United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific

Southwest Region

R5-MB-189

August 2010

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Plumas National Forest Public Motorized 

Travel Management

Plumas National Forest

Plumas, Lassen, Yuba, Butte and Sierra Counties, California
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll 

free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the 

Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - i

Public Motorized Travel Management EIS

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: California Parks and Recreation

Responsible Official Alice B. Carlton, Forest Supervisor

Plumas National Forest

P.O. Box 11500

159 Lawrence Street

Quincy, CA 95971

For further information, contact:

Peter Hochrein

Plumas National Forest

P.O. Box 11500

159 Lawrence Street

Quincy, CA 95971

Phone: (530) 283-7718

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes the environmental effects of a 

proposal by the Plumas National Forest (PNF) to: 1. Prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off 

designated National Forest Transportation System (NTFS) roads, trails and areas by the public except 

as allowed by permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use). 2. Add 361 miles of existing 

unauthorized routes to the current system of NFTS trails currently open to the public for motor

vehicle use. 3. Addition of 1 area, totaling 36 acres, where use of motor vehicles by the public would 

be allowed anywhere within that specifically delineated area. These actions are needed in order to 

implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) while providing for a

diversity of motor vehicle recreation opportunities and providing motorized access to dispersed 

recreation opportunities on the PNF. The Final EIS discloses environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action, a No-action Alternative and three additional action alternatives developed to 

meet the purpose and need and respond to issues raised by the public. Of the alternatives under 

consideration, Alternative 5 is preferred by the responsible official.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - ii

Summary of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement

Proposed Action

The Plumas National Forest (PNF) proposes the following actions: (1) The prohibition of motor 

vehicle travel off the designated National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads, motorized 

trails and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization (excluding 

snowmobiles). (2) The addition of 478 existing unauthorized routes (approximately 361 miles) to the 

current NFTS trails for public motor vehicle use. (3) The addition of 1 area, totaling 36 acres, where 

use of motor vehicles by the public would be allowed anywhere within that specifically delineated 

area.

Significant Issues

Internal and external scoping identified the following significant issues and these issues were used to 

develop the action alternatives (Table S-1). 

Table S-1. List of significant issues.

Issue Topic Cause and Effect 

Resource Impacts Many of the routes proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System 

(NFTS) as motorized trails are poorly located and would cause adverse impacts to 

plants, wildlife, water quality, soils and other natural resources. 

Access and 

Recreation 

Opportunity 

The proposed action reduces motorized recreation use by prohibiting cross-country 

travel and restricting motor vehicle travel to the National Forest Transportation System. 

The proposed action’s 361 miles of motorized trails added to the NFTS missed some 

key routes and roads desired by the public for motorized recreation.

Proposed Citizen 

Inventoried Roadless 

Areas

The proposed addition of motorized trails to proposed citizen inventoried roadless areas 

(CIRAs) would adversely affect the roadless characteristics of these areas including 

opportunities for solitude, undisturbed landscapes and primitive, non-motorized 

recreation.

Alternatives Considered In Detail

The PNF developed five alternatives: the No-action, the Proposed Action, and three other action 

alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need and respond to the significant issues listed 

above. The five alternatives considered in detail for this analysis are listed in Table S-2. Complete 

details of the alternatives, including project design criteria, are found in Chapter 2 of this document.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - iii

Table S-2. List of alternatives considered in detail.

Alternative Description

Alternative 1: 

No-action 

Alternative

The No-action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. This 

alternative maintains the status quo and provides maximum access and motorized recreation 

opportunity. Under the No-action Alternative, current management plans would continue to 

guide management of the project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS and 

no permanent cross-country motor vehicle travel prohibition would be put into place. The 

temporary closure order, prohibiting motor vehicle cross country travel, would expire. The 

Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to designated 

routes. The agency would take no affirmative action on any unauthorized routes.

• Does Not Prohibit Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds: No New NFTS Facilities (Roads, Trails, and Open Areas)

Alternative 2: 

Proposed 

Action

The Proposed Action is the proposed changes to the NFTS and the prohibition of crosscountry motor vehicle travel as described in the NOI published January 3, 2008 (Volume 73, 

Number 2): 1. The prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS

roads, motorized trails and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other 

authorization (excluding snowmobile use). 2. The addition of approximately 361 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes to the current NFTS trails for public motor vehicle use, and 3. 

The addition of one 36-acre area, where use of motor vehicles by the public would be allowed 

anywhere within that specifically delineated area.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds: 361 Miles of NFTS Motorized Trails

• Adds: 36-Acre Sly Creek Area Open to 50 inch and less Motor Vehicles

Alternative 3: 

Alternative 3 meets the objective of prohibiting cross-country travel, but proposes no new 

additions to the existing system of roads and trails. It responds to the issues of proposed 

citizen inventoried roadless areas (CIRAs) and natural resource impacts by prohibiting crosscountry travel without adding any additional facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also 

provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to 

the NFTS.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds: No New NFTS Facilities

Alternative 4: 

Alternative 4 emphasizes natural resource protection and avoidance of CIRAs. This 

alternative prohibits cross-country travel, adds no motorized routes to CIRAs, California red 

legged frog critical aquatic refuge areas and does not add routes where resource concerns

require extensive trail mitigation.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds: 140 Miles of NFTS Motorized Trails

• Changes Vehicle Class on 4.1 Miles of NFTS Roads from Highway Legal Vehicles 

Only to Mixed Use (combining highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the 

same road)

Alternative 5:

Alternative 5 emphasizes both access and motorized recreation opportunity, as well as 

natural resource protection. This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and incorporates 

suggestions for additional and alternative routes received during public scoping. Trails with 

extreme resource problems are not included. Trails in California red-legged frog critical 

aquatic refuge areas are not included. Mitigation on trails with resource concerns would 

occur, thereby allowing trails with resource concerns to be included. Trails with extensive or 

critical trail mitigations would be added to the NFTS, but not placed on the MVUM as open to 

the public until the mitigation has been completed.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel 

• Adds: 234 Miles of NFTS Motorized Trails

• Changes Vehicle Class on 4.1 Miles of NFTS Roads from Highway Legal Vehicles 

Only to Mixed Use (combining highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the 

same road)
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

iv - Plumas National Forest

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table S-3 summarizes the environmental consequences by providing an average ranking of each 

alternative by resource area. Detailed information can be found in Chapter 3.

Table S-3. Summary of environmental consequences by alternatives

Resource Area: Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Aquatic Biota 1 2 5 4 3

Botanical Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Cultural Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Noxious Weeds 1 2 5 4 3

Motorized Recreation 5 4 1 2 3

Quiet Recreation 1 2 5 4 3

Visual Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Transportation Facilities 1 2 5 4 3

Water and Soil Resource 1 2 5 4 3

Terrestrial Biota 1 2 5 4 3

1

A rank of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for the specified resource; a rank of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for specified resource. See Chapter 3 for more details.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - v

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Document Structure........................................................................................................1

1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Travel Management on the Plumas National Forest ..............................................3

1.2.2 Project Location .....................................................................................................4

1.3 Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................5

1.4 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................7

1.5 Principle Laws and Regulations that Influence the Scope of this EIS ...........................7

1.6 Decision Framework ......................................................................................................7

1.6.1 Responsible Official...............................................................................................8

1.7 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................8

1.7.1 60-Day Public Scoping Period for the Notice of Intent .........................................9

1.7.2 75-Day Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period.........................9

1.8 Issues............................................................................................................................10

1.8.1 Significant Issues..................................................................................................10

1.8.2 Non-significant Issues..........................................................................................11

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.........................................................................................12

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................12

2.2 How the Alternatives Were Developed........................................................................12

2.2.1 Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public During Scoping..........................12

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................12

2.3.1 Monitoring............................................................................................................13

2.3.2 Mitigation.............................................................................................................15

2.3.3 Descriptions of the Alternatives...........................................................................17

2.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...............................31

2.4.1 Designate All Inventoried Routes as Motorized Trails........................................31

2.4.2 Designate More Trails..........................................................................................31

2.4.3 Designate all Inventoried Routes and Do Decommissioning and Restoration Later

32

2.4.4 Designate All Unpaved Maintenance Level 3 and 4 Roads for Mixed Use.........32

2.4.5 Designate and Manage Areas for Dispersed Camping.........................................32

2.4.6 Designate More Motorized Play Areas................................................................33

2.4.7 Allow Cross-Country Travel to Firewood Trees..................................................33

2.4.8 Provide a Balanced Recreation Experience for all Vehicle Types.......................34

2.4.9 Seasonal Closure Based on Rainfall.....................................................................34

2.4.10 Designate Fewer Trails Based on Water and Soil................................................34

2.4.11 Reduce Road Density Based on Comprehensive Travel Analysis and Seasonal Wet 

Weather Closures of Roads ...................................................................................................34

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives..........................................................................................36

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...................................................................38

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................38

3.1.1 Analysis Process...................................................................................................38

3.1.2 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................39

3.1.3 Affected Environment Overview .........................................................................40

3.1.4 Appendix A ..........................................................................................................40

3.1.5 Law Enforcement Assumptions Common to Effects Analyses............................40

3.1.6 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction.......41

3.2 Recreation Resources...................................................................................................42

3.2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................42

3.2.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction......42
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

vi - Plumas National Forest

3.2.3 Effects Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 43

3.2.4 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 48

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................. 50

3.2.6 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 61

3.2.7 Inventoried Roadless Areas................................................................................. 64

3.2.8 Citizens Inventoried Roadless Areas................................................................... 65

3.2.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................ 67

3.2.10 Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives......................................... 70

3.2.11 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ........................................ 71

3.3 Transportation Facilities.............................................................................................. 72

3.3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 72

3.3.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..... 72

3.3.3 Effects Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 73

3.3.4 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 73

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................. 76

3.3.6 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives........................................ 81

3.3.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ........................................ 81

3.4 Visual Resources.......................................................................................................... 82

3.4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 82

3.4.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..... 82

3.4.3 Effects Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 83

3.4.4 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 85

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................. 85

3.4.6 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives........................................ 88

3.4.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ........................................ 88

3.5 Soil and Water Resources............................................................................................ 89

3.5.1 Changes to this Section between DEIS and FEIS................................................ 89

3.5.2 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 89

3.5.3 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..... 90

3.5.4 Effects Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 93

3.5.5 Analysis Methodology for Each Project Alternative as a Whole: ..................... 102

3.5.6 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 109

3.5.7 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 110

3.5.8 Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives....................................... 136

3.5.9 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ...................................... 138

3.6 Aquatic Biota ............................................................................................................. 140

3.6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 140

3.6.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ... 140

3.6.3 Effects Analysis Methodology........................................................................... 143

3.6.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 150

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences - General Effects................................................ 152

3.6.6 California Red-Legged Frog.............................................................................. 156

3.6.7 Foothill yellow-legged frogs and Northwestern Pond Turtle ............................ 177

3.6.8 Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs........................................................................ 190

3.6.9 Hardhead Minnow ............................................................................................. 201

3.6.10 Summary of Effects Analysis of All Alternatives ............................................. 204

3.6.11 Summary of Determinations of All Alternatives............................................... 204

3.6.12 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ...................................... 205

3.7 Terrestrial and Riparian Species................................................................................ 206

3.7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 206

3.7.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .... 206

3.7.3 Background........................................................................................................ 207
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - vii

3.7.4 Effects Analysis Methodology ...........................................................................211

3.7.5 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences by Species Groups..217

3.7.6 Wolverine and the Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Affected Environment ..................221

3.7.7 Wolverine and the Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Environmental Consequences .....222

3.7.8 Forest Associated Species (Late successional): Affected Environment.............227

3.7.9 Forest Associated Species (Late-successional): Environmental Consequences.228

3.7.10 Spotted Owl: Affected Environment..................................................................234

3.7.11 Spotted Owl: Environmental Consequences......................................................235

3.7.12 Northern Goshawk: Affected Environment........................................................247

3.7.13 Northern Goshawk: Environmental Consequences............................................248

3.7.14 Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Pacific Fisher, Sierra Nevada Red Fox and 

Wolverine 254

3.7.15 American Marten and Pacific Fisher (Forest Carnivores): Affected Environment255

3.7.16 American Marten and Pacific Fisher (Forest Carnivores): Environmental 

Consequences ......................................................................................................................258

3.7.17 Riparian Associated Species ..............................................................................263

3.7.18 Bald Eagle: Affected Environment ....................................................................263

3.7.19 Bald Eagle: Environmental Consequences.........................................................265

3.7.20 Willow Flycatcher: Affected Environment ........................................................268

3.7.21 Willow Flycatcher: Environmental Consequences ............................................269

3.7.22 Great Gray Owl: Affected Environment ............................................................273

3.7.23 Great Gray Owl: Environmental Consequences.................................................273

3.7.24 Migratory Landbird Conservation on the Plumas National Forest.....................277

3.7.25 Summary of Species Determinations.................................................................278

3.7.26 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives......................................278

