CHAPTER IV

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives to that action as described in Chapter 2. It is the basis for comparing the impacts associated with each alternative to the existing condition as described in Chapter 3.

The effects considered include ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, or health related resources (40 CFR 1508.8). Such impacts can occur both within and outside the Project Area.

Chapter 4 focuses on the most significant effects, while the others are described briefly. Many of the projects within alternatives are varying intensities of recreation use, level of design standard or access to the reservoir. Therefore, the environmental effects vary in degree but not in kind.

4.1.1 Cumulative Actions

A cumulative action is one "which when viewed with other proposed actions [has] cumulative significant impacts." Past and ongoing activities and those that are in the reasonably foreseeable future are briefly identified below in order to assist the reader in understanding the cumulative effects to the local area associated with the proposed projects. This list is not intended to be totally inclusive, especially for relatively small, isolated projects on private lands within the Ogden Valley. The activities described under the No Action Alternative in Chapter 2 and Affected Environment in Chapter 3, should also be included as background information useful in assessing cumulative effects. Certain kinds of activities, such as general development or increases in use, are represented by specific projects, but could occur in other forms or locations as well.

4.1.1.1 Past and Ongoing Activities

Activity Type/Project: Developments within the Ogden Valley

Location: Throughout Weber County east of Ogden Canyon

Description: Weber County is growing with homes and minor commercial developments. This growth is being controlled by the Weber County Planning Office through the Ogden Valley Master Plan completed in 1998. Since there are only the three main travel routes into the valley, (Ogden Canyon, Trappers Loop, and North Ogden Pass) growth and development of single family homes result in social effects similar to those associated with recreation traffic to and around Pineview.

Activity Type/Project: Developments at Snowbasin Ski Area in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

Location: In and around the base of the ski area in Morgan and Weber Counties.

Description: Snowbasin Ski Area has been chosen as the venue for the downhill and super-g alpine races for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. This has resulted in acceleration of development plans for the ski area. Land at the base of the ski lifts will be traded for other mountain lands in the region to allow Snowbasin to build large private developments on ground they own rather than permitted Forest Service lands. The Olympic Games have infrastructure requirements for increased access (planned through a new road from Trappers Loop directly to the ski area), new lifts (four new lifts to access new and old ski terrain including the race course), snowmaking capabilities (planned by storing or pumping water to the ski area for spraying on the mountain), as well as new base lodges.

Activity Type/Project: Developments at Snowbasin Ski Area after 2002

Location: In and around the base of the ski area in Morgan and Weber Counties.

Description: The current plan of development approved by the Forest Service has developments necessary and reasonable for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. A conceptual development past the Winter Olympic games is included in the approved plan. These future developments are intended to make Snowbasin a four season destination ski area. These developments include but are not limited to a walking village with dining, shopping, and over night accommodations. A golf course would be built near the village along with some single family homes. A significant amount of land surrounding the present ski area belongs to the current owner of the resort.

Activity Type/Project: Other campground improvements

Location: South Fork canyon, eight miles east of Pineview

Description: The South Fork Recreation Complex is a collection of eight campgrounds along the South Fork of the Ogden River in an isolated four square mile block of National Forest System land. The campgrounds are being rehabilitated to a higher standard within the limits of the current campgrounds. Improvements in and around the campgrounds include river fish habitat enhancement, bank stabilization, vegetation management to promote continued tree health, and removing or relocating roads and facilities away from river and wet areas. Within the campgrounds, the roads will be gravelled and widened where necessary, new parking spurs with fully accessible cement living areas, improved water systems, and new toilets. The recreation capacity for people at one time will remain at approximately the current level.

Activity Type/Project: Dispersed camping and other recreation activities

Location: The National Forest Lands throughout the Ogden Ranger District.

Description: As summer and winter visits increase from the growth of the local population centers along the Front Range, the forest environment has become more intensively used. In particular, mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, and four-wheeling have grown in popularity. During the winter, snowmobiling in the Monte Cristo area is continuing to increase. It is foreseeable that all these activities will likely continue to grow in popularity.

