.
Figure 1.
Example of Determining Management and Uses by Consulting the Maps.
Location: End of the current Cle Elum River Road near Fish Lake (T. 24 N., R. 14 E., Section 28)
A l t e r n a t i we
Maps A B C D E
Allocation Scenic Dispersed Dispersed Scenic Dispersed
Areas Forest Recreation Recreation Forest Recreation
Recreation
Opportunity
Spectrum Class Roaded Semi-Primitive Semi-Primitive Roaded Semi-Primitive
º Natural Motorized Motorized Natural Motorized
Visual Quality
Objectives Retention Retention Retention Retention Retention
Mix of: Mix of: Mix of: Mix of: Mix of:
Timber Special, unregulated unregulated Special, unregulated
Component marginal & & & marginal & &
unproductive unproductive unproductive unproductive unproductive
Land Category II Category ll Category ll Category II Cateogry ll
Ownership
Road Service Service Service Service Service
System Level B Level E Level E Level C Level E
Trail Service Service Service Service Service
System Level A Level B Level A Level A Level A
Key Directions Common To All
Alternatives
Visual Quality
to riparian lands and mitigate problems associated
with flood peaks, to protect water quality during
timber harvest, to contend with sediment load pro-
duced by a variety of activities and to meet state
water quality standards.
All projects will meet visual quality objectives. Areas
in the “primitive” and “semi-primitive nonmotorized “
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes and
Special Areas require additional measures to protect
visual quality in all alternatives.
Viewshed plans will be developed to assure that
activities and developments meet visual quality.
The Forest Service will Coordinate with other involv-
ed agencies in the investigation and protection of
potential additions to the state and Federal Scenic
Rivers programs.
Water
Protective measures are called for to prevent damage
Water pollution problems associated with logging
debris, herbicide and fertilizer application and recrea-
tion (especially that involving horses) have also pro-
duced Specific management directions applicable to
all alternatives.
3%, ©
• ? cº OC
A\| Cºe
º § § % §§.
\\\\\
3% % ſº
§§ 2% h
!

Table 1.
Summary of Acres and Long Term Benefits for Each Alternative.
Management Unit Allocations'
Developed Site
Special Area
General Forest
Scenic Forest
Dispersed Recreation
Wilderness Use Zones”
Transition
Semi-Primitive
Primitive
Trailless
TOTAL
Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum'
Rural
Roaded Natural
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Semi-Primitive
Nonmotorized
Primitive
TOTAL
Recreation Day-Use Areas"
Management unit
Wilderness
TOTAL
Trails"
Hiker only
Horse
Bike
4x4
TOTAL
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(RVD's)
(RVD's)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(Miles)
(Miles)
(Miles)
(Miles)
(Miles)
A
2,020
70,825
200,571
63,411
35,344
24,485
367,275
35,636
178,180
2,788
5,576
330,451
165,226
716,257
2,020
2,176,268
296,917
1,763,780
62,413
60,869
10,821
9,946
O
O
4,010,863
509,288
135,719
645,007
220
495
134
2,350
81,471
101,794
51,695
134,861
6,788
101,820
10,061
50,305
37,939
75,878
338,572
169,286
397,289
2,350
2,831,225
164,524
1,287,910
143,331
139,455
15,475
14,374
46,491
19,361
4,292,325
465,389
93,968
559,357
A l t e r n a t i we
C
4,280
94,605
46,839
117,676
108,771
15,273
229,095
23,030
115,150
20,364
40,728
334,693
167,347
552,320
4,280
2,831,225
176,514
1,503,747
166,263
166,263
20,878
20,878
4,235
2,118
4,524,231
493,715
128,593
622,308
2,020
75,692
216,302
76,783
1,374
13,333
199,995
33,697
168,485
8,121
16,242
338,209
169,105
553,827
2,020
2,178,878
300,024
1,884,171
65,406
65,406
4,453
4,453
268
134
4,133,042
488,973
167,725
656,698
152
493
167
2,350
95,979
136,822
82,971
54,049
12,242
183,630
32,242
161,210
10,182
20,364
338,694
169,347
534,551
2,350
2,838,083
235,268
1,544,700
122,824
122,824
11,303
11,303
426
213
4,517,123
493,767
114,083
607,850
1979 Mgt.
Situation
2,020
2,178,878
190,141
1,619,837
139,359
139,359
38,942
38,942
1,709
855
3,977,871
491,373
170,765
662,138
11
800
305
517
10
11
843
202
576
85
71
934
10
822
231
434
141
34
840
132
533
140
11
816
Table 1. (Continued)
1979 Mgt.
A B C D E Situation
Wood Fiber Production"
Standard (acres) 90,111 11,512 14,533 30,269 24,176 30,269
(MBF) 36,469 4,702 6,019 12,938 9,785 8,900
Special (acres) 86,125 103,047 104,287 141,808 132,519 141,808
(MBF) 32,632 39,604 39,517 54,315 51,369 34,400
Marginal (acres) 21,456 7,340 7,619 21,769 12,263 21,769
(MBF) 8,808 2,974 3,116 8,867 4,901 0.
TOTAL Regulated (MBF) 77,909 47,280 48,652 76,120 66,055 7
Unregulated (acres) 23,043 100,459 95,720 25,382 51,902 25,382
Unproductive (acres) 151,436 149,813 150,012 152,943 151,311 152,943
Water"
Annual Water Flow increase
due to Timber Harvest (acre ff) 22,289 13,194 16,692 20,916 17,846 0.
Range"
Commercial Grazing (acres) 89,451 73,695 73,695 89,451 73,695 89,451
Available Forage (AUM's) 1,459 1,441 1,241 1,459 1,421 1,459
Roads'
Acres 8,414 6,608 6,874 8,211 8,141 5,656
Miles 1,202 944 982 1,173 1,163 808
Aggregate Material (Cubic Yos) 3,088,000 2,408,200 2,489,600 2,999,400 2,970,400 N/A
Visual Quality”
Preservation (Acres) 420,860 472,922 436,586 411,149 424,336 411,149
Retention (Acres) 97,901 155,236 149,773 111,276 104,915 111,276
Partial Retention (Acres) 104,581 116,196 151,647 181,424 180,192 181,424
Modification (Acres) 142,189 21,177 27,525 61,682 56,088 61,682
Land Ownership” tº
Category I (Acres) 393,360 393,360 393,360 393,360 393,360 N/A
Category ll (Acres) 195,395 362,518 437,417 195,003 302,218 N/A
Category Ill (Acres) 263,209 144,273 70,923 304,324 203,697 N/A
Category IV (Acres) 63,257 28,504 13,828 22,411 15,997 N/A
Category V (Acres) 13,434 O 13,127 13,557 13,283 N/A
'Figures cover Forest Service lands in the management unit.
*Figures cover all lands in the Wilderness and intended Wilderness.
*Figures cover Forest Service lands in the management unit and all lands in the Wilderness, and Intended Wilderness.
“Figures cover all lands in the Alpine Lakes Area.
"Figures cover Forest Service lands in the management unit, Wilderness and intended Wilderness.