3.7.27 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction.......................................279

3.7.28 Deer Herd Analysis............................................................................................280

3.7.29 Selection of Project level Management Indicator Species.................................292

3.7.30 Spotted Owl: MIS Analysis................................................................................299

3.7.31 Northern Flying Squirrel: MIS Analysis............................................................302

3.7.32 Mountain Quail: MIS Analysis ..........................................................................308

3.7.33 Yellow Warbler: MIS Analysis..........................................................................314

3.7.34 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates: MIS Analysis.......................................................320

3.7.35 Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives.......................................324

3.7.36 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction.......................................324

3.8 Botanical Resources...................................................................................................325

3.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................325

3.8.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction.....325

3.8.3 Effects Analysis Methodology ...........................................................................327

3.8.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................330

3.8.5 Rare Species.......................................................................................................331

3.8.6 Aggregating Rare Species for Analysis of Effects.............................................336

3.8.7 Environmental Consequences—General Types of Impacts...............................340

3.8.8 Environmental Consequence—Effects of Alternatives on Rare Plant Species and 

Botanical Resources.............................................................................................................343

3.8.9 Action Alternatives (2 thru 5)—Summary of Environmental Consequences for 

Individual Species................................................................................................................349

3.8.10 Action Alternatives (2 thru 5)—Summary of Environmental Consequences....384

3.9 Noxious Weeds ..........................................................................................................395

3.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................395

3.9.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction.....395

3.9.3 Effects Analysis Methodology ...........................................................................396
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

viii - Plumas National Forest

3.9.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 397

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences: Effects of Alternatives on Noxious Weed Species400

3.9.6 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives...................................... 413

3.9.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ...................................... 414

3.9.8 Control Measures............................................................................................... 414

3.10 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................... 415

3.10.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 415

3.10.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ... 415

3.10.3 Effects Analysis Methodology........................................................................... 417

3.10.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 420

3.10.5 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 425

3.11 Other Disclosures....................................................................................................... 436

3.11.1 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.................................................... 436

3.11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................................................................ 436

3.11.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................................ 436

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................................438

4.1 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ................................................ 438

4.2 List of Preparers......................................................................................................... 438

Index .............................................................................................................................................................................440

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................................443

Appendix A: List of Routes and Resource Impacts .............................................................. 444

Appendix B: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.............................................................. 475

Appendix C: Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions....................................... 486

Appendix D: Society, Culture, and Economy ....................................................................... 505

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 505

Population and Demographics ............................................................................................ 505

American Indian Rights and Interests: Affected Environment ........................................... 510

Civil Rights Impact Analysis .............................................................................................. 512

Employment and Income: Environmental Consequences................................................... 514

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values............................................................................................. 527

Forest Service Budget Projections ...................................................................................... 529

Forest Budget Effects.......................................................................................................... 529

Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 529

Appendix E: Watershed Maps............................................................................................... 531

Appendix F: Literature Cited................................................................................................. 534

Aquatic Resources............................................................................................................... 534

Botany Resources................................................................................................................ 541

Heritage Resources.............................................................................................................. 545

Hydrology and Soils............................................................................................................ 546

Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................... 547

Recreation550

Wildlife 550

Wildlife Management Indicator Species............................................................................. 554

Appendix G: Road System Development on the Plumas...................................................... 559

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 559

Plumas National Forest Road System................................................................................. 559

Summary 565

Appendix H: Summary of the Response to Comments........................................................ 566

Introduction to Public Comment Process............................................................................ 566

Project Background............................................................................................................. 566

Content Analysis Process.................................................................................................... 567
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - ix

General Overview of Public Comment................................................................................568

Decision Making Process ....................................................................................................570

Land Management ...............................................................................................................570

Transportation Management................................................................................................571

Road and Trail Classification ..............................................................................................572

Demographics......................................................................................................................573

Coding Structure..................................................................................................................578

Appendix I: Law Enforcement...............................................................................................583

Introduction..........................................................................................................................583

Authority and Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................583

Cooperation..........................................................................................................................584

Implementation and Tracking..............................................................................................585

Implementation Strategy (Engineering Education Enforcement .........................................586

Assumptions ........................................................................................................................587

Measure of Success..............................................................................................................589

List of Figures

Figure 1. Plumas National Forest Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................5

Figure 2. Cross-country travel on previously untracked areas can modify surface water runoff timing and magnitude 

due to vehicle ruts, particularly on steep and/or moist slopes. Multiple passes could disturb the topsoil portion of the 

soil profile to the point where vegetative productivity is lost. Photo taken in 2003 near Smith Lake on Mount Hough 

Ranger District. This area was subsequently protected and restored using grant funds from the CA State Division of 

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation..................................................................................................................98

Figure 3. Typical cross section of a road template. ..................................................................................................99

Figure 4. In 2002, Road 22N25 on Feather River Ranger District exhibits severe rutting as a result of a poorly 

drained surface that concentrates runoff. This road was reconstructed in 2003. ....................................................100

Figure 5. Due to infrequent cross drain spacing, the outlet of this rolling dip on 22N25 was badly eroding and 

delivered sediment off of the road to the neighboring riparian area. This road was reconstructed in 2003. (Clipboard 

is shown for scale). ...............................................................................................................................................101

Figure 6. This bank erosion occurred on 22N25 during a normal precipitation year when concentrated surface 

drainage left the road at an inopportune location. The slump material was delivered to the RCA of Pinchard Creek, 

which is located less than 150 feet from the road. This road was reconstructed in 2003. (clipboard is shown for scale).

............................................................................................................................................................................102

Figure 7. Summary of monthly precipitation data collected by California Department of Water Resources between 

1996 and 2008 recorded at the Brush Creek rain gauge ........................................................................................118

Figure 8. Percentage of Plumas National Forest occurrences impacted by the proposed trails. ..............................353

Figure 9. Population Estimates 1 and Projections 2 for Plumas National Forest Study Area Counties.....................507

Figure 10. Per Capita Income for the Plumas Five-County Area ...........................................................................515

Figure 11. Primary activities and other activities participated in on the Plumas National Forest............................518

Figure 12. Watershed analysis area for the Beckwourth Ranger District...............................................................531

Figure 13. Watershed analysis area for the Feather River Ranger District ............................................................532

Figure 14. Watershed analysis area for the Mount Hough Ranger District............................................................533

Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 1

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 

This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from 

the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters:

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed action, 

the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section also 

details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public 

responded. 

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a detailed 

description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative actions that were 

developed in response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the 

chapter includes a summary table ranking the proposed action and alternatives with respect 

to their environmental impacts.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes 

the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in this Environmental Impact Statement.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be 

found in the project planning record located at Plumas National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Quincy 

CA.

1.2 Background

Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motor vehicles, particularly off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles has increased tremendously. Nationally, the number of 

OHV recreationists has climbed sevenfold in the past 30 years, from approximately 5 million in 1972 

to 36 million in 2000. California is experiencing the highest level of OHV use of any state in the 

nation. There were 786,914 All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and OHV motorcycles registered in 2004, up 

330 percent since 1980. Annual sales of ATVs and OHV motorcycles in California were the highest in 

the U.S. for the last 5 years. Four-wheel drive vehicle sales in California also increased by 1,500

percent to 3,046,866 from 1989 to 2002.

Unmanaged motor vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, 

erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. Compaction and 

erosion are the primary effects of motor vehicle use on soils. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

2 - Plumas National Forest

species are particularly vulnerable to damage from motor vehicle use. Unmanaged recreation, 

including impacts from OHVs, is one of “Four Key Threats Facing the Nation’s Forests and 

Grasslands.” (USDA Forest Service, June 2004).

On August 11, 2003, the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service entered into a 

Memorandum of Intent (MOI) with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation 

Commission and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of the California Department 

of Parks and Recreation. That MOI set in motion a Region-wide effort to “Inventory and designate 

OHV roads, trails, and any specifically defined open areas for motor vehicles on maps of the 18

National Forests in California by 2007.”

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the 

Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264-68291), 36 CFR 212, Subpart B of the 

final Travel Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to 

motor vehicle use on National Forests. Only roads and trails that are part of a National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) may be designated for motorized use. Designations are made by class 

of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. Part 261 – Prohibitions, Subpart A (36 CFR 261.13) of 

the final rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles off designated roads, trails and areas, as well as use 

of motor vehicles on roads and trails that are not consistent with the designations.

On National Forest System (NFS) lands managed as open to cross-country motor vehicle travel, 

unrestricted, repeated motor vehicle travel has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized routes and areas 

(roads, trails and areas). These routes were developed without agency authorization, environmental 

analysis or public involvement, and do not have the same status as NFTS roads and NFTS trails.

Nevertheless, some unauthorized routes may be well sited, provide excellent recreation opportunities 

for motorized and non-motorized recreationists, and may enhance the NFTS. Other unauthorized 

routes are poorly sited and cause unacceptable environmental impacts. Only NFTS roads, NFTS trails

and discrete, specifically delineated areas can be designated for motor vehicle use. In order for an 

unauthorized route to be designated, it must first be added to the NFTS. In order for areas to be 

designated for motor vehicle travel, a discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in 

most cases much smaller, than a Ranger District Forest must be identified. 

The Plumas National Forest has 999,521 acres currently open to cross-country travel by motor 

vehicles. In 2005, the Plumas National Forest completed an extensive inventory of unauthorized 

routes on NFS lands open to cross-country travel as described in the MOI. Approximately 1,107 miles 

of unauthorized routes were identified. The Forest then used an interdisciplinary process to review the 

existing NFTS and the inventory of unauthorized routes to identify proposals for limited additions to 

the NFTS. This process included review of the Forest Plan, internal and external discussions, 

including extensive public collaboration workshops and input, and internal and external validation of 

the locations of unauthorized routes using the inventory maps. The travel management regulations 

provide for the incorporation of previous decisions regarding travel management. Roads, trails and 

areas that are currently part of the Plumas National Forest transportation system and open to motor 

vehicle travel will remain designated for such use. This proposal makes needed changes (additional 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 3

motorized trails and areas, seasonal restrictions, etc.) to the Plumas National Forest NFTS trails and 

areas on NFS lands in accordance with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B).

In accordance with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.56), following a 

decision on this proposal, the Forest will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) identifying all 

Plumas National Forest NFTS roads, trails and areas that are designated for motor vehicle use. The 

MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the time of year for which use is 

designated. Upon publication of the MVUM, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on 

NFS lands other than in accordance with those designations. These maps shall be made available to 

the public on the internet and at the headquarters of corresponding administrative units and Ranger 

Districts of the National Forest System. The unauthorized routes not included in this proposal are not 

precluded from future consideration for either removal from the landscape and restoration to the 

natural condition or addition to the NFTS and inclusion on a MVUM. Future decisions associated 

with changes to the NFTS and MVUM are dependent on available staff and resources and may trigger 

the need for additional environmental analysis, public involvement, and documentation.

1.2.1 Travel Management on the Plumas National Forest

The Plumas National Forest currently manages and maintains approximately 4,137 miles of NFS 

roads and 130 miles NFS motorized trails. The Plumas National Forest Transportation System 

(NFTS) was developed over many decades to meet a variety of needs including timber management, 

fuel treatment, access to private inholdings, fire control, utility management, special uses 

management and recreation. Other roads were acquired with past land exchanges or acquisitions. 

The NFTS is managed and maintained to various road standards depending on management 

objectives. They range from paved roads to roughly graded high clearance roads, depending on the 

type of access necessary. In some cases, where public access is not needed, roads are “stored” for 

future management use. The NFTS is displayed on the Forest Transportation Atlas. The initial Forest 

Transportation Atlas consists of the maps, inventories and plans for forest transportation facilities and 

associated information available as of January 12, 2001 (FSM 7711.2). Details concerning the 

management of individual roads and trails are maintained in the Forest Infrastructure database 

(INFRA). 

In 2002, the Forest populated the INFRA database by examining previous records (maintenance 

plans, maintenance expenditures, existing road and trail atlases, forest maps, etc.) to capture the entire 

NFTS and transfer the necessary information into INFRA and verify the Forest Transportation Atlas. 

Roads or trails that had no record of being mapped or maintained for a specific use were not included 

in the NFTS and INFRA database.

Since then, adjustments to the Transportation Atlas and INFRA database have been made to 

correct errors and account for NFS roads that were either newly constructed or overlooked in the 

2002 effort. The current Forest Transportation Atlas identifies the existing NFTS and the management 

objectives for each transportation facility. Decisions regarding changes to the NFTS (new road 

construction, realignment, decommissioning, etc.) are subject to the National Environmental Policy 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

4 - Plumas National Forest

Act (NEPA) and require public involvement and disclosure. The NFTS is always changing depending 

on resource needs and management concerns.