4.2 Water Resources Effects (Issue 1.8.1)

Detailed analysis of the soil types and geohydrologic characteristics of the Upper Ogden Valley drainage indicate that contaminates of the shallow groundwater aquifer surrounding the reservoir poses the greatest threat to water quality degradation in Pineview Reservoir. The shallow groundwater aquifer contributes more than 20,000 acre feet of water to the reservoir during the summer high use period.

Extensive monitoring of ground water flows to the reservoir indicates that the shallow aquifer presently is not significantly contaminated; However, because of the geologic relationship of the shallow aquifer to Pineview Reservoir, the reservoir is extremely vulnerable to contamination from ground water resources. Reasons for lack of contamination include low groundwater velocities, large volumes of dilution water flowing through Ogden Valley, and the fact that most development is currently located in areas protected by upward gradients and the silt confining layer.

The deeper artesian aquifer currently is not threatened by development in the valley.

Seasonal stream water quality data showed relatively low levels of nutrients, sediments or bacterial contamination indicating that the watershed is generally in good condition. Recreation use by boats and personal water craft have an effect from gasoline and oils exhausted or spilled directly into the water

Water quality problems observed in Pineview which cause concern for fishing and recreation are not caused by the inflow of sewage from septic tanks or from recreationists themselves. Analysis of seasonal water quality conditions in Pineview Reservoir show that the summer seasonal algae bloom is directly related to the development of anoxic (absence of oxygen) conditions in the hypolimnion (deep waters) during summer stratification. This condition releases nutrients to the epilimnion or surface waters in early August when the summer stratification in the reservoir breaks up prematurely due to releases downstream for irrigation (Weber Basin Water Quality Management Council, 1988).

Beneficial uses for agriculture and culinary drinking water will continue to be available.

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the amount of effect from groundwater sources would remain as the greatest threat to water quality degradation. Continued human use by water vessels have the potential to contribute to water quality degradation through watercraft exhaust, trash and litter, or human waste from dispersed shoreline activities.

Recreation capacities at the developed facilities will remain at current amount of 3535 people at one time (985 people in overnight and 2550 people in day-use only activities) creating a potential effect when the sites are full and recreation use overflows. In the town of Huntsville, when the parking lots at Cemetery Point are full, the road is blocked to prevent more entries. Those visitors that are turned away often find other, non-improved beach as access points to the reservoir.

Effects to soil erosion and bank stability will continue to occur. Those locations that serve as access from the roadways to the waters edge show evidence of erosion, mostly from people walking straight down the hillside and creating paths that encourage gullying. The number of paths will increase slightly because the existing routes are too steep, overgrown and difficult. People will create new routes to the same shoreline section. No existing trails have horse use.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

Decreased boats at one time on the reservoir by 13% from the existing situation has the potential to reduce the effects from watercraft exhaust, fuel or oils. This assumes an overall reduction in the total number of vessels using the reservoir in the future. Ten less acres of surface water will be available to motorized boats.

Soil erosion and bank instability caused by human impacts will be affected by the amount of recreation facility development on the shoreline which is increased from the existing situation by an additional 925 people at one time (340 group use; 585 day-use). Within the developed facilities, the access to the waters edge is improved to be easier as a part of facility maintenance (see 2.3.1 #2). However, it is possible that because of the increased capacity for recreation, there will be additional recreation use outside of our maintained sites that can cause trash, soil erosion and bank stability problems. It is also possible that by increasing capacity within the developed sites and encouraging use of these facilities (parking restrictions, restricting shoreline boat camping, better access trails built to standard), the number of people in unmanaged shoreline will decrease along with the associated impacts.

Some impacts to water quality from dispersed recreation use on 12.44 miles of new trails will occur. An important part of creating new recreation opportunities with new trails or parking areas will be the effort to inform the public on important environmental protection requirements. During the construction of new hiking trail or the improvement of roadside pull-off parking, trails that drop straight down the hill and are a potential soil erosion problem will be closed and rehabilitated. New paths will have less potential for erosion because of design and construction methods.

Treatment for Noxious Weeds using fire, chemicals, or manual removal on up to 80 acres each year may have an effect depending on the type of treatment. Chemical treatments will follow standard guidelines to prevent impacts to water. Fire treatment will use techniques to reduce water impacts from ash or fire retardant chemicals.