A l t e r n a t i we
"The marginal component was not calculated for the 1979 management situation. The relatively small acreage in this class is available for harvest
under certain circumstances, but it is not figured into the programmed allowable harvest.
Totals for each Alternative included standard, special, and marginal timber components. Totals for the 1979 management situation include only the
standard and special timber components.
"insufficient records to calculate 1979 management situation.
"Area includes all lands in the Alpine Lakes area except 11,860 acres in Keechelus, Kachess and Cle Elum Lakes.
Category I — Forest Service retain or acquire as directed by Congress.
Category II — Forest Service retain or acquire as needed for administration or special designation.
Category ill — Neutral (management the same regardless of ownership).
Category IV — Forest Service candidates for disposal.
Category V – Additional intensive study needed to determine priority of ownership.
Transportation
Five Service Levels for roads and four for trails are
defined in the DEIS “Directions Common to All
Alternatives.” The definition of these are found in
the Appendix of this Summary. They should be con-
sulted by anyone concerned about transportation
planning in overall Alpine Lakes management. Public
discussion focused attention on 80 roads in the ap-
proximately 1,250 mile road system. The greatest
concern has been with access to the Wilderness.
Easements will be acquired and necessary construc-
tion performed for two additions to the National Trail
System: the Nason Ridge and County Line Trails.
Recreation
All areas will be managed according to the re-
quirements of one of five recreation opportunity
spectrum classes. Specific requirements are set
forth in each class for visual quality, public informa-
tion, regulations and controls, facilities, access and
Signing.
Cultural
A determination of significance will be made on each
of the identified cultural sites before any recom-
mended project is implemented. Inventory and con-
Sultation with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) will precede each land disturbing activity. For
any site eligible for the National Register, a deter-
mination of the project's effect will be developed in
consultation with SHPO. If adverse effects are an-
ticipated, mitigative measures must be considered.
A cultural resource inventory of the entire area is to
be completed by 1990.
Fire
Under all alternatives, wildfires will be suppressed.
The Alpine Lakes Area has been mapped into one of
three prescribed fire zones based on the compati-
bility of a prescribed fire with expected production.
Each zone has a specified maximum prescribed fire
intensity which can be tolerated without jeopardizing
the assigned level of productivity.
Land Ownership
To protect and enhance certain values and improve
administrative efficiency, an optimum pattern of land
ownership in the area should be sought.
Wildlife and Fish
Close cooperation is required with the state and
Federal fish, game and wildlife agencies to maintain
viable fish and wildlife populations and habitat diver-
sity. Riparian zones are of particular concern.
Timber
Under all alternatives, commercial forest land in the
standard and special components will be program-
med for harvest. Current national, regional and the
1963 Wenatchee and Snoqualmie Timber
Management Plans (amended) will apply to the
Alpine Lakes management unit. Silvicultural prac-
tices will be designed to maximize growth and
minimize natural mortality. Silvicultural prescriptions
will recognize past management history, physical
site condition and other resource opportunities for
determining specific timber stand treatment.
The Alternatives
Alternative
This management option would emphasize:
—Wood fiber production on commercial forest lands.
—Roadless dispersed recreation on noncommercial
and inaccessible forest land.
—Motorized “roaded natural” recreation on Com-
mercial forest lands.
—High level of recreation use in the Wilderness.
—Protection of Special Areas when that does not
appreciably reduce wood fiber production.
Special Areas
The following portions of the Alpines Lakes Area
would receive special management attention in
Alternative A. They are shown on the large map in
blue.
Acres
Mt. Index Scenic Area 11,706
Stevens Pass Historic District 8,454
Tumwater Scenic Area 5,032
Tumwater Botanical Area 1,104
Asahel Curtis Recreation Area 129
Teanaway Recreation Area 44,400
Total 70,825
Management Direction and Effects
of implementation
Visual Quality
1. Maintain or enhance scenic quality on all:
a. Variety Class “A” landscapes (those with excep-
tional Scenic value).
b. Landscapes seen from only the most heavily
used viewing areas, trails and roads.
2. Take advantage of foreground screening where it
exists to permit more extensive timber harvest
on land in mixed private and public ownership.
Alternative A would produce the greatest negative
impact on Scenic quality, both short and long term.
Timber harvesting and road construction could
dominate up to 40 percent of the federal lands in the
management unit, but the foreground (% — V2 mile)
would be retained as a setting of natural appearance
for Scenic highways and rivers. Visual impacts would
be seen both within the management unit and from
many portions of the Wilderness.
Transportation
Approximately 63 miles of existing road would be
reconstructed and 394 miles of new road con-
structed. Service Levels which the road system
ultimately would provide are shown on the Land
Allocation Map. Currently unroaded areas showing
the General Forest Allocation would have roads if
this Alternative was fully implemented.
Alternative A would ultimately require that 8,414
acres of land in the management unit, 2.3 percent of
the national forest land, be committed to roads.
Higher road Standards, increased road density, new
trail construction and changes in the mode of travel
would make the area more accessible, particularly in
the Pratt River, Maloney Ridge, Coulter Creek and
Thorp Mountain areas. About 93 percent of the
Management unit would be accessible for day use
when the transportation system is in place. Approx-
imately 35 percent of the Wilderness would be
available to the average day user.
Recreation
Four “Experience Levels” have been established for
camping facilities deemed appropriate in the Alpine
Lakes Area. They are graduated from areas where
there has been minimal alteration of the natural set-
ting, Experience Level 1, to relatively heavy modifica-
tion, with numerous user Comforts and con-
veniences, Experience Level 4.
In Alternative A, the distribution by Experience
Levels for currently existing overnight campgrounds
would be: Level 2, five campgrounds; Level 3, 26; and
Level 4, six. No additional campgrounds would be
constructed. The five existing day-use sites would be
managed as Level 3 facilities and winter sports com-
plexes would remain in the condition specified by
current use permits.
Trails would be constructed, reconstructed and main-
tained according to Service Levels described and in-
dicated on the Alternative A Allocation Map.
Trailheads would be developed and maintained Com-
mensurate with the Service Level of trails they
access. In Alternative A this would require additional
development at 27 trailheads.
Approximately four million recreation visitor-days
(RVD) would be accommodated, about 122,000 RVD's
less than Alternative D (the current situation ex-
tended). This would be the lowest level of recrea-
tional opportunity in the management unit among the
five alternatives and the Second narrowest Spectrum
of activities. The need for “roaded natural” areas
would be exceeded and the need for “semi-primitive
motorized” recreation would be met during the years
of the plan's implementation. It would not meet the
need for “rural,” “semi-primitive nonmotorized” or
“primitive” opportunities in the management unit.
Wilderness
An emphasis would be placed on recreational use of
the Wilderness under Alternative A. The largest in-
crease in visitation possible under constraints
established by the Wilderness Act and Region 6
standards would be accommodated. Wilderness use
zones are displayed on the Allocation Map.
Entrance permits would be required for the entire
Wilderness to distribute use.