This proposal is just one project, among many, in the Forest’s long-term goal of managing the 

transportation system. Previous project decisions have substantially reduced the number of miles of 

NFTS roads and trails available for motorized use and in some cases restricted the season of use. 

These previous decisions have resulted in decommissioning 56 miles of system roads and 91 miles of 

unclassified roads. The net result is that the existing NFTS roads open year round have been reduced 

by 1.4 percent. This has been accomplished through Forest Planning, vegetation management 

projects, watershed restoration projects, fuel treatment projects, trail management decisions, 

landscape analysis, watershed analysis and the Roads Analysis Process (RAP). All of these efforts 

have helped to identify and manage the current transportation system.

In addition to this proposal, ongoing efforts to manage motor vehicle travel on the Forest include:

(1) An interim Forest Order (MOI – Step 2) prohibiting cross-country motorized travel for resource 

protection pending a decision on this proposal, (2) reducing adverse environmental impacts associated 

with unauthorized motorized trails through various project-level planning efforts, and (3) addressing 

impacts associated with the current NFTS through the Forest’s road and trail maintenance program. 

Implementation of this proposal and subsequent designation of motorized routes through 

publication of the MVUM is only one step in the overall management of the Plumas National Forest

NFTS.

1.2.2 Project Location

The proposal includes the entire Plumas National Forest. The Forest is located in northeast California

(Figure 1). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 5

Figure 1. Plumas National Forest Vicinity Map

1.3 Purpose and Need___________________________________

The following needs have been identified for this proposal:

1. There is a need for regulation of unmanaged motor vehicle travel by the public. The 

proliferation of unplanned, unauthorized, non-sustainable roads, trails and areas created by 

cross-country travel adversely impacts the environment. The 2005 Travel Management Rule, 

36 CFR Section 212, Subpart B, provides for a system of NFTS roads, NFTS trails and areas 

on National Forest System lands that are designated for motor vehicle use. After roads, trails , 

and areas are designated, motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside 

designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Subpart B is intended to prevent resource 

damage caused by unmanaged motor vehicle use by the public. In accordance with national 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

6 - Plumas National Forest

direction, implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule for the Plumas 

National Forest was scheduled for completion in 2009.

2. There is a need for limited additions to the Plumas NFTS to:

 Provide motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, 

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). A substantial portion of known dispersed 

recreation activities are not typically located directly adjacent to existing NFTS roads or 

NFTS motorized trails. Some dispersed recreation activities depend on foot or horseback 

access, and some depend on motor vehicle access. Those activities accessed by motor 

vehicles are typically accessed by short spurs that have been created primarily by the 

passage of motor vehicles. Many such unauthorized “user-created” routes are not 

currently part of the NFTS. Without adding them to the NFTS and designating them on a 

MVUM, the regulatory changes noted above would make continued use of such routes 

illegal and would preclude public access to many dispersed recreation activities.

 Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (4x4 vehicles, motorcycles, 

ATVs, SUVs, passenger vehicles, etc.). It is Forest Service policy to provide a diversity 

of road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of 

travel consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 

2353.03(2)). Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule would

severely reduce acres and miles of motorized recreation opportunities relative to current 

levels. As a result, there is a need to consider limited additions to the NFTS.

In making any limited additions to the National Forest Transportation System, the Plumas 

National Forest will be considering criteria contained in Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, 

which include the following:

1. Impacts to cultural resources.

2. Public safety.

3. Access to public and private lands.

4. Availability of resources for maintenance and administration of roads, trails and areas that 

would arise if the uses under consideration are designated.

5. Minimizing damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other forest resources.

6. Minimizing harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat.

7. Minimizing conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational uses of 

NFS lands.

8. Minimizing conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or 

neighboring federal lands.

9. Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account sound, emissions, etc.

When making any limited additions to National Forest System Roads, the Forest will also 

consider the following:

• Speed, volume, composition and distribution of traffic on roads.

• Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 7

• Maintaining valid existing rights of use and access (rights-of-way).

1.4 Proposed Action

1. Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, motorized 

trails and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization

(excluding snowmobile use).

2. Additions to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS)—The PNF currently 

manages and maintains approximately 4,137 miles of NFTS roads and 130 miles of NFTS 

motorized trails. Based on the stated purpose and need for action, the PNF proposes to add 

approximately 361 miles of existing unauthorized routes. These additions would bring the 

total NFTS motorized trails to 491 miles.

3. Motorized Open Area Addition—The PNF currently has 1 area (approximately 4 acres) 

designated open to motor vehicle use. The PNF proposes to designate 1 additional open area 

(36 acres).

A detailed description of the proposed action can be found in Chapter 2 of this EIS. Maps 

depicting the proposed action are posted on the Plumas National Forest website.

http://fs.usda.gov/plumas

1.5 Principle Laws and Regulations that Influence the Scope of 

this EIS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that all major federal actions 

significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the magnitude and intensity 

of those impacts and that the results be shared with the public and the public given an opportunity to 

comment. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that to the fullest extent possible, 

agencies shall prepare Environmental Impact Statements concurrently with and integrated with 

environmental analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other environmental laws and executive 

orders. Principle among these are the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 as expressed through the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (“Forest Plan”) and its amendments, the Clean Air Act of 1955, the Clean Water 

Act of 1948 (amended in 1972 and 1987), and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974.

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295): This EIS is designed specifically to 

implement the requirements of the November 5, 2005 Rule for Travel Management, Subpart B.

1.6 Decision Framework

The responsible official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an 

alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel by 

the public off the designated system and to make limited additions to the Plumas National Forest 

Transportation System.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

8 - Plumas National Forest

This proposal is not intended to revisit previous decisions that resulted in the current NFTS. This 

proposal is narrowly focused on implementing 36CFR 212, Subpart B of the Travel Management 

Rule. Previous administrative decisions concerning road construction, road reconstruction, road 

closures, road decommissioning, trail construction and land suitability for motorized use on the 

existing NFTS are outside the scope of this analysis.

1.6.1 Responsible Official

The Forest Supervisor for the Plumas National Forest will be the deciding official. The Forest 

Supervisor will sign the Record of Decision (ROD).

1.7 Public Involvement

The Interdisciplinary Team relied on public involvement to ensure that a full range of alternatives, 

representing a broad array of perspectives, would be analyzed. Public involvement occurred during 

three key periods: first during the public collaboration process that began in 2004, second during the 

60-day public scoping period for the Notice of Intent (NOI) in 2008, and third during meetings with 

public groups to explore issues they raised during scoping.

During the summer and fall of 2004, an independent contractor reviewed and mapped routes and 

areas used by OHVs on the Forest. During 2004 and 2005, the Forest also sought route information 

from the public and validated route locations and mapped them. On May 14, 2005, the Forest 

provided on-the-ground training for the public to locate and map their favorite riding areas so they 

could effectively provide that information to the Forest Service. 

In December 2006, public meetings were held in Oroville, Portola, and Quincy explaining the 

temporary Forest Order (effective December 31, 2006) that restricted OHV use to mapped roads, 

trails and areas.

By April 2007, the Forest Service developed the “first cut” route map, which included 220 miles 

of proposed motorized trails. The “first cut” consisted of known routes used by the public, including 

destinations, loops, and spur routes to fishing access and favorite dispersed camping sites. The “first 

cut” avoided routes on private land with no right of way, routes where motorized use would conflict 

with existing uses, and routes with measurable resource impacts. Information meetings were held in 

Quincy, Portola, and Oroville in April. Follow-up workshops were held in each city during May 2007.

Tribal consultation occurred concurrently with public involvement activities. Letters were sent to 

the tribes throughout the planning process, as well. The project was discussed at multiple meetings 

with Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria, Estom Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria, 

Greenville Rancheria, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, 

Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria, and Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada. 

In the spring of 2007, a series of three public meetings and three public workshops were 

conducted to identify which of the routes and areas should become part of the proposed action, the 

type of use that each would have, and routes to be considered for dispersed recreation access. The 

concept of “mixed use” (combining highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the same road) 

was also introduced during these meetings. At the first session of the 2007 two-part series, public 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 9

meetings were held in Quincy (April 17) Portola (April 18), and Oroville (April 19). At the second set 

of workshops, individuals worked with Forest Service specialists to identify important routes. These 

meetings were held in Blairsden (May 2), Quincy (May 3) and Oroville (May 10). Groups shared 

their ideas and their various concerns. Roughly 300 people participated in these workshops. 

Afterwards, an e-mail update was issued sharing information on the meetings and the outcome. The 

Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team took this information and developed the proposed action for the 

NOI. The proposed action was designed to include as many routes as possible that were requested by 

the public. This inclusive approach was used so that these routes could be analyzed in detail and their 

effects disclosed as part of this NEPA process.

1.7.1 60-Day Public Scoping Period for the Notice of Intent

In January 2008, the Forest Service completed the Proposed Action and Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (NOI), based on comments from the meetings held in the spring of 

2007. The comment period on the proposed action began on January 3, 2008, and ended March 3, 

2008. Presentations to a variety of groups, phone calls, news releases, website postings and emails 

were used to alert the public of the opportunity to comment on the proposed action. Public meetings 

were held in Blairsden (January 15), in Quincy (January 22) and in Oroville (January 29) to explain 

the Proposed Action. Over 3,300 comments were received. Many were identical emails.

1.7.2 75-Day Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period

Following four years of work and over 20 public meetings and workshops, the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) was released for public comment. 

Interested parties, tribes and reviewing agencies were sent a letter on December 18, 2008. The 

DEIS, maps, and specialist reports were posted on the web the same day at: http://fs.usda.gov/plumas. 

Hard copies and/or CDs of the DEIS were sent to tribes and reviewing agencies requiring them. 

Remaining interested parties and reviewing agencies received a summary and website location for 

downloading documents and maps. A follow-up letter was sent to the same mailing list on December 

22, 2008 to correct the expected notice of availability date in the original letter. The notice of 

availability was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on 

December 29, 2008, which initiated the 45-day comment period. A legal notice was published the 

Feather River Bulletin on January 7, 2009.

The Forest Service received several comments requesting an extension to the comment period.

The Forest Supervisor decided to extend the comment period an additional 30 days. On February 4, 

2009, a legal notice explaining the extension was published in the Feather River Bulletin. A letter was 

sent to interested parties and reviewing agencies on February 6, 2009. The Forest Tribal Relations 

Specialist contacted tribal representatives by phone. The Environmental Protection Agency published 

an amended notice in the Federal Register extending the comment period on February 13, 2009.

The Forest Service received 4,310 total responses on the Draft EIS, including 340 original 

responses and 3,970 form letters. Most were received via email. An executive summary of the 

comments appears in Appendix G. Responses to comments are posted on http://fs.usda.gov/plumas.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

10 - Plumas National Forest

1.8 Issues

Comments from the public, other agencies, and the Washoe Tribe were used to formulate issues 

concerning the proposed action. An issue is a matter of public concern regarding the proposed action 

and its environmental impacts. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant 

and non-significant. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by 

implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the 

scope of the proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, the Forest Plan, or other higher 

level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which 

are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” 

1.8.1 Significant Issues

The discussion on the significant issues was edited between the Draft and Final EIS. At the proposed 

action stage, resource surveys had not been completed. These surveys showed many adverse impacts 

to natural resources, making this the primary significant issue. The order of the issues was changed to 

reflect this. Specific information was added to the motorized recreation issue.

Issue 1: Many of the routes proposed for addition to the NFTS as motorized trails are poorly located 

and would cause adverse impacts to plants, wildlife, water quality, soils and other natural resources.

Discussion: Commenters expressed concerns about impacts to a variety of natural resources, citing 

stream crossings, habitat fragmentation, wildlife disturbance, sedimentation, cultural resources, 

invasive weeds and other resources that would be impacted by motorized use of trails added to the 

NFTS.

Issue 2: The proposed action reduces motorized recreation use by prohibiting cross-country travel 

and restricting motor vehicle travel to the National Forest Transportation System. The proposed 

action’s 361miles of motorized trails added to the NFTS missed some key routes and roads desired by 

the public for motorized recreation.

Discussion: Concerns were raised that the proposed action did not include several routes that were 

important to the public for motorized recreation and as access to other outdoor activities such as 

hunting, fishing, and camping. The proposed action did not include any mixed use on Level 3 roads.

Issue 3: The proposed addition of motorized trails to proposed citizen inventoried roadless areas

(CIRAs) would adversely affect the roadless characteristics of these areas including opportunities for 

solitude, undisturbed landscapes and primitive, non-motorized recreation.