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

Water quality effects from motorized water vessels will remain the same as in the No Action Alternative. The watercraft surface use will change with eight acres removed from open to motorized use.

The largest potential effect to soil erosion and bank stability from recreation use is the increase in people at one time at the developed shoreline facilities. This will increase above the current situation by 1365 people. There will be 500 more group use camping and 865 more day-use people at one time. The effects are similar to those described in Alternative 2 but since a higher capacity is proposed, the potential effect of more people exist along with the potential to have more people at one time within the controlled developed facilities.

Increased effects from 10.15 miles of new high standard trails and five improved roadside pull-off access points will be very similar to those described in Alternative 2. The standard of trail will be higher with the potential of having more visitors and therefore more impacts. The physical size of these trails is larger than the lower standard of trail.

The 120 acres of treatment for Noxious Weeds using fire, chemicals, or manual removal may have an effect depending on the type of treatment. The effect would be similar to that described in Alternative 2.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

Water quality effects from motorized water vessels will be less than in the No Action Alternative due to a reduction of 80 boats at one time at the highest reservoir water level. The motorized watercraft surface use will change with ten acres removed from open to motorized use.

Recreation capacity will remain the same as in Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. The potential effects are identical. The number of developed sites and parking also remain the same as Alternative 1.

5.39 miles of new low standard trails will have an effect similar to that described in Alternative 2. The standard of trail will be lower with the potential of having less effect than Alternatives 2 or 3 because of the physical size and expected types and amount of use of the trail by visitors. During trail construction, paths that drop straight down the hill and are a potential soil erosion problem will be closed and rehabilitated. New paths will have less potential for erosion because of design and construction method.

The 40 acres of treatment for Noxious Weeds using fire, chemicals, or manual removal may have an effect depending on the type of treatment. The effect would be similar to that described in Alternative 2.

4.3 Wildlife and Fisheries Resource Effects (Issue 1.8.2)

Wildlife and fish habitat are important resources of Pineview. Along the shorelines are small concentrations of vegetation that are particularly important for wildlife and fisheries life cycles. Our challenge is to provide for some level of recreation use while maintaining and protecting these lands to provide for wildlife and fish values. All human activities in and around these patches of habitat have some negative effect. Where a permanent facility is constructed, that effect is long lasting and constant during the summer operating season.

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

The current uses at Pineview will continue to have an effect to the wildlife and fisheries resources because of general conflicts with man and animals. The amount of use by watercraft on the reservoir will continue with its associated effects. Existing recreation facilities have been in place and operating for decades in essentially the same configuration.

The changes made during the last few years include the expansion of the North Arm trail and trailhead. An environmental analysis for this trailhead was completed in July of 1996. That analysis showed that there would be a loss of habitat from the construction of the trailhead right at the location but the viability of the area for wildlife would not be adversely effected.

Some treatment for noxious weeds while improving wildlife habitat is currently being conducted. This was analyzed in 1993 for the effects and benefits to the habitat. The primary treatment, prescribed burning, would be conducted in April or May to avoid impacting nesting wildlife. Prescribed burning of portions of the dense, matted vegetation should result in a mosaic pattern of young, succulent vegetation intermingled with denser cover. This mosaic pattern coupled with predicted increases in the production of desirable grasses, forbs and insects will benefit breeding, nesting and brooding bird and other wildlife Species.

There is a cumulative effect to wildlife, and to a lesser amount to fisheries, from the continued development of the Ogden Valley on private lands. This is caused by the increased loss of habitat for residential housing growth.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

Use by watercraft will decrease by 55 vessels at one time at the highest water level. This will reduce the effects to wildlife and fisheries resources from the current situation. An additional boat closure of 10 acres to protect the area where the Middle Fork of the Ogden River enters the reservoir will enhance the wildlife habitat at that site. Wakeless speed restrictions at Spring Creek will improve the ability of the inlet for fisheries habitat but will remain as a recreational fishing opportunity.