Current commercial outfitting and guide permits
would be continued in Alternative A and others
added if need is established and conflict with other
visitors can be avoided. Commercial grazing
allotments would be continued and additional per-
mits could be issued if vegetative changes such as
those created by fire result in additional forage.
Recreational floatplane landing would be permitted
at the 19 lakes with an established history of prior
use (as provided for in Section (d) (1) of the Wilder-
ness Act).
The Enchantment Area core would be managed
within Region 6 standards of acceptable bio-physical
resource impacts but the number of encounters with
other people which visitors could expect would ex-
ceed those standards. A carrying capacity of 100 per-
sons at one time (PAOT) would be set.
Only primitive pit and vault toilets would be located
within the Enchantment area. They would be located
near camp areas but away from fragile vegetation,
soils, water bodies, wet areas and water Courses.
The toilets would be serviced annually by helicopter.
Campfires would be banned (camp stoves required)
everywhere within the Enchantment Area core except
the Rat Creek drainage, dogs would be discouraged,
camping would be restricted to designated camp-
sites and visits would be limited to two nights. The
designated campsites would be located on the most
durable soils, on unvegetated sites or on vegetated
sites least susceptible to damage.
Because it would permit the greatest number of
visitors, this Alternative would produce the heaviest
bio-physical impact on the Wilderness and provide the
least opportunity for Solitude. The greatest amount
of trail would be constructed and maintained at the
highest service levels. Carrying capacity would be
about 716,000 RVD's annually; 162,000 RVD's greater
than if the current Situation were extended into the
future (Alternative D). Recreation needs would be
met until the early 1990's. Alternative A would be the
most expensive to implement.
Timber
Alternative A allows for the largest timber harvest
from commercial forest land of the five alternatives.
The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National
Forests Timber Management Plans as amended
would provide the authority for scheduling harvest.
The locations of standard, special, marginal and un-
productive timber components are displayed on the
resource map.
Emphasis would be placed on the rapid conversion
of over-mature and mature timber stands to young
managed timber stands.
Under short term assumptions, 50 million board feet
of timber could be taken from the 176,236 acres
available for harvest. In the long term, yield could
reach 69 million board feet, a 60 percent increase
over the average timber harvest during the past ten
years.
Alternative A would make the greatest contribution
to the local timber economy.
Cultural (See Directions Common to All Alternatives)
Logging operations, road construction and easier
access in Alternative A pose the greatest threat to
cultural resources of the five management options.
Impacts could be serious in the Wilderness because
of the increased level of visitation.
The cost of inventory and mitigation of damage to
cultural sites could be high.
Alternative
This management option would emphasize:
—Dispersed and undeveloped recreation.
—Low levels of recreation and more Solitude in the
Wilderness.
It would provide for wood fiber output on currently
accessed commercial forest lands.
Special Areas
The following areas would receive special manage-
ment attention in Alternative B. They are shown on
the large map in blue.
Acres
Mt. Index Scenic Area 15,671
Stevens Pass Historic District 8,454
Tumwater Scenic Area 5,734
Tumwater Botanical Area 1,104
Denny Creek Scenic Area 946
Teanaway Recreation Area 46,966
Asahel Curtis Recreation Area 129
Red Top Recreation Area 347
Eldorado Research Natural Area 1,221
Blewett Historic District 899
Total 81,471
Management Direction and Effects
of Implementation
Visual Quality
Maintain or enhance scenic quality in areas Seen
from trails and use areas associated with primitive
recreation and all areas seen from major Wilderness
access and recreation routes.
This Alternative would have the best long term effect
on visual quality. About 20 percent of the manage-
ment unit including scenic rivers and highways
would be managed to preserve natural conditions.
More than half of the existing evidence of human act-
ivities would be mitigated and subordinated to the
natural landscape. There would be little modification
of natural conditions in the Wilderness and activities
visible from the Wilderness would be managed to
reduce the visual impact.
Transportation
Emphasis on primitive recreation and a lower level of
10
timber harvest would require lower road standards
and maintenance levels.
Regulation and traffic control would accomplish
resource objectives. The cost of improving known
safety hazards and controlling resource damage
would be low.
Low standard, low maintenance hiker trails would
predominate in the Wilderness. Higher horse and
hiker trails would be located in dispersed recreation
areas of the management unit.
Alternative B would ultimately commit 6,608 acres of
land to roads, 1.8 percent of the national forest land
in the management unit.
About 85 percent of the management unit and 24 per-
cent of the Wilderness would be accessible for day
use when the transportation system is in place.
Reduced road standards and road closures would
make many areas difficult to reach by day users,
thus increasing pressure on more easily accessible
areas.
Recreation
In Alternative B, the distribution of Experience Levels
for overnight campgrounds would be: Level 1, two
campgrounds; Level 2, three; Level 3, 21; Level 4, six.
Five campgrounds would be converted to day-use
sites and all existing day-use sites would be main-
tained at Experience Level 3. Twelve Level 3 and four
Level 4 campgrounds would be constructed as
demand materializes.
Winter sports development would be maintained at
the level called for by current use permits.
Facilities would be improved at 24 trailheads com-
mensurate with the Service Level of trails being
accessed.
Recreation residence special use permits would be
phased out and residences removed in the Gale
Creek (Kachess Campground extension) and Lake
Cle Elum (Speelyi Campground) areas as needed to
accommodate campground development.
The Red Top Recreation Area would be managed to
enhance opportunities for rock hounding.
Alternative B would provide for approximately 4.3
million recreation visitor-days of use, about 159,000
more than the current situation extended (Alternative
D). It would result in a broad recreation opportunity
spectrum with the greatest opportunity for
“primitive” recreation. It would meet the anticipated
Mount Stuart from Ingalls Pass. Photo by Gary A. Morrison.
demand for “semi-primitive motorized” only during
the early years of the plan's implementation. The ex-
pected need for “rural” recreation would be met
when the new campgrounds are in place. The ex-
pected need for “semi-primitive nonmotorized”
recreation would not be met but Alternative B would
provide the greatest opportunity for “primitive”
recreation.
Wilderness
The emphasis in Wilderness management would be
to preserve natural qualities and provide “primitive"
recreation affording the greatest opportunity for
solitude by encouraging a relatively low level of
visitation. Entrance permits would be required to in-
sure that the prescribed carrying capacities are not
exceeded within the Wilderness. Wilderness use
zones are displayed on the Allocation Map.
Commercial outfitting and guide permits would be
continued only where they do not conflict with use
of the Wilderness by the general public. Recreational
floatplane landing would be permitted on Otter and
Phillipa Lakes.
The carrying capacity for the core Enchantment Area
would be 20 persons at one time. Dogs would be
- - -
- - - - - º - - - -
--- - - º - - -
- º º -
banned from the core area and a minimum number
of primitive pit toilets would be provided. Also in the
Enchantment Area, campfires, except camp stoves,
would be prohibited, stays would be limited to two
nights and party size limited to six persons.
Because it would provide the least amount of access
and have the greatest number of restrictions, Alterna-
tive B would result in the lowest bio-physical impact
on the Wilderness. The trail system would be less
than all but Alternative D, the current situation extend-
ed, and would be maintained at the lowest Service
Levels. It would accommodate 397,000 recreation visit-
or days which is 156,000 less than Alternative D.