Discussion: Concerns were raised that adding motorized trails to CIRAs on the Plumas National 

Forest would reduce opportunities for solitude, and primitive non-motorized experiences would be 

ruined by the noise and disturbance of vehicles. Motorized trails would change the character of these 

areas.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 11

1.8.2 Non-significant Issues

1. Snowmobile Use: Concerns were expressed regarding the impacts of snowmobile use on the 

Plumas National Forest.

Reasons why not addressed in the proposed action: Designation of areas open to 

snowmobile use is covered under 36 CFR 212, Subpart C, and is outside of the scope of this 

decision, which is focused on implementing 36 CFR 212, Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule.

2. Other types of wheeled vehicle use (mountain bikes) or other forms of travel (hiking, 

horseback riding): Concerns were expressed regarding the need to provide opportunities for

non-motorized forms of travel.

Reasons why not addressed in the proposed action: This issue is outside of the scope of the 

purpose and need for the project. This proposal is focused only on motor vehicle use in 

accordance with 36 CFR 212, Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule.

3. Addressing maintenance and decommissioning needs on the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS): Concerns were expressed that the Forest should reconsider 

previous decisions to establish system roads and trails in the NFTS. Some existing system 

roads and trails are in need of repair and maintenance and should be either repaired or closed 

as part of the proposal.

Reasons why not addressed in the proposed action: The proposed action implements 36 

CFR 212, Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which states: “The responsible official 

may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding travel management made under 

other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in 

designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on 

National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart” (36 CFR: § 212.50 

(b)). The responsible official has determined that existing NFTS roads and trails will not to be 

considered for repair, reconstruction, or decommissioning as part of this proposal. Repair and 

maintenance of the existing NFTS are routine, ongoing activities on National Forests and are 

typically categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement in accordance with agency policy in Forest Service 36 CFR 

220.6(d)(4) “Repair and maintenance of roads trails and landline boundaries.” Further, reevaluation of previous decisions that established the current NFTS is not necessary for 

implementing 36 CFR 212, Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. However, past, 

present, and future environmental impacts of the current NFTS are incorporated into 

cumulative effects analyses for the proposed action and alternatives. Decommissioning 

occurs on an ongoing basis when roads and trails are no longer needed or are relocated for 

resource protection. Typically this occurs as part of vegetation management projects, 

watershed restoration projects, fuel treatment projects, and trail construction projects. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 12

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Plumas National Forest (PNF) 

Public Motorized Travel Management EIS. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and 

those eliminated from detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular 

format so that the alternatives and their environmental impacts can be readily compared.

Based on the issues identified through public comment on the proposed action, the Forest Service 

developed three alternative proposals that achieve the purpose and need differently than the proposed 

action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a No-action alternative. The proposed 

action, alternatives and No-action alternative are described in detail below. 

This chapter is divided into four parts:

• Part 1 describes how the alternatives were developed.

• Part 2 presents the alternatives considered in detail.

• Part 3 presents the alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. It 

includes the rationale for eliminating these alternatives.

• Part 4 compares the alternatives based on their environmental, social and economic 

consequences, and includes a comparative display of the projected effects of the alternatives.

2.2 How the Alternatives Were Developed

The four action alternatives represent a wide range of perspectives designed to address the purpose 

and need and the issues as described in Chapter 1.

2.2.1 Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public During Scoping

During the 60-day public scoping process, alternatives were submitted for consideration by two 

groups. After the scoping period concluded, the Forest Service met with each of these groups to 

review and give due consideration to their proposals. The resulting alternatives incorporate these and 

other suggestions offered by the public. 

Also important in this process were the ideas and advice gathered by the Forest Service in their 

consultation and discussions with tribal representatives, local counties, and Forest Service employees. 

State and Federal agencies advised the process through numerous informal contacts.

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Four action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) and a No-action Alternative (Alternative 1) are 

analyzed in detail in this EIS. The No-action Alternative represents the continuation of cross-country 

travel including continued use of all unauthorized routes by motor vehicles. This alternative serves as 

a baseline for comparison among the alternatives, and is required by the implementing regulations of 

the NEPA.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 13

Currently, the PNF has an interim Forest Order in place that prohibits motorized cross-country 

travel and confines motor vehicles to the National Forest Transportation System and existing 

unauthorized routes. This prohibition will remain in effect until December 31, 2010. It is assumed that 

unless one of the action alternatives implementing the Travel Management Rule is selected, the 

temporary Forest Order prohibiting motorized cross-country travel would expire and motorized crosscountry travel would resume under the No-action Alternative. 

The planning area for the alternatives includes National Forest System (NFS) lands on the PNF. It 

does not include any private, state, or other federal lands.

Each alternative assumes that other adjacent federal lands, such as those administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management would be managed according to existing management plans and 

applicable federal laws. Each alternative also assumes that private lands would meet applicable 

county, state and federal land use regulations.

2.3.1 Monitoring

All action alternatives include the following monitoring activities. Monitoring is critical for 

evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions and the accuracy of analysis assumptions and 

conclusions. Monitoring of trail conditions is required, and must meet Regional and/or National 

standards. If monitoring determines additional resource damage is occurring, steps to prevent further 

damage must be taken. If the mitigations are not effective or are not possible, additional trail closures 

may be required, which could require additional NEPA analysis. 

Deferred maintenance trail condition monitoring: Trails would be monitored using the deferred 

maintenance condition survey protocol. A sampling of the routes would be completed each year; trails 

should be monitored on a 5-year cycle. Both PNF employees and the public would use this 

monitoring process to document trail conditions, based on field observations and measurements. 

Information derived from this monitoring is used to update the maintenance schedule and assist in 

prioritizing maintenance needs. Initially, the monitoring would focus on the unauthorized routes that 

have been added to the NFTS. The Plumas National Forest intends to apply for grants from the State 

of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division to supplement appropriated funds for 

maintenance. If the grants are secured, monitoring would be conducted annually in compliance with 

standards set forth in the State’s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements Program Regulations.

Cultural Resource monitoring: Monitoring of potential effects to cultural resource sites would be 

conducted as prescribed in the Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for 

Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in 

California (Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement (PA)) (2006). 

All sites within the project area (227) have been either monitored or newly documented as part of 

the environmental analysis process. Of these, 37 sites with discernable impacts (direct and indirect) 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

14 – Plumas National Forest

have been identified for additional monitoring as part of proposed mitigation measures. The 

Motorized Recreation PA specifies that these sites will be monitored within a two-year period after 

designation.

The mitigation measures initially prescribed qualify as minimal actions necessary to alleviate 

potential adverse effects. If monitoring demonstrates that prescribed mitigation measures are 

ineffective, it may be necessary to implement progressively more complex protection measures. This 

could culminate in route closures if other measures prove unsuccessful. This type of adaptive 

management policy is discussed in the Motorized Recreation PA (2006).

Sensitive plant and noxious weed monitoring: Monitoring would occur along routes added to the 

NFTS that have been identified as potential high risk to sensitive plants or as highly vulnerable to 

noxious weed spread (Appendix A). These areas have the greatest potential for adverse effects to 

botanical resources from the continued use of public motorized vehicles. Sites would be monitored 

annually for year 1 and 2. If negative impacts are documented, appropriate mitigation measures (i.e. 

signage, barriers, etc. or weed treatments) would be developed. The mitigation would be implemented 

within one year of the identified impact. Appendix A lists the sites to be monitored. Current PNF 

botany records and GIS data would be used as baseline data and compared with the future condition. 

The action alternatives include up to 11 routes with sensitive plant and/or noxious weed monitoring.

Soil and water monitoring: A portion (approximately one-half) of the set of trails monitored 

annually for trail condition (described above) would also be monitored for soil and water impacts. 

Estimated annual cost for soil and water monitoring is $3,600. Evaluations E08 and E09 of the USFS 

Pacific Southwest Region’s “Best Management Practices (BMPs) Evaluation Program” (May 2002) 

would be used to evaluate whether the monitored trails are impacting soil or water resources. These 

evaluations were developed to monitor the condition and drainage features of road surfaces and 

road/stream crossings. While OHV trails are typically narrower and often steeper than forest roads, 

the drainage practices that are necessary to protect soil and water quality are the same for both types 

of facilities. Monitoring would first occur along routes that have been identified as a higher risk to 

soil or water resources (see Appendix A). The water quality indicator pertinent to these evaluations is 

observation (absence or presence, including magnitude) of trail-generated sediment delivered to a 

stream channel. Baseline water quality for normal and acceptable trail conditions is defined as (1) the 

effects of sediment delivery to beneficial uses are insignificant and immeasurable; and (2) the effects 

persist within a very short period (less than a 5-day period and are typically associated with a single 

activity or precipitation event). Immeasurable effects to beneficial uses means the pollutant 

(sediment) may be visible but is not likely detectable by compared measurements (e.g. turbidity or 

total suspended sediment) above and below the site. Trails for which monitoring indicates that BMP 

effectiveness rates “fail” or “at-risk” will be further investigated to determine if additional or existing 

trail drainage or stream crossing measures should be implemented or repaired (see the Soil and Water 

Resources section of Chapter 3).

Aquatic species and habitat monitoring: In addition to evaluating the BMP monitoring as 

described above, Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) reaches would be located adjacent to identified 

trails that have the potential to affect threatened, endangered or sensitive (TES) aquatic species and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 15

their habitat. The Forest would locate five SCI monitoring reaches across the Forest and these sites 

would be monitored bi-annually for six years. Key attributes to monitor are sedimentation, 

temperature, bank stability and any changes in habitat.

Several trails would be monitored for California red-legged frogs, foothill and mountain yellowlegged frogs (Appendix A). Fifteen trails would be monitored following the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s August 2005, Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California 

Red-legged Frog. Two of the fifteen would have additional monitoring using Fellers and Freel (1995) 

survey protocol for the foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs.

2.3.2 Mitigation

2.3.2.1 Soil and Water Mitigation

Trails requiring mitigation prior to being added to the MVUM are indicated by an asterisk (*) in Table 

1 and Appendix A. Activities listed in Appendix A on trails without an asterisk would occur as part of 

periodic trail maintenance. Site-specific mitigation and maintenance for 353 trails included in the 

action alternatives are described in Appendix A. They include activities such as grading trails to 

outslope them for drainage, adding rolling dips for drainage, installing culverts or putting in rocked 

fords or dips at trail stream crossings. They also include limits on the season of use to prevent damage 

during wet weather. 

2.3.2.2 Mitigations for Aquatic Species and Habitat

1. Installation of crossings: Trails that cross perennial streams and have the potential to directly 

and indirectly affect the California red-legged frog, the mountain yellow-legged frog and 

foothill yellow-legged frog and their habitats, would be mitigated by installing concrete 

planks, or culverts, and hardening crossings at trail stream crossings on trails in potentially 

suitable habitat 27 trails (specific mitigations are described by trail in Appendix A, and in 

detail in “minimization measures” of the Aquatic Species Section of Chapter 3). For 

mountain yellow-legged frog crossings, further evaluation on the ground by the Forest Hydro 

Engineer and Aquatic Biologist may determine a crossing is not required. Only hardening of 

approaches may be required.

2. Season of use: Trail use would be limited to May 1st to October 14th on 71 trails and the Sly 

Creek open area for the California red-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, and the 

foothill yellow-legged frog. A Forest Order would be utilized to restrict season of use as 

necessary determined by water year. The season of use is shown in Table 1 and Appendix A. 

Trail signs would include season of use information.

3. Interpretive signs would be installed to inform the public about aquatic species in the French 

Creek area and the need to protect these aquatic species. Information would be included in 

brochures and maps of French Creek watershed. The signs and information would be 

designed in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

4. Trail Closure Signs: Temporary trail closure signs would be placed at the head of trails 

closed during the seasonal closure.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

16 – Plumas National Forest

5. Soil and Water trail mitigation and maintenance described in the section above would

benefit aquatic species, as well.

6. Aquatic Species Monitoring: Trails in suitable California red-legged frog habitat would be 

monitored to verify the assumption that unsurveyed routes are occupied. Trails would be 

monitored using the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s August 2005, Revised Guidance on Site 

Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.

2.3.2.3 Mitigations for Wildlife Species

A Season of Use (SOU) was applied to routes that were determined to pose effects or risks to 

individuals or breeding pairs of wildlife species based on the proximity of trails to a key wildlife area 

(winter range) or a known activity center (nest or roost site). Season of use periods are displayed in 

Table 1 and Appendix A. Wildlife seasons of use were combined with other resource area seasons of 

use (e.g. watershed and amphibians) where restrictions overlapped on the same route. Based on the 

analysis conducted, the following mitigations were applied. 