The increased development of recreation facilities such as parking areas around Pineview, trail systems, improvements at Pineview Trailhead, will have an effect on the area immediately surrounding the site. All sites identified for improvement are now being used by the public or are existing developed sites being expanded. The improvements will allow the use on a harden, developed site and reduce impacting the natural resources from unmanaged uses. A boat ramp will be added at Anderson Cove, a small trail parking at Geertsen Bay, three gravel parking pull-offs (Spring Creek, Brogonje, Browning), and the Overlook.

The increase of 925 people at one time (340 group use; 585 day-use) will effect the wildlife and fisheries resources by their presence at the reservoir which may displace animals. Depending on the activity they are participating in, and how much they go outside of the developed facility will influence the type and scope of effects.

The 15.58 miles of shoreline designated as undeveloped natural area will have the potential for improving the condition of wildlife and fisheries habitat along those sections. The management and lack of recreation development will have a positive effect.

New trail along 12.44 miles of shoreline will effect the wildlife resource by increased human presence in areas where it may have been limited before because of challenging access. This presence may cause animals to be displaced.

Vegetation treatment of up to 80 acres will have an effect as described in Alternative 1.

Sport Fisheries access will be improved by this alternative. The cove next to Bluffs Marina will be preserved and managed for fishing from the proposed handicap fishing pier. Some effect will occur because of this development.

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

Increased use by humans in this alternative will have similar effects as described in Alternative 2. The amount of managed use will increase by 1335 people at one time with the associated effects to wildlife and fisheries resources.

Since the area around the Middle Fork of the Ogden will not be protected, no change from the existing situation will occur.

The increase of shoreline miles designated as transition or development for 5.87 and 7.18 miles will have a negative effect to wildlife because of human activity. The 15.28 miles of shoreline designated as undeveloped is less than any other action alternative.

The cove next to Bluffs Marina would be dredged and cleared for use as wet storage of boats with a system of docks. This would have a negative effect to the fisheries habitat of that cove.

Less new trail will be built compared to Alternative 2 but the standard of trail will be higher with expected increased amounts of use on the trail relative to other types of trail.

Vegetation treatment of up to 120 acres will have an effect as described in Alternative 1 but at a greater amount than any other action alternative.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

With the emphasis on shoreline protection, this alternative will have the least impact to wildlife and fisheries resources. The recreation at existing developed sites will remain the same as the current situation or Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

The shoreline will have 17.3 miles designated as undeveloped, more than other action alternatives. It will have 6.28 miles of developed and 4.75 miles of transition which is less than the other alternatives and therefore less effect to functioning wildlife and fisheries resources.

In this alternative, there are less miles of shoreline trail, and planned at a lower standard than any other alternative. Only 5.39 miles will be built and at the lowest standard. This will have less effect on wildlife and fisheries because of less human influence than the other action alternatives.

Vegetation treatment of up to 40 acres will have an effect as described in Alternative 1.

4.4 Vegetation Resource Effects (Issue 1.8.3)

The effects to the vegetation along the shores of Pineview is a concern to the public and the Forest Service. The desire to maintain Pineview as a natural setting, with healthy trees and plants is an important goal. The effects to vegetation are directly related to human influence. Some of the projects proposed by the action alternatives are intended to reduce those effects by limiting human influence in some areas. This includes active efforts to manage the vegetation through fire, chemicals, and mechanical treatments.

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

The current situation with the vegetation along the shoreline is generally good where there are native trees, grasses and forbs growing. The composition of plants in some areas is not acceptable because of a component of plants considered noxious weeds. These non-native invaders are increasing each year and broad efforts are on-going to limit the spread and increase. As stated in the wildlife and fisheries resource effects, there has been a small program of treatment by fire and chemicals each year. These treatments have been in and around the existing developed facilities such as Anderson Cove Campground.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

The effects to vegetation type and distribution from this alternative are very similar to those described for wildlife and fisheries resources effects for this same alternative. The relative amount of human influence is directly related to the health of the vegetation resource.

No camping on the shoreline will be allowed except along the shoreline of Anderson Cove Campground. No fires will be allowed anywhere. These actions will lessen the effect to the vegetation.