Based on a predicted 7 percent annual increase in
use, the Wilderness could be expected to meet
recreation needs through the early 1980's. Alternative
B would be the least expensive to implement.
Timber
Scheduling of timber harvest would continue under
the authority of the amended 1963 Wenatchee and
Snoqualmie Working Circle Timber Management
Plans. Silvicultural priorities would be adjusted to
ensure compatibility with visual quality standards
and undeveloped recreation.

The short term timber output in Alternative B would
be 49 percent less than Alternative D, the current
situation extended, making this the alternative of
least utilization in terms of wood fiber. It would
designate 114,714 acres of regulated commercial
forest available for harvest.
Alternative B would have the most negative impact
on the local timber economy.
Cultural (See Directions Common
to All Alternatives)
Because of a reduction in ground disturbing
activities, Alternative B would pose a relatively minor
threat to cultural sites. It would permit a full range of
opportunities for cultural resource management and
interpretation.
Alternative
This management plan would emphasize variety in
recreational opportunities, both in the management
unit and Wilderness. Wilderness visitation would be
kept at a moderate level. Wood fiber production
would occur on currently accessed commercial
forest lands.
Special Areas
The following areas shown in blue on the large maps
would receive special management attention in
Alternative C.
Acres
Mt. Index Scenic Area 15,671
Stevens Pass Historic District 8,454
Tumwater Scenic Area 5,734
Tumwater Botanical Area 1,104
Asahel Curtis Recreation Area 129
Teanaway Recreation Area 71,321
Denny Creek Scenic Area 946
Red Top Recreation Area 347
Blewett Historic District 899
Total 104,605
Management Direction and Effects
of Implementation
Visual Quality
Alternative C would improve opportunities to view
natural appearing landscapes from roads and
developed recreation sites. Visual quality would be
maintained or enhanced in all areas seen from roads,
trails and areas identified as scenically important by
the public.
Alternative C would be similiar to B except for a
reduction in the amount of land managed in accor-
dance with the most restrictive visual quality objec-
tives. The increased level of trail construction would
produce a Somewhat greater impact on visual quality
in the Wilderness.
Transportation
Alternative C would improve access to planned camp
grounds and accommodate increased recreation traf-
fic. To achieve the wide variety of recreational
opportunities, the system of trails and four wheel
drive routes, would be the most extensive in this
Alternative.
About 90 percent of the management unit would be
accessible for day use under Alternative C. Thirty-
three percent of the Wilderness would be available to
day users. The completed road system would occupy
6,874 acres of land, 1.8 percent of national forest
land in the management unit.
Many day-use areas would be expected to experience
heavy use. Improved day-use opportunities would be
provided in the Mt. Index-Crosby Mountain and Red
Mountain areas.
Three roads, a total of eight and one half miles,
would be obliterated.
Recreation
Alternative C distributes overnight campgrounds,
ranging from the least to the most extensively
developed, in this manner: Experience Level 1, two
campgrounds; Level 2, three; Level 3, 21; Level 4, six.
Five campgrounds would be converted to day use
sites. Sixteen new campgrounds would eventually be
built, 12 of them Level 3 and four Level 4. In addition
to the campgrounds proposed for development, an
additional 56 highly potential development sites
would be reserved for possible development beyond
the year 2000.
Developed winter sports complexes would be main-
tained at current levels of use unless a need for
expansion is established.
Thirty-two trailheads would require improvements to
become compatible with the types of trails they
aCCGSS.
Recreation residence special use permits would be
phased out and residences removed as needed to
permit campground development in the Gale Creek
(Kachess Campground extension) and Lake Cle
Elum (Speelyi Campground) areas.
The Red Top Recreation Area would be managed for
rockhounds.
Group camping facilities would be developed adja-
cent to Icicle Creek west of Rock Island
Campground.
Alternative C would accommodate the largest
number of recreationists, 4.5 million recreation
visitor days (RVD). This is approximately 391,000
RVD's more than Alternative D, the current situation
extended. It would produce the broadest recreation
opportunity spectrum and exceed anticipated need
for “roaded natural” recreation. The demand for
“semi-primitive motorized” recreation would be met
only during the early years of implementation. The
need for “rural” recreation opportunities would be
provided for, but “semi-primitive nonmotorized” and
“primitive” opportunities would not.
Wilderness
The emphasis on recreation variety in Alternative C
would extend to the Wilderness, where a moderate
level of use would occur. There would be voluntary
self-registration in all areas. Specific carrying
capacities would be set for heavy use sites with en-
trance permits required if indirect management
measures prove to be insufficient. Wilderness use
zones are displayed on the Allocation Map.
Commercial outfitting would have to be compatible
with general public use. Floatplane landings would
be allowed for recreational purposes on Waptus and
Dorothy Lakes.
The carrying capacity for the core Enchantment Area
would be 50 persons at one time. Other provisions
for the Enchantment Core include primitive pit and
vault toilets and bin composters; a prohibition of
campfires except camp Stoves in all but the Rat
Creek drainage; a prohibition on the discharge of
firearms except during hunting season; limit stay to
two nights; and limit party size to six. Dogs would be
permitted.
The second greatest bio-physical impact on the
Wilderness and the second largest number of
visitors would result under Alternative C. Approxi-
mately 552,000 recreation visitor days of use could
be accommodated annually which is approximately
1,500 RVD's less than Alternative D (current situation
extended). It would meet anticipated recreational
needs until the late 1980's and would be the Second
most costly alternative to implement.
11
12
Timber
Regulated commercial forest land available for
harvest would total 118,976 acres in Alternative C. In
the short-term, 21.6 million board feet could be
harvested annually and 45.6 million board feet over
the long-term. Wood fiber production would be less
than all but Alternative B and the local timber
economy would be adversely affected.
Cultural (See Directions Common
to All Alternatives)
The relatively small amount of ground disturbing
activity would pose a moderate to low threat to
cultural sites, but the high level of motorized recrea-
tion could produce damage by vehicles and the
potential for vandalism. Trail construction in the
Kachess and loicle Resource Complexes could lead
to cultural site disturbances, but Other trail Construc-
tion could increase the opportunities for cultural
interpretation.
Cultural sites in areas programed for timber harvest
— I-90 and Highway 97 Complexes — would have to
be protected.
Alternative (the current
situation extended)
Alternative D is a projection of current management
practices. At this moment, it constitutes a “no
action” plan and is useful in comparing various pro-
posals with the current situation. A continuation of
current practices, of course, would produce changes,
many of them quite extensive.
Special Areas
The following areas shown on the large map in blue,
currently receive special management attention.
Acres
Mt. Index Scenic Area 13,173
Stevens Pass Historic District 8,454
Tumwater Scenic Area 5,734
Tumwater Botanical Area 1,104
Asahel Curtis Recreation Area 129
Teanaway Recreation Area 47,098
Total 75,692
Management Direction and Effects
of Implementation
Visual Quality
Adjust current scenic quality protection practices to
take expected increases in recreational visitation
into account.