1. For California Spotted Owls, a season of use (August 16th to December 31st or a shorter 

season of August 16th to October 14th if the trail has a season of use for frogs) was applied to 

35 trails to minimize effects to breeding pairs based on the proximity of a route to a known 

activity center (nest or roost sites).

2. For Northern Goshawks, a season of use (September 16th to December 31st or a shorter 

season of September 16th to October 14th if the trail has a season of use for frogs) was 

applied to 11 trails to minimize effects to breeding pairs based on the proximity of a route to a 

known activity center (nest or roost sites). 

3. For Mule Deer, a season of use (May 1st to December 31st) was applied to 13 trails to 

minimized effects to deer use in key wildlife areas during critical use periods (i.e. winter). 

4. For Bald Eagles, a season of use (August 16th to December 31st) was applied to one trail to 

minimize effects to breeding pairs based on the proximity of a route to a known activity 

center (nest sites).

2.3.2.4 Maps and Signs

If the decision is to implement one of the action alternatives, a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) 

would be created and made available to the public at no cost, as soon as practical. This map is the 

legal document designating which routes on the Forest may be legally traveled with a motorized 

vehicle, by what type of vehicle, and any seasonal or other use restrictions. Designations, use 

restrictions, and operating conditions may be revised in future decisions as needed to meet changing 

conditions or management strategies. As changes or corrections are made to the transportation system, 

the MVUM will be periodically revised and reissued.

All NFTS roads and trails that are available for public use would be signed on the ground with a 

road or trail number and any regulatory information that may apply to the route. Where necessary for 

OHV areas, perimeter signing would be installed. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 17

2.3.3 Descriptions of the Alternatives

This section describes each of the five alternatives considered in detail. The alternatives are described 

as follows: 

• Cross-country travel. Generally, all of the action alternatives prohibit cross-country travel 

except in smaller “open” areas that are specifically designated for such use. Open areas are 

described below under “Roads, trails and areas to be added to the National Forest System”. 

• Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): The alternatives 

vary in changes to the existing NFTS in terms of allowing mixed use on Slate Creek Road. 

This road provides the only motorized access linking route networks south of Quincy and 

those south of Meadow Valley. It was promoted in the past as an OHV route, and it serves as 

the only access to Rock Creek and Deanes Valley campgrounds, traditional favorites of 

families camping with OHVs. 

• Additions to the NFTS: Each alternative includes lists of trails and open areas that are 

proposed for addition to the NFTS. Each of these trails is identified by a unique trail number 

and open areas are identified by name and location. All proposed trail additions have an 

assigned maintenance level based on specific trail management objectives. All proposed 

trails would receive the appropriate level of routine maintenance such as brushing, signing, 

cleaning, clearing debris, etc. Each trail or area is site-specifically addressed in “Appendix 

A—Route Analysis Database Summary Report” where site-specific reviews by resource 

specialists are documented. Resource specialists reviewed all proposed trails and open areas 

to determine site-specific impacts. For some trails and areas, no work beyond routine 

maintenance is needed. For others, additional work is needed to bring the trail or area up to a 

safe and environmentally sustainable condition. 

2.3.3.1 Alternative 1: No-action

The No-action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. This alternative 

maintains the status quo and provides maximum access and motorized recreation opportunity. Under 

the No-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS, and no cross-country travel prohibition 

would be put in place. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no Motor 

Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be 

limited to designated trails. Unauthorized routes would continue to have no status or authorization as 

NFTS facilities. Over 1,107 miles of unauthorized routes would continue to receive use. Of these, 

approximately 725 miles are usable by all vehicles, 159 miles are 50” or less in width and 225 miles 

are usable by motorcycles only. Routes would continue to proliferate.

1. Cross-country travel: Motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public would continue except as prohibited by Forest Order. 

2. Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): none proposed.

3. Roads, trails and areas added to existing NFTS: No roads, trails or areas are proposed for 

addition to the NFTS under this alternative.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

18 – Plumas National Forest

2.3.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action contains the proposed changes to the NFTS and the prohibition of cross-country

travel as described in the NOI published January 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 2). The proposed 

action was designed to provide a high level of access and motorized recreation opportunity based on 

the purpose and need in Chapter 1. It was developed with extensive public involvement and 

collaboration (described in Chapter 1). 

1. Cross-country travel: Motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): no changes 

proposed.

3. Roads, trails and areas added to the existing NFTS: The following table displays those 

trails and areas to be added into the NFTS and their season of use. Trails with an asterisk (*) 

after the trail number would need mitigation completed prior to being added to the MVUM 

and used by the public (see Appendix A for more information). Sly Creek (36 acres) would be 

added as a motorized area open for yearlong use for vehicles 50” or less in width.

Table 1. Alternatives—Trails added to the National Forest Transportation System under Alternatives 2, 

4 and 5. (Alternatives 1 and 3 would not add any trails.)

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

4M01* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 1.55 1.55

4M02 Motorcycle FRRD 0.76

5M01 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 2.16 2.16

5M02 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 2.74 2.54

5M04 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 1.92 1.92

5M05 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.88 0.88

5M06 <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.47

5M07* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.29

5M08* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.45

5M08A <50" FRRD 0.12

5M09 <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65

5M10* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.28

5M11* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65

5M12 Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.69 1.69 1.69

5M13* Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.11 1.11

5M14 <50" FRRD 0.55

5M15 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.05

5M16 <50" FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.84 0.84 0.84

5M17* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.90 0.90

5M18 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.00

5M19* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.60 0.60

5M20* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.85

5M21 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.32
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 19

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

5M22 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.60

5M23 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.69

5M24* Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-10/14 1.17 1.17

5M25* Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.76 0.76

5M25A Motorcycle FRRD 0.34

5M26 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.49 0.49 0.49

5M27 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.22

5M28 W Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.43 0.43 0.43

5M28 E Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.76

5M30 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.42

6M02* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.87

6M03* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.23

6M04 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.39

6M05* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.41

6M08* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.52

6M09 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.37

6M10 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 5.48

6M11* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.09

6M12* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.43

6M13 N* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.79

6M13 S Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.62

6M14* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 2.62

6M14A Motorcycle FRRD 0.17

6M15 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.40

6M16* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 2.26

6M16A* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.29

6M16B Motorcycle FRRD 0.11

6M17 Motorcycle FRRD 1.00 1.00 1.00

6M17A Motorcycle FRRD 0.12 0.12 0.12

6M19 Motorcycle FRRD 9/16-12/31 3.02 3.02

6M20 W Motorcycle FRRD 9/16-12/31 0.95 0.95

6M20 E Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.82

6M21 Motorcycle FRRD 0.86

6M22 N* Motorcycle FRRD 1.90 1.90

6M22 S Motorcycle FRRD 0.93 0.93 0.93

6M22A* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65 0.65

6M23* Motorcycle FRRD 0.99 0.99

6M24* Motorcycle FRRD 0.23 0.23 0.23

6M25 All FRRD 0.20

6M26 Motorcycle FRRD 1.36

6M27 Motorcycle FRRD 0.83

6M28 Motorcycle FRRD 0.09 0.09 0.09
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

20 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

6M29* <50" FRRD 8/16-10/14 3.25 3.25

6M29A* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.20 0.20

6M29B* Motorcycle FRRD 0.47 0.47

6M29C* Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-10/14 0.76 0.76

6M29D* Motorcycle FRRD 9/16-10/14 0.52 

6M29E* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65 0.65

6M30 E Motorcycle FRRD 0.33 0.33 0.33

6M30 W* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.17 0.17

6M30A Motorcycle FRRD 0.30 0.30 0.30

6M31 W Motorcycle FRRD 0.20 0.20 0.20

6M31 E* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.15 0.15

6M32 Motorcycle FRRD 9/16-12/31 0.36 0.36 0.36

6M33 <50" FRRD 9/16-12/31 0.65 0.65 0.65

6M34 All FRRD 0.52 0.52 0.52

6M34A* Motorcycle FRRD 0.37 0.37

6M35 Motorcycle FRRD 0.47

6M36* Motorcycle FRRD 9/16-10/14 0.86 0.86

6M37 All MHRD 1.42 1.42 1.42

6M38 All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.38

6M39* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.66 0.66

6M47 Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.56

6M48* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14

6M51 Motorcycle FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.77 0.77

7M01 All FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.59

7M02 Motorcycle FRRD 1.12

7M03 All FRRD 0.36 0.36 0.36

7M04* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.66 0.66

7M07* Motorcycle FRRD 0.39 0.39

7M08 Motorcycle FRRD 0.86

7M09 All FRRD 0.26

7M10 Motorcycle FRRD 0.54

7M11 <50" FRRD 0.48 0.48 0.48

7M12 <50" FRRD 0.94

7M13 All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.70

7M14 All MHRD 0.25 0.25 0.25

7M15 All MHRD 1.20 1.20 1.20

7M16 All MHRD 0.94 0.94 0.94

7M17 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.73 1.73 1.73

7M18 All MHRD 0.66 0.66 0.66

7M22 <50" MHRD 0.72 0.72 0.72

7M28* All FRRD 0.39 0.39

8M01 Motorcycle FRRD 0.50
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 21