The 80 acres of National Forest that will be treated each year under this alternative is intended to improve the diversity and health of native vegetation. It will follow a comprehensive plan of treatment of those acres where treatment is a viable technique. It is estimated that it will take approximately five years to treat the possible acres. After that period, there will still need to be continued actions to maintain the vegetation condition.

Impacts to riparian and wetlands will be avoided. Some effect to wetlands may occur with the trail location crossing minor drainages into the reservoir. These impacts will be limited in size and scope through design. Boardwalks or bridges may be necessary to avoid natural water flows. Appropriate permits will be required before the trails are built in these locations.

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

These effects are also similar to those effects described in Alternative 3 for Wildlife and Fisheries Resources. Because this alternative has a greater amount of human effect to the shoreline, it has the greatest negative effect to the vegetation.

No camping on the shoreline will be allowed except along the shoreline of Anderson Cove Campground or the developed swim beaches at Cemetery Point and Middle Inlet. No fires will be allowed anywhere. These actions will lessen the effect to the vegetation outside of these developed areas. By allowing overnight use only at existing developed sites, the trash and sanitation concerns would be less since trash bins and toilets are available.

Although the impact of 120 acres of vegetation treatment each year has a larger impact, it has the potential to finish the initial treatments faster and have a larger positive effect by active management actions.

Effects from trail construction will be similar to that described in alternative 2.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

This alternative has a potential for less effect to the vegetation because of less human influence on the shoreline. The effects are very similar to those described in this alternative for the Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.

No camping on the shoreline will be allowed except along the shoreline of Anderson Cove Campground. No fires will be allowed anywhere. These actions will lessen the effect to the vegetation.

Effects from trail construction will be similar to that described in alternative 2.

4.5 Recreation Use Effects (Issue 1.8.4)

Developments at Pineview, both existing and planned, have a direct effect to the ability for human use of the reservoir. How people use the reservoir and how they are allowed to access it are the important items to determine the effect to recreation use.

The greatest amount of use at Pineview is associated with the developed facilities. Launching a boat, picnicking at the beaches, and camping all use the developed recreation facilities. The amount of dispersed use is typically either someone fishing, exploring, or has accessed the shoreline from a boat.

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

The current amount of recreation use at Pineview is large. In 1992, an environmental assessment to set the existing surface zoning and the boats at one time capacity was completed. This alterative which is the current situation has a maximum number of 430 vessels allowed on the reservoir at one time. This capacity equates to 6.7 acres per vessel.

Based on current data at high water, use on the reservoir would exceed the maximum capacity of 430 vessels approximately 4-6 times per season. This equates to most of the weekends and holidays in June and July. During most of the summer, average weekday use would be below this capacity, especially early and late in the boating season.

During lower water, use would begin to exceed capacity on most weekends but not as quickly as in Alternatives 2 and 4. Many people would select alternative boating locations or choose not to boat if faced with a waiting line.

The acres by type of allowed vessel use, as measured when the reservoir is full, is 305 acres of wakeless, 2405 acres of motorized, and 151 acres of closed to motorized vessels. This has been the situation since the 1992 decision on surface water zoning.

The current total capacity for all developed recreation facilities is 3535 people at one time. This capacity is exceeded during peak periods each summer. The swim beaches (day-use) often are full on weekend afternoons and cars must be turned away. Both Anderson Cove and Jefferson Hunt Campgrounds are full on Friday and Saturday nights.

Accessibility is lacking in the current situation. The potential for improved accessibility exists at the highly developed sites and will be improved as the existing infrastructure is improved through routine maintenance and replacement.

Current use of the shoreline accessed by boats has been a concern of the Forest Service. A special order restricting camping or fires on the beaches has been in place for a number of years. However, because of problems with jurisdiction, manpower, and means to patrol the shoreline, these rules haven't been enforced enough to eliminate this activity.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

Under this alternative a maximum capacity of 375 vessels would be allowed on the reservoir at one time. This capacity equates to 7.7 acres per vessel.

Based on current data at high water, use on the reservoir would exceed the maximum capacity of vessels approximately 10 - 13 times per season. This would equate to a large percentage of weekend days and holidays throughout the use season. Weekday use shouldn't reach the capacity level.