Areas in which human activity dominates the natural
landscape would increase but in the long term would
shift to less sensitive areas. Visual quality in the
Wilderness would be adversely affected by easier
access and increases in day use.
Transportation
The Alternative D Allocation Map shows the pro-
jected road Corridors, Service Levels and modes of
trail travel. Public recreation travel by automobile
would be prohibited on timber management roads
planned for the Silver Creek and Pratt River areas.
Approximately 89 percent of the management unit
would be accessible for day use when Alternative D's
transportation plan was completely implemented.
Forty-three percent of the Wilderness would be made
available to day visitors. It would commit 8,211 acres
of land or 2.2 percent of national forest land in the
management unit to roads. No major roads would be
obliterated.
Recreation
Four developed campgrounds would be maintained
at Experience Level 2; 26 at Level 3 and six at Level
4. No additional campgrounds would be constructed.
The five existing day-use sites would be maintained
at Experience Level 3 and 18 trailheads would be
improved.
Developed ski areas would continue unchanged
unless a need for expansion is demonstrated. Areas
with recreational mining potential will be maintained
for that purpose unless claims or mineral leases
restrict public entry.
Alternative D would produce the most narrow recrea-
tion opportunity Spectrum of all alternatives. The 4.1
million recreation visitor days called for in D would
result in the second lowest total in the management
unit. Most of the opportunities provided would be
“roaded natural.” Very few opportunities for “semi-
primitive motorized” recreation would be provided.
Opportunities for “semi-primitive nonmotorized” and
“primitive” recreation would be eliminated in the
management unit.
Wilderness
Voluntary registration would be encouraged at major
trailheads. User awareness techniques rather than
permits would be used to achieve objectives.
Wilderness use zones are displayed on the
Allocation Map.
Existing commercial outfitting and grazing permits
would be continued. Floatplane landings would not
be permitted.
In the Core Enchantment Area: Pit and vault toilets
would be installed, as needed and serviced annually
by helicopter. Campfires, except camp stoves, would
be banned except in the Rat Creek drainage. Camp-
ing in established campsites would be encouraged,
and the discharge of firearms except during hunting
Season would be discouraged.
The second greatest number of recreational oppor.
tunities would provide for approximately 554,000
recreation visitor days of use. Recreation needs
would be met until the late 1980's and the cost of
implementation would be at the center of the range
of alternatives.
Timber
Timber harvest would be allowed to continue as
scheduled by the timber management plans as
amended. Wood fiber production would be emph 3-
sized on all commercial forest lands in the stardard
and special timber components.
This would produce the second largest timber
harvest of all alternatives from 172,077 acres of
regulated commercial forest land. The potential
annual yield in the long term could reach 67.3 million
board feet. The short term yield could be 35.3, or 11
percent less than the average harvest during the past
ten years.
Cultural (See Directions Common to All Alternatives)
The potential for adverse effects on cultural sites is
moderate to high in Alternative D because of the
level of road construction and logging. Known or
suspected cultural sites in the 1-90, Highway 97, U.S.
2 West and Kachess Resource Complexes would be
in particular jeopardy.

==
-
-
=
-
-
Photo by Richard F. Buscher.
Alternative (The Forest Service
Preferred Management Plan)
This alternative illustrates an effort to optimize both
timber production and recreation by allocating the
most capable and suitable lands to those purposes.
It would feature:
—Timber management on lands with the highest
productivity.
—A variety of dispersed recreation opportunities on
the most suitable recreation lands.
–Developed recreation where demand is expected
to exceed the capability of existing facilities.
—Wilderness management to protect the resource
while providing a moderate level of use, a variety
of experiences and opportunities for solitude.
-Protection of unique areas and special features.
Special Areas
The following sites would receive special manage-
ment attention in Alternative E. They are shown in
blue on the map.
Acres
Mt. Index Scenic Area 13,175
Stevens Pass Historic District 8,454
Tumwater Scenic Area 5,734
Tumwater Botanical Area 1,104
Asahel Curtis Recreation Area 129
Teanaway Recreation Area 53,560
Denny Creek Recreation Area 1,871
Red Top Recreation Area 347
Eldorado Research Natural Area 1,221
Nason Ridge Recreation Area 5,170
Annette Lake Recreation Area 2,538
Kachess Lake Recreation Area 1,777
Blewett Historic District 899
Total 95,979
Management Direction and Effects
of Implementation
Visual Quality
Provide improved opportunities to view natural
appearing landscapes.
A natural appearing foreground will be maintained
along Granite Mountain, McClellan Butte and the
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail routes.
Timber harvesting activities would dominate 4 pecent
more land within the management unit than is now
the case, but it would occur on less sensitive lands.
Areas in which evidence of human activities now
dominate the natural landscape would be restored to
a more natural appearance. The current level of
visual quality in the Wilderness would be maintained.
Transportation
The wide variety of resource objectives for this
Alternative will require a variety of access manage-
ment objectives ranging from obliteration (Service
Level E) to optimum operating conditions (Service
Level A). Thirty miles of road would be reconstructed
and 355 miles of new road constructed.
Completion of the transportation system called for in
Alternative E would make 90 percent of the manage-
ment unit accessible for day use. The average day
user would have access to about 29 percent of the
Wilderness under Alternative E. It would commit
8,141 acres of land to roads; 2.2 percent of national
forest land in the management unit.
Trail access would be improved in the Mt. Index area.
The Pratt River road system, which would be
necessary for timber management, would be closed
to public vehicle traffic. Road access in the upper
Cle Elum River and Cooper River areas and horse
travel in the Chiwaukum and Snow Creek Areas
would be reduced Four wheel drive access in Van
Epps Pass and Teanaway would be increased.
Recreation
Alternative E distributes campgrounds, ranging from
the least to the most developed in this manner:
Experience Level 1, two campgrounds: Level 2, three:
Level 3, 21; Level 4, six.
Five existing campgrounds including Eight Mile,
Bridge Creek, Ica Creek, Johnny Creek and Rock
Island would be converted to day-use sites, all of
which would be maintained at Experience Level 3.
Twelve new Experience Level 3 and four Level 4
campgrounds would be developed when demand for
additional facilities materializes.
Operations at winter sports complexes would con-
tinue at the current level unless the need for expan-
Sion is established.
Twenty-nine trailheads would be improved to meet
the Service Level of trails which they serve.
Dispersed winter recreation areas would be
developed along I-90, Highway 97 and U.S. Highway 2
with the cooperation of private landowners, the State
of Washington, winter recreationists and conces-
Sionaires.
Recreational residence special use permits would be
phased out and residences removed as needed to
permit campground development in the Gale Creek
(Kachess campground extension) and Lake Cle Elum
(Speelyi campground) areas. Group camping facilities
would be developed along Icicle Creek west of Rock
Island campground. The Red Top Recreation Area
would be managed for rockhounding.
Little Kachess Lake (Kachess Lake Recreation Area)
would be managed as a quiet water (non-motorized)
boating area.