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

8M02 All MHRD 0.78 0.78 0.78

8M03 All MHRD 1.57 1.57 1.57

8M04 <50" MHRD 0.69

8M10 <50" MHRD 9/16-12/31 0.67 0.67 0.67

8M11* All MHRD 1.01 1.01 1.01

8M11A* Motorcycle MHRD 0.84 0.84 0.84

8M13 <50" MHRD 0.96

8M14 <50" MHRD 0.27

8M15 <50" MHRD 0.32 0.32 0.32

8M16 <50" MHRD 0.77 0.77 0.77

8M17 <50" MHRD 5/1-10/14 1.28

8M18 <50" MHRD 0.41

8M19 <50" MHRD 1.27 1.27 1.27

8M20 All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.19

8M21 All MHRD 0.72

8M22 All MHRD 0.48

8M23* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.49

8M24 <50" MHRD 8/16-12/31 2.71 2.71

8M25 All MHRD 1.03 1.03 1.03

8M26 All MHRD 1.01 1.01 1.01

8M27 All MHRD 2.26 2.26 2.26

8M27(ex) All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.81

8M27A All MHRD 0.33 0.33 0.33

8M28 <50" MHRD 1.08 1.08 1.08

8M28A <50" MHRD 0.10

8M29 <50" MHRD 0.66 0.66 0.66

8M30 <50" MHRD 0.49 0.49 0.49

8M31 <50" MHRD 1.11 1.11 1.11

8M32 All MHRD 0.64 0.64 0.64

8M33 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 0.96

8M34 All MHRD 0.06

8M35 All MHRD 1.57 1.57 1.57

8M36 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 0.96

8M37 All MHRD 0.82 0.82 0.82

8M37A All MHRD 0.08

8M37B All MHRD 0.15 0.15 0.15

8M38* All MHRD 0.54 0.54

8M39 All MHRD 0.71 0.71 0.71

8M39A All MHRD 0.32 0.32 0.32

8M40 All MHRD 0.34 0.34 0.34

8M41* All MHRD 0.33 0.33

8M42* <50" MHRD 0.98 0.98
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

22 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

8M43 All MHRD 0.36 0.36 0.36

8M44 All MHRD 0.30 0.30 0.30

8M45 All MHRD 0.46 0.46 0.46

8M46 All MHRD 0.61 0.61 0.61

8M47 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.46 1.46 1.46

8M47A All MHRD 0.35

8M48* All MHRD 0.49 0.49

8M49 All MHRD 0.32 0.32 0.32

8M50 All MHRD 0.83 0.83 0.83

8M51 All MHRD 0.84 0.84 0.84

8M52 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.39 1.39 1.39

8M53 All MHRD 0.66 0.66 0.66

8M54 All MHRD 0.82 0.82 0.82

9M01 <50" FRRD 0.91 0.91 0.91

9M02 Motorcycle FRRD 0.39 0.39 0.39

9M03 <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.56

9M04* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.18 0.18

9M05 W <50" FRRD 1.57 1.57 1.57

9M05 E <50" FRRD 0.09

9M06 <50" FRRD 0.14

9M07 Motorcycle FRRD 0.08

9M08 <50" FRRD 2.11 2.11 2.11

9M08A <50" FRRD 0.13 0.13 0.13

9M09 <50" FRRD 0.84 0.84 0.84

9M10 <50" FRRD 1.65 1.65 1.65

9M11 Motorcycle FRRD 0.65 0.65 0.65

9M12* Motorcycle FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.38 0.38

9M13* All FRRD 8/16-10/14 0.48 0.48

9M14 N* All FRRD 8/16-10/14 0.94 0.94

9M14 S All FRRD 0.56

9M14A All FRRD 0.58

9M15 Motorcycle FRRD 0.81 0.81

9M16* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.22 1.22

9M16A <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.57

9M17 All FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.38

9M18 All FRRD 0.05

9M19 All FRRD 0.67

9M20 All FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.39

9M21 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.63 1.63 1.63

9M22 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.38

9M23 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.06 1.06 1.06

9M24 All FRRD 0.85
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 23

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

9M25 <50" FRRD 1.72

9M25A <50" FRRD 0.14

9M26 <50" FRRD 0.90

9M27 <50" FRRD 0.24

9M32 W* All MHRD 0.53

9M32 E All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.43

9M33 Motorcycle MHRD 8/16-12/31 2.66

9M34 Motorcycle MHRD 0.55 0.55 0.55

9M35 Motorcycle MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.69 0.69

9M36 All MHRD 1.33

9M37* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.68 1.68

9M37A All MHRD 0.43

9M37B All MHRD 0.25

9M38 <50" MHRD 1.61 1.61 1.61

9M39 All MHRD 1.13 1.13 1.13

9M39A All MHRD 0.69 0.69 0.69

9M40 <50" MHRD 1.01 1.01 1.01

9M41 Motorcycle MHRD 0.67 0.67 0.67

9M41A Motorcycle MHRD 0.19 0.19 0.19

9M42 N All MHRD 0.49 0.49 0.49

9M42 S All MHRD 0.32

9M42A All MHRD 0.17 0.17 0.17

9M42B All MHRD 0.52 0.52

9M43 All MHRD 0.26 0.26 0.26

9M44 All MHRD 0.49 0.49 0.49

9M45* Motorcycle MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.61 0.61

9M46* All MHRD 0.95 0.95

9M46A* All MHRD 0.49 0.49

9M47A All MHRD 0.47 0.47 0.47

9M48 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 0.96

9M49 All MHRD 1.76 1.76 1.76

9M50 All MHRD 9/16-12/31 0.33 0.33 0.33

9M51 All MHRD 1.27 1.27 1.27

9M52 All MHRD 0.63 0.63 0.63

9M53 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.59

9M53A All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.46

9M54 All MHRD 1.00 1.00 1.00

9M55 All MHRD 0.53 0.53 0.53

9M56* All MHRD 0.73 0.73

9M56A* All MHRD 0.38 0.38

9M57 All MHRD 0.82 0.82 0.82

9M57A All MHRD 0.17 0.17 0.17
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

24 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

9M58 All MHRD 1.11 1.11 1.11

9M58A All MHRD 0.63 0.63 0.63

9M58B All MHRD 0.55 0.55 0.55

9M59A All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.47

9M59C All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.18

9M59D All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.18

9M59E All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.43

9M60 All MHRD 0.42 0.42 0.42

9M62 All FRRD 0.48 0.48 0.48

9M65 All MHRD 0.63 0.63 0.63

10M01 Motorcycle FRRD

10M02* <50" FRRD 8/16-10/14 1.25 1.25 

10M07 <50" FRRD 2.64

10M09 All FRRD 0.84

10M11 All FRRD 0.67 0.67

10M12 All BKRD 0.95 0.95 0.95

10M13 All BKRD 0.20 0.20

10M14 All MHRD 0.12 0.12

10M15 All BKRD 0.54 0.54

10M16* All MHRD 1.09 1.09

10M19 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.26 1.26 1.26

10M20 All MHRD 1.31 1.31 1.31

10M20A All MHRD 0.48 0.48 0.48

10M20B All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.13

10M21* All MHRD 1.24 1.24

10M21A W All MHRD 0.16

10M21A E All MHRD 0.11 0.11

10M21B All MHRD 0.91 0.91

10M21C All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.13

10M22 All MHRD 0.50

10M23 N All MHRD 0.52 0.52

10M23 S All MHRD 2.07 2.07 2.07

10M24* All MHRD 1.28 1.28

10M25 All MHRD 1.14 1.14 1.14

10M27* All MHRD 0.96 0.96

10M28 All MHRD 1.38

10M28A All MHRD 1.01

10M29* All MHRD 1.56 1.56

10M30 All MHRD 0.83 0.83 0.83

10M30A All MHRD 0.24 0.24 0.24

10M30B All MHRD 0.27

10M30C All MHRD 0.09
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 25

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

10M30D All MHRD 0.18

10M31 All MHRD 0.24 0.24 0.24

10M32* <50" MHRD 1.26 1.26

10M33 All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.70

10M34 All MHRD 1.83 1.83 1.83

10M35 All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.51

10M36* All MHRD 1.01 1.01

10M36A All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.17

10M38 <50" MHRD 2.47

10M39 All MHRD 0.17

10M40* <50" MHRD 1.35 1.35

10M42 All MHRD 1.44

10M43 All MHRD 1.15

10M44 All MHRD 0.45 0.45 0.45

10M45 All MHRD 0.67 0.67 0.67

10M46 All MHRD 0.71 0.71 0.71

10M47 All MHRD 1.50 1.50 1.50

10M54 All MHRD 0.83 0.83 0.83

10M55* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.25

11M02 All BKRD 1.72 1.72 1.72

11M03 All BKRD 0.52 0.52 0.52

11M04 All BKRD 0.76 0.76 0.76

11M05 All BKRD 0.96 0.96 0.96

11M06 All BKRD 0.42 0.42 0.42

11M07 All BKRD 0.16 0.16 0.16

11M08 All MHRD 8/16-10/14 1.16

11M08A All MHRD 8/16-10/14 0.27

11M08B All MHRD 8/16-10/14 0.09

11M09* All BKRD 8/16-12/31 1.07 1.07

11M10 <50" BKRD 1.97 1.97 1.97

11M11 <50" BKRD 1.03 1.03 1.03

11M13 N <50" MHRD 0.80 0.80

11M13 SW <50" MHRD 0.23

11M13A All MHRD 0.35 0.35

11M13B <50" MHRD 0.53 0.53

11M13C <50" MHRD 0.06 0.06

11M13D <50" MHRD 0.08

11M14 <50" MHRD 0.42

11M15 All MHRD 0.38 0.38

11M15A All MHRD 0.25

11M16 <50" MHRD 0.65 0.65 0.65

11M17 All MHRD 0.96 0.96
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

26 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

11M18 All MHRD 0.14 0.14

11M19 All MHRD 0.66

11M20 All MHRD 3.33 3.33 3.33

11M22 <50" MHRD 0.40 0.40 0.40

11M23* <50" MHRD 0.67 0.67

11M24* All MHRD 0.47 0.47

11M25* All MHRD 0.43 0.43

11M30 All MHRD 0.58 0.58 0.58

11M34 All MHRD 0.73 0.73 0.73

11M35* All MHRD 0.71 0.71

11M36 All MHRD 1.36 1.36 1.36

11M37 All MHRD 2.15 2.15 2.15

11M38 All MHRD 0.53 0.53 0.53

11M39 All MHRD 0.55 0.55 0.55

11M40 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.64

11M41 All MHRD 1.29 1.29 1.29

11M41A All MHRD 0.35 0.35 0.35

11M42 All MHRD 0.16

12M03 All BKRD 0.76 0.76 0.76

12M04 All BKRD 0.41 0.41 0.41

12M06 All BKRD 0.85

12M07 All BKRD 0.44 0.44 0.44

12M08 All BKRD 0.72 0.72

12M09* All MHRD 3.08 3.08

12M09A All MHRD 0.84 0.84 0.84

12M10* All BKRD 2.96 2.96

12M10A* All BKRD 0.35 0.35

12M12* All BKRD 0.67 0.67

12M13 All BKRD 0.40 0.40 0.40

12M14 All BKRD 0.58

12M15* All MHRD 0.23 0.23

12M16 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.21

12M17 All MHRD 0.16 0.16 0.16

12M18 All MHRD 0.14

12M19 All MHRD 0.68 0.68 0.68

12M20 All MHRD 0.11 0.11 0.11

12M21* All MHRD 0.23 0.23

12M21A* All MHRD 0.05 0.05

12M22* All MHRD 0.15 0.15

12M23 All MHRD 0.91 0.91 0.91

12M24 All MHRD 0.28

12M25 <50" MHRD 9/16-12/31 1.44
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 27

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

12M26 <50" MHRD 1.55

12M27 <50" MHRD 0.91 0.91 0.91

12M30 All MHRD 0.04

12M31* All MHRD 0.99

12M32 All MHRD 0.16 0.16

12M34 All MHRD 0.25 0.25

12M35 All BKRD 0.11 0.11

12M37 All BKRD 0.17 0.17

12M38 All MHRD 0.26 0.26

13M01 All BKRD 1.07 1.07 1.07

13M03 All BKRD 0.45

13M04 All BKRD 0.49 0.49 0.49

13M04A All BKRD 0.16

13M04B All BKRD 0.11 0.11 0.11

13M05 All BKRD 0.58

13M06* All BKRD 1.63 1.63

13M07 All BKRD 1.24

13M08 All BKRD 1.39

13M09 All BKRD 0.46 0.46 0.46

13M09A All BKRD 0.06

13M10 All BKRD 12.04

13M10A All BKRD 0.04

13M10B All BKRD 0.13

13M10C All BKRD 0.04

13M11 <50" BKRD 1.97

13M12 All BKRD 1.50 1.50 1.50

13M12A All BKRD 0.25 0.25 0.25

13M13 All BKRD 9/16-12/31 1.07 1.07

13M14 All BKRD 9/16-12/31 1.33 1.33 1.33

13M15 All BKRD 0.81 0.81 0.81

13M16 All BKRD 0.54 0.54 0.54

13M17 All BKRD 1.02 1.02 1.02

13M18 N All BKRD 0.65 0.65 0.65

13M18 S All BKRD 0.85 0.85

13M19 All BKRD 1.19

13M20 All BKRD 0.22

13M21 S All BKRD 0.60 0.60 0.60

13M21 N All BKRD 0.71

13M21A All BKRD 0.22

13M22 All BKRD 1.12

13M23 All BKRD 0.60

13M24 All BKRD 0.64
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

28 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

13M25* All BKRD 5/1-10/14 0.70 0.70 

13M26 All BKRD 0.59 0.59 0.59

13M27 All BKRD 0.93

13M28 All BKRD 0.45 0.45 0.45

13M29 All BKRD 2.24 2.24 2.24

13M30* Motorcycle BKRD 0.43 0.43

13M31 All BKRD 2.33 2.33

13M31A <50" BKRD 1.56 1.56

13M32 All BKRD 0.21

13M34 All BKRD 0.54 0.54

13M36 All BKRD 0.13 0.13

13M37 All BKRD 0.57 0.57

13M38 All BKRD 0.47 0.47

13M40 All BKRD 1.02 1.02

13M41* All BKRD 0.82

13M42* All BKRD 0.08

14M01 All BKRD 1.76 1.76 1.76

14M01A All BKRD 0.22

14M01B All BKRD 0.17

14M01C All BKRD 0.24

14M02 W All BKRD 0.45 0.45 0.45

14M02 E All BKRD 0.81

14M04 All BKRD 0.70 0.70 0.70

14M05* All BKRD 0.72 0.72

14M06* All BKRD 0.37 0.37

14M07 All BKRD 0.49

14M08 All BKRD 0.48

14M09 All BKRD 1.41

14M10 All BKRD 0.57 0.57 0.57

14M11 NW All BKRD 0.57

14M11 NE All BKRD 0.57 0.37 0.37

14M11 S All BKRD 1.70 1.70 1.70

14M12 All BKRD 1.52 1.52 1.52

14M16 All BKRD 0.29 0.29

15M01 <50" BKRD 1.46

15M01A <50" BKRD 0.16

15M02 All BKRD 1.46

15M02A All BKRD 0.09

15M02B All BKRD 1.08

15M03* All BKRD 0.29 0.29

15M04 All BKRD 0.32 0.32

15M05 All BKRD 2.18 2.18
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 29

Trail Vehicle Type District

Season of 

Use (SOU)

Alt 2

Miles

Alt 4

Miles

Alt 5

Miles

15M07 All BKRD 0.76

15M08 All BKRD 0.40 0.40

15M10 All BKRD 0.34 0.34

16M01 All BKRD 1.78

16M03 All BKRD 0.77 0.77 0.77

16M03A All BKRD 0.12

16M03B All BKRD 0.27

16M04* All BKRD 2.08 2.08

16M04A* All BKRD 0.54 0.54

17M01 <50" BKRD 0.28 0.28 0.28

17M02 All BKRD 0.66

17M03 All BKRD 0.51 0.51 0.51

17M04 All BKRD 1.22 1.22

17M05* All BKRD 3.87

17M06 All BKRD 0.72

17M06A All BKRD 0.69

Sly Creek* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 36 Ac

All 216.07 108.14 156.35

<50" 62.81 22.42 38.71

Motorcycle 82.46 9.65 39.04

Total Miles 361.34 140.21 234.10

* Trail would require mitigation as shown in Appendix A prior to being added to the MVUM and used by the public.