As the water level drops additional reductions would occur leading to a low water capacity potentially effecting a larger amount of vessels on the season high use day. This means the lines will be longer waiting to launch on the reservoir or users would be displaced to other reservoirs such as Willard Bay.

Since there would be fewer vessels on the water, congestion would be reduced. Individuals using the reservoir would find less crowded conditions, more space on the beach available for boat anchoring, easier and safer maneuverability for water skiing and less conflict between uses.

An additional indirect effect would be the reduced revenue generated through boat launching and ancillary services for the reservoir concessionaires.

The people at one time capacity for the recreation facilities will be a total of 4460. This increase of recreation capacity of 925 people will improve the opportunity for people to use the reservoir and provide a greater diversity of recreation opportunities. The greatest increases in new capacity will be for group sites and day-use reservoir access.

Accessibility at the developed recreation sites will be improved with this alternative. Swim beaches access will be added, improved boat marina access and a fully accessible fishing pier will be built.

The trail will improve access to the shoreline including paths from parking areas.

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

This alternative will have the same vessels at one time capacity as Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

The people at one time capacity will increase by 1365 people compared to the existing situation. The total capacity of people will be 4900 people. This increase will be on all types of recreation opportunities. This alternative is the largest amount of people capacity.

The amount of physically challenged accessibility is highest for this alternative. It would have five accessible beaches, six accessible fishing sites, and improved marina access.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

Under this alternative a maximum capacity of 350 vessels would be allowed on the reservoir at one time. This capacity equates to 8.2 acres per vessel.

Based on current data at high water, use on the reservoir would exceed the maximum capacity of vessels approximately 13 - 15 times per season. This equates to every weekend and holiday during the use period.

At lower water levels the number of vessels and people affected rises substantially. During a typical weekend day with low water, an undesirable amount of vessels would be forced to wait.

The fewest number of vessels would be on the water in this alternative, hence congestion would substantially be reduced. The use on the weekend would be similar to that of a present midweek period. Individuals using the reservoir would find the least crowded conditions of all alternatives, the most space on the beach available for boat anchoring, easier and safer maneuverability for water skiing take off and retrieval and substantially less conflict between uses.

Since fewer vessels would be allowed on the reservoir at one time, potentially more individuals would be affected by this alternative assuming demand for access remains high. This alternative has the greatest potential to cause people to disperse to other boating areas such as Willard Bay for fear they may not be able to launch on Pineview.

This alternative would have the greatest effect on reducing revenue generated through boat launching and ancillary services for the reservoir concessionaires. This could make it harder to find interested concessionaires and would reduce the amount of money for improvement maintenance work at the boat launches.

The same amount of recreation facilities would be available for public use as in Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. The total people at one time would also remain the same as the current situation.

Only the existing beach facilities would be improved with designed physically challenged accessibility structures.

4.6 Law Enforcement, Safety and Emergency Services Effects (Issue 1.8.5)

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

The current situation for public safety services at Pineview is based on support by Weber County Sheriff, Utah State Parks and Recreation, and the Forest Service. Some of the patrols by Weber County Sheriff are funded by the Forest Service to ensure availability of the deputies during the high use periods. Forest Service law enforcement officers are on staff .

Weber County supports a station for emergency services and fire in Eden. This station has fire equipment, paramedics with ambulances, and Sheriff Deputies on staff. They are critical to the emergency services in and around Pineview reservoir. They provide staff for ice and swift water rescues, diving teams, and law enforcement patrolling with Utah State Parks and Recreation. The general public has also been an important factor by helping each other when someone needs their boat towed to the ramp or use of a cellular phone or radio.

The number of vessels at one time on the reservoir at current levels is causing a concern for public safety on peak days. When the existing boat capacity is reached, the amount of boats on the water is threatening to most users. On average for the last four summers, State Parks reported 33.5 incident/accidents reported and 2,714 enforcement contacts of various types.