Alternative E would accommodate about 4.5 million
recreation visitor days of use, approximately 384,000
RVD's more than the current situation extended. This
would be the second highest utilization of the
management unit by recreationists.
The anticipated need for “rural” recreation oppor-
tunities would be met and the need for “roaded



13
14
natural” recreation opportunities would be exceeded.
The need for “semi-primitive motorized “would be
met, but only during the early years of implementa-
tion. The demand for “semi-primitive nonmotorized”
and “primitive” recreation would not be met in the
management unit.
Wilderness
Registration would be required in all areas. An en-
trance permit system would be introduced if the
desired level of visitation is not maintained by in-
direct controls. Wilderness use zones are displayed
on the Allocation Map.
Commercial outfitters and guides would be limited to
areas currently under permit and would be continued
only if need is established and conflict with the
general public avoided.
Floatplane landings would not be permitted. Their
use in Wilderness, however, will be given considera-
tion based on public input to this Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement.
The carrying capacity in the core Enchantment Area
would be 60 persons at one time. Dogs would not be
permitted. Pit and vault toilets would be provided
and serviced annually by helicopter. Camping would
be restricted to designated sites. Campfires, except
camp stoves, would be prohibited in the entire core
area. Party size would be limited to six and stays to
two nights. The discharge of firearms would be pro-
hibited except during hunting season.
Alternative E would have the second lowest bio-
physical impact on the Wilderness and the second
highest opportunity for solitude.
The 535,000 recreation visitor day level of Alternative
E would be 19,000 recreation visitor days less than
Alternative D, the current situation extended. It could
be expected to meet demand until the late 1980's
and would be the second least expensive plan to
implement.
Timber
Timber management would be concentrated on but
not restricted to the most productive commercial
timber lands shown on the map. Authority for harvest
scheduling would be provided through the timber
management plans as amended.
The short term yield on 156,400 acres of commercial
forest land available for harvest would be 29.7 million
board feet. In the long term, yield of up to 61 million
board feet would be possible.
Cultural (See Directions Common to All Alternatives)
The potential for adverse impact on sites of cultural
importance would be moderate to high under
Alternative E. Logging operations, road construction,
increased access and motorized recreation could
disturb Cultural sites.
Conflict between Cultural resources and timber
harvest would be greatest in the Middle Fork,
Kachess, Highway 97 and U.S. 2 West Resource
Complexes. The field reconnaissance required in
timber management increases the possibility of
discovering sites of cultural importance, but
Alternative E would require a large investment to in-
ventory cultural resources and protect them at the
expense of management and interpretation.
Looking northeast across Interstate 90 near Snoqualmie Pass up
Gold Creek to Chikamin Peak. Photo by U.S. Forest Service.
Economic Analysis
Many of the goods and services provided in the
Alpine Lakes Area, such as dispersed recreation or
visual quality, are not bought or sold and traditional
measures of economic values are lacking. In the
absence of such measures, a trade-off or opportunity
cost analysis was performed. Non-market benefits
stated in physical or qualitative terms were com-
pared with the costs of obtaining those benefits, in-
cluding dollar benefits foregone.
Given the relatively short time period covered by this
analysis (1980-2000), benefits described will differ
from long term benefits displayed in Table 1. In the
short term, the amount of wood fiber produced is
based on the rate of harvest of existing old-growth

forests. In the long term, these old growth forests
will have been converted to younger, faster growing
stands which yield more wood fiber per year.
Table 2 shows the annual costs and benefits for the
Alpine Lakes management unit. Income and employ-
ment expected from each alternative is also
displayed. Table 3 shows the short term estimated
cost of implementing each alternative. Only benefits
which change significantly between alternatives are
Shown.
Table 2.
Short Term Average Annual Benefits and Costs in the Alpine Lakes Area (1980-2000).
Tables 2 & 3 figures differ slightly because in Table 2 they were discounted to pre-
sent value, then converted to annual equivalent.
Annual Nondollar Benefits
(MRVD's)
Roaded Natural Recreation
Semi-Primitive Motorized Rec.
Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized Rec.
Primitive Recreation
Developed Camping
Annual Dollar Benefits
Timber Receipts (M $)
Campground Receipts (M $)
Annual Dollar Cost (M $)
Timber Sale Preparation,
Administration & Regeneration
Dispersed Recreation Management
Developed Campground,
Construction & Maintenance
Road Construction, Reconstruction
Maintenance
Trail Construction, Reconstruction
Maintenance
Employment (Person Years)
Timber
Dispersed Recreation
Developed Recreation'
TOTAL Employment
Income (M $)
Timber
Dispersed Recreation
Developed Recreation'
TOTAL Income
1,278.4
100.4
26.2
5762
4,692.4
57.6
653.7
26.2
531.8
1,327.5
90.2
789.7
493.8
204.4
1,487.9
13,996.1
4,561.9
2,720.0
21,278.0
1,195.5
117.8
28.0
927.4
1,612.8
96.5
249.2
26.2
1,395.1
580.1
101.1
274.2
475.0
325.3
1,074.5
4,955.6
4,379.6
4,404.8
13,740.0
A lºt e r n a ti ve
C
1,214.3
116.7
29.1
921.4
1,922.7
96.5
296.1
26.2
1,395.1
605.1
164.7
330.7
485.1
325.3
1,141.1
6,004.2
4,439.2
4,404.8
14,848.2
1,323.2
92.9
25.3
5762
3,309.6
57.6
477.9
26.2
557.7
1,138.1
94.9
554.0
505.0
204.4
1,263.4
9,937.1
4,656.9
2,720.5
17,314.5
'Figures do not include developed (Alpine) skiing which does not change between alternatives.
1,235.7
2,738.9
96.5
402.2
26.2
1,395.1
1,114.6
123.0
461.9
483.5
325.3
1,270.7
8,289.9
4,465.6
4,404.8
17,160.3
º
º
*
-- - - -
-
º --
Four horsepower taking Buick Roadster over Snoqualmie Pass –
1916. Photo from Mary Ferrell, North Bend, wa,

15
Table 4.
Short Term Implementation Costs in the Alpine Lakes Area (1980-2000).
Alternatives
A B C D E
Management Unit
Timber Sale Preparation,
Administration & Regeneration' 701.1 265.8 317.2 511.7 381.0
Dispersed Recreation Management 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3
Developed Campground
Construction 0.0 655.5 655.5 0.0 655.5
Administration, Maintenance 522.9 739.7 739.7 522.9 739.7
Road
Construction 1,004.6 429.9 410.6 915.5 886.5
Reconstruction 152.6 10.3 48.6 62.7 67.3
Maintenance 169.1 139.9 145.9 159.9 160.9
Trails
Construction 23.0 43.0 84.0 18.0 42.0
Reconstruction 39.8 28.5 46.0 45.7 46.6
Maintenance 27.4 29.8 34.7 26.2 26.8
Fire Suppression, Pre-suppression,
& Prevention 677.0 677.0 677.0 677.0 677.0
Wilderness
Dispersed Recreation Management 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0
Trails
Construction 74.0 7.0 38.0 17.0 13.0
Reconstruction 33.4 33.4 33.4 32.8 32.8
Maintenance 40.3 19.5 30.0 32.8 31.4
Other
Planning & Other Resource
Management 2,949.4 2,949.4 2,949.4 2,949.4 2,949.4
Overhead 650.0 611.4 629.6 605.7 679.5
Total Implementation Costs—
Management Unit and Wilderness $7,149.9 $6,725.4 $6,924.9 $6,662.6 $7,474.7
by U.S. Forest Service.