2.3.3.3 Alternative 3: Cross-Country Travel Prohibition Only—Make No Additions to the Current 

National Forest Transportation System

Alternative 3 responds to non-motorized recreation interest in “Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(CIRAs)” proposed by the Wilderness Society and natural resource impacts by prohibiting crosscountry travel without adding any additional facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a 

baseline for comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS. None of 

the current unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): None.

3. Roads, trails and areas added to the existing NFTS: No roads, trails or areas would be 

added to the NFTS.

2.3.3.4 Alternative 4: Minimize Impacts to Natural Resources and “Citizen Inventoried Roadless 

Areas”

Alternative 4 responds to non-motorized recreation interest in “Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(CIRAs)” proposed by the Wilderness Society and natural resource impacts. This alternative adds no 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

30 – Plumas National Forest

motorized routes to CIRAs. This alternative does not designate routes as trails where resource 

concerns require extensive trail mitigation.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): The table below 

(Table 2) lists a NFTS passenger car road (highway legal vehicles only) that is proposed for 

mixed use (combining highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the same road). 

Note: The Draft EIS showed three roads with such vehicle class changes. Following further 

analysis, French Creek Road (23N28 – 3.2 miles) and Janesville-Frenchman Road (28N01 –

4 miles) were determined to be Maintenance Level 2(ML2) roads. Maintenance Level 2 roads 

are roughly graded to accommodate high clearance vehicles at slow speeds and both 

highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles are already allowed on ML2 roads. Therefore, 

there is no need to change vehicle class on roads 23N28 or 28N01. 

3. Roads, trails and areas added to the existing NFTS: Table 1 displays those trails to be 

added to the NFTS.

Table 2. Alternative 4 and 5—Proposed vehicle class changes.

Road 

Number

Road Name Current Vehicle Class Proposed Vehicle 

Class

Length 

(miles)

24N28 Slate Creek Highway Legal Vehicles Only All Vehicles 4.1

Total 4.1

2.3.3.5 Alternative 5: Improved Access and Motorized Recreation Opportunities

Alternative 5 responds to the issue of access, motorized recreation opportunity, and natural resource 

protection. During scoping the Plumas National Forest received suggestions for additional routes and 

alternative routes that would better provide access and motorized recreation opportunity. This 

alternative includes 10 miles of trails proposed by the public that were not in the proposed action.

Between the Draft and Final EIS, trails in California red-legged frog critical aquatic refuge areas were 

dropped from this alternative. The Sly Creek open area (located in the Pinkard critical aquatic refuge) 

was also dropped from this alternative.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): Table 2 lists a 

NFTS passenger car road (highway legal vehicles only) that is proposed for mixed use 

(combining highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the same road). 

3. Roads, trails and areas added to the existing NFTS: Table 1 displays those trails to be 

added to the NFTS. Trails with an asterisk (*) after the trail number would need mitigation 

completed prior to being added to the MVUM and used by the public (see Appendix A for 

more information). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 31

2.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

The following describes those alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study 

and the rationale for their elimination. Several were suggested in comments on the Draft EIS.

2.4.1 Designate All Inventoried Routes as Motorized Trails

A total of 1,107 miles of unauthorized routes were inventoried and considered for inclusion in the 

NFTS. Some commenters requested that the Forest examine an alternative that would add all of these 

routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study for the 

following reasons. It included many short routes that would not benefit the trail system. It included 

routes that are inconsistent with the criteria in Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. Some have 

multiple resource issues, which is inconsistent with Subpart B criteria to minimize damage to forest 

resources. Some originate on private land or lead to private land, which could cause conflicts with 

adjacent landowners. 

In addition, this proposed alternative included routes that were not surveyed because the public 

did not show specific interest in them during public scoping and collaboration. From the 1,107 miles 

of inventoried routes, the interdisciplinary team initially suggested 220 miles of trails based on a 

review and rating of trail destination opportunities, travel experiences, resource values, and 

administrative needs and concerns. The Forest Service solicited public input for additional trail 

suggestions. The original proposed action included the 220 miles suggested by the Forest Service and 

155 miles of additional routes proposed by the public. After public scoping, an additional 35 miles of 

routes were surveyed as possible trail additions. A total of 410 miles were surveyed for possible trail 

additions. 

The extensive public involvement and collaboration process are discussed in Chapter 1.

2.4.2 Designate More Trails

Some commenters requested an alternative with more trails than the proposed action. This alternative 

was eliminated from detailed study because the proposed action and Alternative 5 were designed to 

meet public desires for motorized trails based on extensive public collaboration. The Responsible 

Official chose to focus alternative development based on public concerns about specific trails rather 

than developing alternatives based on arbitrary total trail mileages. Designing and analyzing an 

alternative that adds additional trails that did not generate specific public interest or where those 

additions have substantial adverse effects to resources would be costly and time consuming without 

compelling benefits to recreation. Such an alternative would also likely include trails that do not meet 

the criteria to minimize damage to resources. 

The range of alternatives considered in detail includes hundreds of miles of trails. In addition, the 

Forest has an extensive existing road network totaling over 4,000 miles. In cases where specific trails 

that were not part of the proposed action were requested by the public, the interdisciplinary team 

considered them and surveyed an additional 35 miles of routes with high recreation benefits. As 

discussed above, a total of 410 miles of routes were surveyed and considered for possible trail 

additions. Alternative 5 includes 10 miles of trails that were not part of the proposed action. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

32 – Plumas National Forest

2.4.3 Designate all Inventoried Routes and Do Decommissioning and Restoration 

Later

Some commenters suggested that all inventoried routes be designated and then, on a yearly basis, 

drop some trails with extensive resource damage from the system and do resource restoration. 

This was eliminated from detailed study because adding trails to the NFTS that are known to have 

extensive adverse effects, only to analyze them again in future years and remove them from the

system, is unnecessarily costly and inefficient. It would also be inconsistent with the criteria in 

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule to minimize damage to forest resources.

The Forest has other programs in place that are used to complete resource restoration on 

unauthorized routes. The Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG) 

vegetation and watershed projects include analysis of routes to see where restoration is needed. 

Through these projects, most of the Forest will be analyzed by 2012. The Forest watershed program 

carries out restoration projects on a regular basis, including routes damaged from motorized 

recreation. 

2.4.4 Designate All Unpaved Maintenance Level 3 and 4 Roads for Mixed Use

An alternative was proposed to designate all unpaved Maintenance Level 3 and 4 passenger car roads 

for mixed use. The Plumas National Forest does not have unpaved Maintenance Level 4 roads, but 

does have unpaved Maintenance Level 3 roads. This proposal would make these NFTS passenger car 

roads (highway legal vehicles only) available for mixed use (combining highway legal and nonhighway legal vehicles on the same road).

The purpose and need for this project includes managing unregulated cross-country vehicle travel 

by implementing the Travel Management Rule Subpart B’s prohibition on cross-country travel and 

designating a system of trails that will continue to provide motorized recreation opportunities and 

access to recreation for the public. Consideration of extensive changes to the existing NFTS, such as 

the mixed use designation proposed in this Alternative, is not part of the purpose and need for action. 

Based on public interest, Alternatives 4 and 5 described above include a mixed use road. 

2.4.5 Designate and Manage Areas for Dispersed Camping

During proposed action development, the Forest Service considered setting up a managed dispersed 

camping program that would include mapping, numbering, signing and formal management of 

popular dispersed campsites. Dispersed camping is generally allowed throughout the Forest, but there 

are some prohibited areas and other restrictions. Such camping can occur in a motor vehicle, adjacent 

to a vehicle, or some distance from it. It varies from camping in a self-contained recreation vehicle 

(RV) to backpacker tent camping. 

This alternative to manage dispersed camping was eliminated from detailed study for a few 

reasons. Setting up a managed dispersed camping program is not needed to meet the purpose and 

need to prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel and the criteria to minimize damage to forest 

resources. While campsites may have vehicle use in the form of parking, they are not travel routes 

receiving repeated vehicle use and damage. Forest visitors generally park RVs and other vehicles 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 33

along roads for camping purposes, which is still allowed under all of the alternatives. The 

Interdisciplinary Team found that current ongoing management of individual dispersed campsites 

provides resource protection, and there was no immediate need to limit or regulate dispersed camping

beyond the Travel Management Rule’s prohibition on cross-country vehicle travel.

Regulating the dispersed campsites through a formal program would change the nature of the 

dispersed camping experience (make it more like a developed site) and increase the use of individual 

dispersed campsites. An alternative developing a formal program would not provide more dispersed 

camping access over the action alternatives. It would just provide formal management of a select 

group of dispersed campsites. 

2.4.6 Designate More Motorized Play Areas

Some commenters requested an alternative with more motorized play areas in addition to the 36-acre 

Sly Creek open area included in Alternative 2. Specific areas requested are near Meadow Valley, 

Oakland Camp and Greenville. In general they are areas that have been heavily used by local riders 

who have been creating and using concentrated, intertwined trail networks. Designating these areas 

was eliminated from detailed study because they are located adjacent to private land or a permit area. 

(Oakland Camp is a family and youth camp under special use permit on National Forest System land.) 

Play area use often generates conflicts with adjacent landowners due to problems with vehicle noise, 

road congestion, littering, and trespassing. The development of the play areas was legal because the 

Forest was open to cross-country travel. However, they are not suitable areas to designate as 

permanent play areas because of the nuisance they would cause adjacent landowners and campers. 

This alternative would not meet the Travel Management Rule criteria to minimize conflicts between 

motor vehicles and existing recreational uses of National Forest lands in the case of Oakland Camp. It 

would also not meet the criteria for compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in 

populated areas in the cases of Greenville and Meadow Valley. 

2.4.7 Allow Cross-Country Travel to Firewood Trees

Some commenters requested cross-country motorized access to firewood trees. 

Motor vehicles have not been allowed to travel cross country during firewood gathering on the 

Plumas for over a decade. Personal use firewood permits on the Plumas specify that permit holders 

may only cut dead trees within 100 feet of the road and must follow the Forest Off-Highway Vehicle 

policy, which currently restricts vehicles to existing roads, trails and mapped routes. In previous 

years, permits required that people park next to the road. The standard practice is to carry wood to the 

vehicle by hand or in a handcart or wheelbarrow.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons. It does not meet the 

purpose and need for the Travel Management project. Because the Forest has an extensive road 

system, 100-foot buffers on each side of a road would add a huge area where motorized use and 

potential resource damage would occur, which is inconsistent with the need to regulate motorized use. 

The extent of the analysis required for this additional area is beyond the capability of the Forest, 

considering timeframes, cost and personnel.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

34 – Plumas National Forest

2.4.8 Provide a Balanced Recreation Experience for all Vehicle Types

An alternative was requested that would provide a balanced recreation experience for all vehicle 

types. Creating a system of motorized trails with similar miles of trail for all vehicle types 

(motorcycles, ATVs, 4x4s) and experience levels (novice to expert) with the existing unauthorized 

routes is not possible. For example, most of the existing unauthorized routes are old temporary roads 

and do not meet objectives for expert motorcycle trails. This alternative was eliminated from detailed 

study because it would require design and construction of new trails. New trail construction is not part 

of this Travel Management project. The Travel Management Rule does include provisions for revising 

the system of trails in the future (36 CFR 212.54). None of the alternatives preclude future trail 

projects that would further enhance the balance of Forest trail opportunities.

2.4.9 Seasonal Closure Based on Rainfall

Some commenters requested an alternative that bases seasonal closures on rainfall, rather than dates. 

The Forest explored using rainfall or ground condition to trigger motorized trail closure in 

conjunction with established dates for a more flexible allowed season of use, which would be 

responsive to ground conditions and potential resource damage. However, short-term closure orders 

are limited to emergencies, not ongoing management needs, and Motorized Vehicle Use Maps 

(MVUMs) are required to use set dates to facilitate enforcement of closures; therefore developing a 

rainfall-based wet weather closure plan was eliminated from detailed study.

2.4.10 Designate Fewer Trails Based on Water and Soil

One commenter requested an alternative be considered that does not include the Sly Creek open area, 

routes in Critical Aquatic Refuges, serpentine soils or watersheds at high risk of cumulative effects or 

that exceed 4 miles of road per square mile. The commenter was concerned about the existing adverse 

effects in these areas. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because the existing adverse effects to 

resources would be mitigated in the Sly Creek area and on many specific proposed trails before being 

open to the public under the action alternatives (Appendix A). This would minimize damage to 

resources to a degree that the action alternatives would be an improvement compared to the current 

condition. 