Current use of the pathways along the shorelines has been a concern to local residents. The potential for loss of security and privacy does exist where the path crosses between the shoreline and their back yards.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

In all action alternatives, efforts are proposed to improve public safety through our coordination with Weber County emergency services and Utah State Parks and Recreation. This will include efforts to increase funding for public safety, purchase of materials for improved safety signing and warning, and design considerations of the infrastructure to improve public safety. The patrolling of the trail system will be coordinated with local law enforcement, Forest Service staff, and possibly a citizen effort of trail patrols.

In this alternative, the number of vessels at one time on the surface of the water will decrease by 13%. This has the potential to reduce the incidents and enforcement contacts proportionally.

The people at one time capacity for the recreation facilities will be a total of 4460. This increase of recreation capacity of 925 people will increase the potential for an accident or incident by the recreating public. Since the increases in new capacity will be for group sites and day day-useuse reservoir access, the types of law enforcement, safety or emergency service incidents will be different than in alternative 3 where there will be increased overnight recreation. All day-use facilities will be closed after 10 PM.

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

This alternative has the greatest potential for law enforcement, safety or emergency service incidents than any other alternative because of the greater amount of human use of the reservoir.

The total capacity of people at one time will increase by 39% from the current situation and 9% over Alternative 2, the Modified Proposed Action. This increase in people has a direct effect to the number of incidents that require public emergency services assistance.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

The amount of vessels on the water at one time is least in this alternative and should reduce the number of incidents or accidents each year. The number of vessels is 80 less when the reservoir is full.

Total capacity for people at one time in the developed recreation facilities is the same as the current situation and Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

4.7 Transportation Effects (Issue 1.8.6)

Transportation congestion in Ogden Canyon on peak recreation days is a common occurrence during the summer season. This also occurs on certain off-peak days at certain hours. Commonly when people are getting off work and heading to Pineview for recreation, at the same time that the local residents are also traveling home after work.

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

There is an effect to the local residential neighborhoods from recreation visitors. Either these homes are on main travel routes, next to the developed facilities or crowding at the reservoir has pushed visitors to drive neighborhoods looking for water access.

With the number of people visiting and using Pineview each summer, some conflict with the rural life-style will occur. The number of visits increases each year but as long as Pineview has existed, there has been recreation use. In 1974, a report written describing the natural resources of the Ogden Valley (Weber County Planning Commission, 1974) indicated recreation use at Pineview for 1969 as 464,400 visits and projected a 10% increase each year. The actual increase has been approximately 5 1/2% increase per year to 2.2 million visitors reported in 1997. This increase has a direct effect to the traffic and transportation system of the Ogden Valley.

An issue raised during public meetings and from written comments addressed the problem of traffic through Huntsville. An example used was a boat launch by a group camping at Anderson Cove Campground. They drive from Anderson Cove to Cemetery Point to launch the boat, then back to Anderson Cove to their camp site. Then travel back to the Point to retrieve the boat and then back through Huntsville. This required four trips down on 100 South Street through Huntsville.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

With this alternative, the effects are the same as in Alternative 1 but since the people at one time capacity will increase by 925 people, it will be a 27% greater impact. Cemetery Point would have a small increase in capacity because of the conversion of a small part of the marina parking to a group picnic use. The remainder of the increase is at Anderson Cove expansion. Anderson Cove is the best place on the reservoir to increase capacity, and associated traffic. Traffic coming over Trappers Loop directly to Anderson Cove without impacting residential homes. Traffic coming up the canyon will conflict with local travel but then will go directly to Anderson Cove rather than towards Eden where the local traffic use has increased substantially or to Huntsville. With the development of a small boat launch at Anderson Cove, the amount of traffic in and out of Huntsville caused by boat launching will decrease.

The amount of boats at one time will decrease by 55 boats at the highest water level. This should decrease traffic to the reservoir especially when the surface capacity is expected to be reached and boats will be turned away or required to wait

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

The effects from increased recreation traffic conflicting with residential use will be greatest with this Alternative. The overall capacity of people at one time in recreation facilities will increase by 1,365 people with associated traffic. These increases will be seen primarily at Anderson Cove and small developed parking areas around the shoreline. Only a small increase will be seen at Cemetery Point as described in the effects for Alternative 2.

The capacity of boats will remain the same as in the current situation or Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

This alternative has the same people at one time capacity as in the current situation or Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. This implies that the amount of traffic from recreation will remain the same with expected annual increases.