"Includes landscape architect and cultural resource analysis costs.

Evaluation
All five of the management alternatives are feasable.
Before developing them, planners established criteria
for evaluation in every area of critical concern (See
Table 4). A systematic comparison of the five was
then performed. Each alternative was rated from one
to five in terms of how well it met each of the 13
criteria. No attempt was made to weigh the impor-
tance of each criteria and the highest score was not
the final determinant.
The consistently satisfactory rating Alternative E
recieved through the full range of management goals
led to its identification as the preferred alternative.
Table 4 presents the evaluation of alternatives.
Physical Environment— Alternative B, which called
for minimal modification of land in the management
unit, received the highest rating followed closely by
Alternative C. Alternative E avoided heavy impact on
employment without imposing the extensive altera-
tions of A and D which emphasize road construction
and timber harvest. Thus Alternative E Strikes the
best balance between protection and utilization.
Biological Environment— Emphasis on timber
management makes A the leading alternative in
utilization of the biological resource. Alternative B,
which calls for the fewest new roads and the -
smallest timber harvest, would most completely
preserve the natural environment. Alternative C ranks
the same as B but strikes a better overall balance.
Alternative E best accommodates wildlife dependent
on vegetative diversity while Alternative B favors
wildlife dependent on old growth ecosystems. While
Alternative D and E are very close, E provides the
best combination of diversity, utilization and
protection.
Human Environment— Absolute judgements about
the advantages and disadvantages of the various
alternatives are impossible in this realm. What is
desirable to people for whom the Alpine Lakes Area
provides employment may be undesirable to those
who consider it a place for recreation or intrinsically
valuable because of its natural qualities. Alternatives
A and B are farthest from meeting the evaluation
criteria because of their imbalanced emphasis.
Alternative C provides the greatest variety in recrea-
tion. The Forest Service preferred alternative ranks
consistently high in areas of primary public concern:
recreation, community stability, timber management,
scenic beauty and Wilderness protection.
Table 3
Evaluation of Alternatives by Goals.
Rating Schedule
5 – most fully meets goal
4 —
3 –
2 –
| — least fully meets goal
GOALS Alternative
Physical Environment A B C D E
1. Enhance or maintain water quality 1 5 4 2 3
at state and Federal standards.
2. Enhance or maintain the quality 1 5 4 2 3
of the air resource.
3. Provide for the protection of 1 5 4 2 3
the Soil resource.
4. Provide for development and use 5 1 2 4 3
of energy Sources.
Biological Environment
5. Provide for protection of threat- 1 5 3 2 4
ened and endangered plants,
plant communities and animals.
6. Provide fish and wildlife habitat 5 1 2 4 3
to insure diversity in species and
habitat types.
7. Maintain or increase areas for 5 1 2 4 3
sustained timber production.
Human Environment
8. Protect cultural, historical and 1 5 4 2 3
archeological values.
9. Contribute to Social and 5 1 2 4 3
economic stability of local
communities.
10. Provide a pleasing and natural 1 5 4 2 3
looking forest environment.
11. Maintain a high quality 1 5 3 2 4
wilderneSS.
12. Provide for a variety of high 2 4 5 1 3
quality, year-round forest recrea-
tion opportunities to accommodate
a wide variety of users.
13. Acquire or dispose of National 2 3 4 1 5
Forest land units where land ad-
justment would have a significant
positive effect on total public
benefits.
Voice of the Public
The Alpine Lakes Area has generated extensive
public debate for over a decade. State and Congres-
Sional representatives, local leaders, corporate
executives, owners of mills, outdoor recreation
groups, environmentalists and thousands of in-
dividuals have all contributed to the process of deter-
mining the area's future.
Many provisions in the proposed alternatives are
there because of the initiative of concerned people.
To cite a few: it was recommended that several addi-
tional lakes in the Wilderness be retained in a
trailless condition after one of the longest estab-
lished fishing organizations in the state expressed a
desire for such action. Criteria for determining
timber productivity estimates were adjusted as a
result of comment from both industry and conserva-
tionists.
Public involvement was not intended to be an end in
itself, but an on-going effort to understand and be
responsive to the expectations of those who value
the area. This learning process, hopefully, has moved
in both directions creating a working relationship
which can assist in the resolution of future manage-
ment questions.
Process Used
Three primary methods were used to obtain public
involvement between July of 1976 and the present:
(1) The Alpine Lakes Report newsletter. (2) Open
public meetings. (3) Discussions or field trips with
various interest groups.
Fourteen issues of the Alpine Lakes Report, some in-
cluding response forms, kept about 1,400 people or
organizations informed during the planning process.
Issues discussed included the planning team charter,
planning procedures, the public involvement plan, an
interim proposal to limit group size in the Wilderness
and planning assumptions about future demands for
goods and Services. Each was accompanied by a
news release and all public involvement events were
widely publicized.
Public meetings included open houses and
workshops held in Bellevue, Seattle and Wenatchee.
17
The public had an opportunity to ask questions and
see the maps and other working documents used by
the planning team to evaluate capability and
suitability of land in the Alpine Lakes Area to provide
goods and services. Workshops were held to obtain
recommendations for management of the
Enchantments area of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness
from people who use the area. More than 50 people
attended these workshops held in June, 1979.
Regular contact occurred between the planning team
and members of special interest groups such as
rockhounders, backpackers, sled-dog owners, off-
road vehicle users, sawmill operators and floatplane
pilots. Many recreation groups provided their own
written plans for portions of the area which par-
ticularly concerned them. The Alpine Lakes Protec-
tion Society submitted suggestions for managing all
resources in the area.
In addition to meetings with other public agencies,
universities, legislators, organizations and in-
dividuals, more than 35 meetings and field trips have
been held thus far with the public.
*.*-
-
-
-
º
º
- -- **
Cºoººººººººcºts
º ºozy. s
º
*** * *
--






















Appendix
Road Service Levels
Service Level A – This Level will ultimately require a Com-
bination of standard, surface type, maintenance and
management necessary to provide ideal forest road traffic
operating conditions and a minimum of traffic-related en-
vironmental impacts. Vehicles should be able to operate
with a minimum of conflict at the design speed of the road.
The road should provide maximum mobility and travel effi-
ciency for a wide variety of vehicles. The road surface
should be constructed and maintained to provide a smooth,
dust-controlled gravel or paved surface. These facilities are
of primary importance for the transportation of resources
and resource users. They provide key access to large or
popular land areas and are intended to be open and main-
tained for public recreation travel during the snow-free
season. They are often a continuation of the state or coun-
ty road systems and the transition will be a consideration
in their design. However, the roads should only be wide
enough for safe and leisurely passage of vehicles traveling
at moderate speeds. High speeds (+ 40 MPH) detract from
the recreational value of forest roads. The roads should
avoid long tangents and the appearance of high speed
commercial transportation routes. The gradient should vary
constantly. However, they should avoid a “roller coaster"
effect. Roads designated to be managed for Service Level
A are, or have potential to be, double-lane roads.
Service Level B — This Level will require a combination of
standard, surface type, maintenance and management
necessary to provide operating conditions that are more
restricted than Service Level A and may produce some traf-
fic conflicts. For example, logging trucks may slow other
traffic during periods of frequent timber transport or when
recreational traffic is heavy. When use conflicts arise, the
roads may be temporarily closed to certain users. Less Con-
sideration will be given to user comfort and mobility than
with Service Level A. During the snow-free season, these
roads are open and maintained for moderate use levels (100
average daily traffic or less). This traffic volume is generally
within the safe and efficient capacity of a high standard
single lane road. Service Level B roads are frequently sur-
faced with dust-abating gravel, but routes may be paved for
environmental or economic purposes.
Service Level C – This Service Level will ultimately require
a combination of operating conditions that will attract only
low use levels. Comfort and convenience will not be a domi-
nant consideration. Dust will be controlled only when it
produces a safety hazard or an environmental problem.
Wheel ruts may be present in the roadway and there may
be sections of rough or unstable running surface. Because
safety conditions with different types of vehicles on the
road may be marginal, these roads may be closed for ex-
tended periods to some types of vehicles or users. Level C
roads may also be closed when conditions would make
them impassable without serious structural or environmen-
tal damage. Timber sales and sale volume should be ap-
propriate to the Service Level. During periods when these
roads are open to the public, they will be signed to indicate
that they may not be suitable for passenger car use.
Service Level D — These are roads which are closed to
public recreation travel by vehicles over 40 inches in width.
The specific authority for closing roads on the forest
development system is contained in 36 CFR 261.50.
The closure of roads in this plan is intended to protect or
enhance national forest resources such as Wilderness,
threatened or endangered species and their habitats,
cultural resources, soil and water quality. Temporary public
access may be granted for seasonal activities such as
firewood gathering or Christmas tree cutting.
A resident or landowner cannot be denied access. Present
mining laws dictate that a miner has a right-of-entry for
lawful mineral exploration and development. Access and
use of Forest Service roads cannot be denied for this type
of activity (7731.41e FSM 9/78 Amend. 32).
Service Level E – This category prescribes the obliteration
of a road. “Mine-to-market" public roads and roads in
which the Forest Service has share cost partners will not
be obliterated until the Forest Service acquires all
necessary rights. A drainage pattern shall be restored and
the road will be effectively blocked. Generally, natural pro-
cesses will restore the road to a natural condition. In those
situations where climatic conditions, vegetation or persis-
tent illegal public vehicle travel will not allow natural
restoration, it may be necessary to rip, plow or scarify the
road surface and round the slopes to the approximate
original contour.
Where trails are intended to replace abandoned roads and
permanent bridges exist, they can be incorporated into the
trail system." They may also be replaced with facilities
more suited for trail use.
"This has occured in all cases in all alternatives. On the
maps the obliterated roads are shown as trails.
tº
Wºl
ſºil
ºilm
ºilº,
§ NI'ſ |
Wilſº º - - §
Trail Service Levels
Service Level A – These will require a combination of stan-
dards, maintenance and management that would accom-
modate heavy traffic for the entire use period. The route
will blend into the natural features of the area. Users
should not expect solitude. Socializing with others will be a
part of the recreation experience and contact with others
may be frequent to continuous. Visitors will be aware of be-
ing in a predictable situation where outdoor skills are not
needed. Trailheads will be easily accessed by automobile
and comfort and convenience will be provided. In addition
to recreation, informative (cultural and historical) and
therapeutic (non-ambulatory or sight-impaired user) routes
are included in this Service Level.
Service Level B — These will accommodate moderate use
and will only modify natural conditions to the extent
necessary to protect the environment and provide for
visitors with limited experience and average physical
ability. Users should expect to find opportunities to both
socialize and have a moderate degree of Solitude during
low use periods. Trailheads and facilities will be provided
only for resource protection. Seperate, but not necessarily
convenient, parking will be provided for trails accessed by
road.
Service Level C – These will accommodate light and infre-
quent travel. Trails will be maintained only for resource pro-
tection and special groups or individuals with experience in
rugged mountain terrain. The trail, particularly at the start,
should appear primitive. Modifications to the natural
environment should be kept to an absolute minimum. The
user should experience a moderate (during peak use
periods) to high degree of solitude away from other in-
dividuals or small groups. The trail should provide the user
with an opportunity for testing skills and experiencing a
sensation of physical exertion and a feeling of accomplish-
ment. 4x4 routes, as with other modes in this Service Level,
will provide the most difficult challenge to the user but not
at the expense of soil, water or other resources. The dif-
ficulty will be provided by obstacles or irregularities in the
running surface, narrow clearing or openings, short radius
curves that require repeated lock to lock turns and abrupt
humps and sags in grade. Mud wallows will be located so
that mud, Soil and water returns to the wallow and are not
carried or allowed to flow off site. Long sustained grades
or combinations of grade and alignment that will cause
wheel spinning are to be avoided. In order to reduce im-
pact, routes should have design speeds of not more than
five miles per hour. Stream crossings will be located and
constructed to prevent bank cutting and approaches will be
armored for a sufficient length to prevent soil or water from
being carried into or out of the stream.
Service Level D — These will identify those trails that will
be abandoned in order to accomplish the land-use objec-
tives of each alternative. If necessary, these trails would be
restored to a natural condition.

19
2%Nº.
+ RESPONSE FORM
Alpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan
Draft Environmental Statement
You may use this form to respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The enclosed postage paid envelope is provided for yOur Convenience.
The response period closes on
Additional comments may be included. Your responses should be sent to:
Forest Supervisor
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
1601 Second Avenue Building
Seattle, Washington 98101
Forest Supervisor
Wenatchee National Forest
301 Yakima Street Oſ
P.O. Box 811
Wenatchee, Washington 98801
1 We would appreciate any comments that you have on the land allocations and manage-
ment direction unique to the five alternatives.
Alternative A
Alternative D
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative C
We would also appreciate any comments concerning the management direction common
2. to all alternatives (found on pages 5 and 8 in the Summary DEIS and in Appendix A of the
DEIS).




3 The following issues were raised during the course of Alpine Lakes Area planning. You
" may wish to comment on some or all of these as they relate to the five alternatives. Refer
to the Summary, Maps or the Index of the DEIS for information on these topics.
Recreation
Wilderness Management
Timber
Off-Road Vehicle Opportunities
Floatplane Use in the Wilderness
Land Ownership Recommendations
Special Area Designations
Allocation Areas
Road and Trail Management and Locations
Visuals
4. Other Comments
3 9015 O2523 2805