It has the least amount of boats at one time on the surface of the reservoir so it will have less effect to local traffic assuming that less boat traffic will occur when the capacity is reached or anticipated to be reached and boats will be turned away at the gate. The number of boats at one time at the highest water level will be 80 less than the current situation.

4.8 Socio-Cultural Environment Effects (Issue 1.8.7)

This issue relates the various intrusions to residential homes in and around Pineview caused by recreation activities. This is caused by noise pollution and loss of security and privacy from recreation visitors. The common question is whether increased facility development causes increased amounts of people coming to Pineview to recreate or does it provide an improved access point for people that are at the reservoir already?

Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

Common effects from the current amount of use at Pineview is the noticeable amount of noise caused by boats. Utah State Parks and Recreation is responsible for enforcing a regulation that requires boats have a limited amount of decibels at idle speed. They use a noise meter and test boats on the water suspected of exceeding the noise limits. There are certain parts of the day that the noise is more noticeable. Early in the morning, boats towing water skiers often are applying full throttle for extended periods creating a large amount of noise.

There has been an increasing concern for noise caused by nighttime parties on the surface of the reservoir or on isolated sections of shoreline with residential homes nearby. One example is at Quist Beach. Music turned up loud and large groups of people on boats anchored or tied together into the evening is becoming common. The sheriff is called to quiet these parties but are often hampered by poor access to these isolated shoreline sections.

At Anderson Cove Campground, there are times when groups get loud after dark. The Weber County Sheriff patrols the campground every night during the summer to reduce or eliminate this problem.

Effects of Alternative 2 - The Modified Proposed Action Alternative

There is a potential to have increased noise from Anderson Cove because of the increase in people capacity proposed. Most of the increased use will be day-use activities but the group areas will have overnight camping that may cause nighttime noise problems. The Weber County Sheriff will patrol these sites as well as the rest of the recreation facilities. All day-use facilities will be closed at 10 PM.

This alternative decreases boats at one time on the reservoir while full by 13%. This has the potential to reduce noise caused by boats.

All present and proposed facility development will include trash bins to decrease litter and in some cases sanitation facilities. The goal will be to provide enough trash bins so people will not need to carry their trash far and be less likely to litter.

Improved developments at parking lots around the reservoir have the potential to reduce problems from recreation use but may cause an effect to adjacent residents. All of the developments are at spots that are being used currently but without improvements or a higher level of administration and management.

The 12.44 miles of trail around portions of Pineview will cause increased traffic between the shoreline and residential homes. Some use is occurring now in most locations, in particular along the south shoreline of Huntsville, on an existing foot path in the same location as the proposed trail. This traffic tends to be during the daylight hours so issues of security caused by legitimate trail uses should be limited.

Effects of Alternative 3 - Emphasis on Increased Recreation Development

This alternative has the greatest amount of recreation use and therefore a higher potential to effect the residential homes around Pineview. The number of people at one time is 1350 higher than the existing situation. The number of boats on the water will remain the same as in Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

The amount of parking spots around the reservoir that will be improved with this alternative is higher than any other. Improved parking areas will have trash bins and in some cases toilets and have the effect of decreasing litter problems.

The amount and size of trail is 10.15 miles of high standard which is expected to have a higher amount of recreation use than other lower standards of trail. The shoreline will have less miles designated undeveloped and more designated high use than any other action alternative. These effect the adjacent residential homes along the shoreline.

Effects of Alternative 4 - Emphasis on Maximum Shoreline Protection and Reduced Recreation.

This alternative has less boats at one time than any other alternative with the potential to lessen the overall noise pollution from vessels. It also has less recreation developments which may decrease noise from the facilities. Almost all spots which are planned to be improved already have a high amount of recreation activity occurring. The actual people at one time capacity will be the same as in the current situation.

There are less miles of trail proposed for this alternative than any other action alternative. The location for the trail will be along the south shore of Huntsville but built to a lower standard with potentially less overall use and therefore effect to the residential homes.

The miles of shoreline designated undeveloped, with much less effect to the nearby homes from recreation activities, is more for this alternative than any other.