Alternative 4 is designed to reduce resource impacts based on the site-specific condition of 

individual trails. Alternative 3 does not add any trails, which responds to concerns about these areas. 

2.4.11 Reduce Road Density Based on Comprehensive Travel Analysis and 

Seasonal Wet Weather Closures of Roads

Commenters requested an alternative that conducts comprehensive travel analysis and reduces NFTS 

road density and an alternative that adds seasonal wet weather closures to NFTS roads. These

alternatives are outside of the scope of the project because they primarily point to Subpart A of the 

Travel Management Rule. This project was designed to implement Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule, which states,
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 35

“The Responsible Official may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding 

travel management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of 

motor vehicle use, in designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System 

trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart 

(36 CFR: § 212.50 (b)).”

The Responsible Official has determined that existing NFTS roads and trails would not to be 

considered for repair, reconstruction, decommissioning, or seasonal use restrictions, as part of this 

proposal. Repair and maintenance of the existing NFTS are routine, ongoing activities on National 

Forests, and are typically categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment 

or environmental impact statement in accordance with agency policy in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15, Chapter 30, Section 31.12 (4): “Repair and Maintenance of Roads Trails and Landline 

Boundaries.” Further, re-evaluation of previous decisions that established the existing NFTS is not 

necessary for implementing Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. However, past, present, and 

future environmental impacts of the existing NFTS are incorporated into cumulative-effects analyses 

for the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

This action is not addressing the creation of a travel management plan, but rather deals 

specifically with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which provides direction for a system of 

NFTS roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use, and the prohibition of motor vehicle 

use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas. Subpart B is intended to prevent 

resource damage caused by unmanaged motor vehicle travel by the public. Therefore, comprehensive 

changes to the existing NFTS are beyond the scope of this analysis.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 36

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 3 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives in detail. This section of Chapter 2 compares the alternatives by summarizing 

key differences between the alternatives and their effects (Table 3 and Table 4). 

Table 3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Item Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Cross-country Travel Continues Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited

Changes to Vehicle Class from Highway Legal 

Only to Mixed Use (Both Highway-Legal and 

Non-Highway Legal Allowed) 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 4.1 miles 4.1miles

Motorized Trails & 

Areas Added To 

National Forest 

System

Trails Added Open to 

All Vehicles 0 miles 216.07 miles 0 miles 108.14 miles 156.35 miles

Trails Added Open to 

OHV Use Vehicles 50” 

or Less 0 miles 62.81 miles 0 miles 22.42 miles 38.71 miles

Trails Added Open to 

Motorcycles 0 miles 82.46 miles 0 miles 9.65 miles 39.04 miles

Total 0 miles 361.34 miles 0 miles 140.21 miles 234.10 miles

Areas Added Open to 

OHV Use Vehicles 50” 

or Less None

Sly Creek area

36 acres None None None
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 37

Table 4. Summary comparison of alternatives by environmental effects.

Resource Area: Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Aquatic Biota 1 2 5 4 3

Botanical Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Cultural Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Noxious Weeds 1 2 5 4 3

Motorized Recreation 5 4 1 2 3

Quiet Recreation 1 2 5 4 3

Visual Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Transportation Facilities 1 2 5 4 3

Water and Soil Resource 1 2 5 4 3

Terrestrial Biota 1 2 5 4 3

1

A rank of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for the specified resource; a rank of 1 indicates the alternative has the 

most impact for specified resource. See Chapter 3 for more details.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

38 - Plumas National Forest

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are affected 

by the proposed action and alternatives (“Affected Environment”) and the effects on that environment 

that would result from implementation of any of the alternatives (“Environmental Consequences”). 

This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives 

presented in “Chapter 2: Alternatives”. The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects, along with applicable mitigation measures. These terms are defined 

as follows:

• Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action.

• Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

• Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Specialist reports are incorporated by reference into this analysis.

3.1.1 Analysis Process

The environmental consequences presented in this chapter address the impacts of the actions 

proposed under each alternative for the Plumas National Forest. This effects analysis was done at the 

site specific and Forest scales (the scale of the proposed action as discussed in Chapter 1). Each 

affected road, trail and area proposed in the alternatives has been reviewed by resource specialists. 

These findings are summarized in Appendix A. Readers seeking information concerning the 

environmental effects associated with a specific road, trail or area are directed to Appendix A, where 

details concerning mitigation measures, maintenance, and resource effects are documented.

For ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described 

separately for three discrete actions and then combined to provide the total direct and indirect effects 

of each alternative. The combination of these discrete actions is then added to the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the cumulative effects analysis. The three discrete actions common 

to all action alternatives are:

1. Prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. The direct and indirect effects of this 

action are described generally in each alternative, considering both current conditions and 

projected trends. Both short (1 year) and long-term (approximately 20 years) effects are 

presented.

2. Addition of new facilities (roads, trails, and/or open areas) to the NFTS. As described above, 

the impacts of new facilities are addressed in sum total in this chapter while impacts of 

individual routes or areas are addressed in Appendix A. For most resources, one or more 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 39

resource indicators are used to measure the direct and indirect effects of each alternative. 

Both short (1 year) and long-term (approximately 20 years) impacts are presented.

3. Changes to vehicle class and season of use on the existing NFTS. Impacts caused by changes 

to vehicle class and season of use on the existing NFTS are described generally by 

alternative. For some impacts (for example public safety), impacts are also addressed by 

route.

3.1.2 Cumulative Effects

According to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, the definition of 

“cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

The cumulative effects analysis area is described under each resource, but in most cases includes 

the entire Plumas National Forest including private and other public lands that lie within the Forest 

boundary. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the 

“Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under 

each resource.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior 

human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to 

cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this 

approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly 

costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century 

(and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would 

be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not 

be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited 

information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably 

identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. 

Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human action risks does not take into account the 

important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as 

much as human action. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects 

of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed 

those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for 

detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued 

an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, 

“agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

40 - Plumas National Forest

effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” Past 

actions are treated similarly in the recently published Forest Service Regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (36 CFR 220). For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in 

this section is based on current environmental conditions.

Appendix C lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions potentially contributing to 

cumulative effects. While the appendix lists all actions, every resource is not affected by every action. 

For example, a future project may affect wildlife but not affect water quality.

3.1.3 Affected Environment Overview

There are many aspects of the affected environment that are shared by all resources. In order to avoid 

repeating these shared elements of the affected environment in each resource section the following 

general elements of the affected environment are provided.

Unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat 

degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. On some Plumas National Forest System (NFS) 

lands, long managed as open to cross-country motor vehicle travel, repeated use has resulted in 

unplanned, unauthorized roads and trails. These routes generally developed without environmental 

analysis or public involvement, and do not have the same status as National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS) roads and NFTS trails included in the Forest transportation system.

In December 2007, a temporary Forest Order was implemented that prohibited travel off of 

existing routes shown on the Forest Order exhibit map. The order was established as a temporary 

measure to protect resources and help prevent additional user-created routes from being established 

while the PNF undertook implementation of the Travel Management Rule and the production of their 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

3.1.4 Appendix A 

Appendix A lists each route proposed for addition to the NFTS and identifies the alternative(s) under 

which the route is proposed, the type of vehicle(s) allowed, and the season when the route would be 

open. In addition, Appendix A identifies any resource concerns and necessary maintenance and 

mitigation measures.

3.1.5 Law Enforcement Assumptions Common to Effects Analyses

• Enforcement of the laws and regulations related to Travel Management will be enforced 

equally in authority and weight as with all other Federal laws and regulations (see Appendix 

I for more information).

• As with any change in a regulation on NFS lands, there is usually a transition period for the 

public to understand the changes. It is anticipated there will be a higher number of violations 

to the Travel Management Rule the first few years and the number of violations will decline 

as the users understand and comply with the rules.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 41

• Once the Motor Vehicle Use Map is published, the implementation of the established 

dedicated network of roads, trails, and areas with signs and user education programs, will 

reduce the number of motor vehicles traveling off designated routes.

• Providing motorized recreation opportunities in popular, key areas will help relieve pressure 

to travel off designated routes.

3.1.6 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, 

agencies shall prepare draft EIS concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental review 

laws and executive orders.” Each resource section includes a list of applicable laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders that are relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses, and findings

required by those laws are addressed in those sections.

3.1.6.1 National Forest Management Act

The Forest Service is complying with the provisions of this law by designing the project to meet 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Appendix B contains a list of the Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines that apply to this project.

3.1.6.2 2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212

This project is designed to comply with the provisions of this law by developing a travel management 

plan that ends cross-country travel and associated route proliferation.

3.1.6.3 Wilderness Act of 1964

The actions proposed are in compliance with Wilderness Designations and the Wilderness Act of 

1964. Motorized activity continues to be prohibited in wilderness under all the alternatives per the 

Wilderness Act of 1964.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

42 - Plumas National Forest

3.2 Recreation Resources

Between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, National Visitor Use Monitoring data 

was expanded to summarize motorized recreation. Mileage was updated to reflect increased proposed 

trail mileage for Alternatives 4 and decreased mileage for Alternative 5. A section on Citizen 

Inventoried Roadless Areas was added to explain the impact to these areas. A section on Wild and 

Scenic Rivers was added to show how direction is met by the alternatives.

3.2.1 Introduction

Nearly all forest visitors, regardless of the purpose for their visit, use the motorized transportation 

system to reach their destination. Making changes to the NFTS (e.g. adding facilities, prohibiting or 

allowing motor vehicle use by vehicle type or season of use) changes the diversity of motorized and 

non-motorized opportunities on the forest. These visitors may be participating in motorized 

recreation, or utilizing motor vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, destinations, or geographic areas 

that are utilized for non-motorized recreational activities. This section of the Travel Management 

FEIS examines the extent to which the diversity of recreation opportunities are affected by the 

proposed action and alternatives and the extent to which alternatives are consistent with direction 

established in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) the Travel Management (TM) Rule.

3.2.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction

Direction relevant to the alternatives as they affect recreation resources includes:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The NFMA sets forth requirements for 

development of Forest Plans. The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

includes standards and guidelines for management of recreation including use of Off Highway 

Vehicles (see below).

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) 2004. The 2004 SNFPA established the 

direction to restrict motor vehicle travel to designated routes, trails, and limited off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current Forest Plans or other specific area Standards 

and Guidelines, cross-country travel by over-snow vehicles would continue.

Travel Management Rule. The Travel Management Rule requires that in designating NFS roads,

trails, and areas, responsible officials consider the provision of recreational opportunities; public 

access needs; conflicts among uses of NFS lands, including other recreational uses; and the 

compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas. 

Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest Plan provides 

goals for the recreation resource and requires a broad range of developed and dispersed recreation 

opportunities in balance with existing and future demand. The Forest Plan goals for Recreation that 

are relevant to this analysis are: 1) Provide for a variety of forest-related recreation, and coordinate 

recreation with other resource use through the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum system; 2) Improve 

and expand developed facilities and trails to meet demand while reducing unit costs and protecting 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 43

other resources; 3) Minimize conflicts between various recreational users; 4) Manage selected 

unroaded areas to provide for semi-primitive opportunities; and 5) Allow use of off-road vehicles 

wherever user conflicts or unacceptable resource damage are unlikely; and 6) Provide separate OffRoad Vehicle (ORV) routes wherever conflicting uses are substantial. In addition, the Forest Plan and 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) established Standards and Guidelines for use of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; Trails, including the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT); and ORV use (see 

Appendix B for a complete list of the SNFPA and Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines that apply to 

this project).

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is the basic inventory that was used to create 

recreation-opportunity “zoning” in the Forest Plan. The ROS inventory provides for a spectrum of 

recreation opportunity classes from “Urban” to “Primitive.” There is a distinction between motorized 

and non-motorized classes (or “zones”). Motorized use falls in the motorized ROS classes (Urban, 

Rural, Roaded-Modified, and Roaded-Natural). Non-motorized classes include Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM) and Primitive Non-Motorized (PNM).

Description: These are the ROS classes on the Plumas National Forest. 

Table 5. ROS acres in each class for all alternatives

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class Acres % of 

Total

Primitive 23,148 2%

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 91,723 8%

Roaded Natural 161,330 13%

Roaded Modified 894,983 74%

Rural 31,831 3%

Total 1,203,015 100%

As noted above, NFMA requires that “off-road vehicle” opportunities be planned and implemented to 

protect land and other resources, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts with other uses of 

NFS lands. For the purposes of travel management actions, the terms land and other resources include 

wilderness areas and the PCT, and the term “off-road vehicles” is applied to public motor vehicle use 

(highway legal and non-highway legal).

3.2.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

3.2.3.1 Assumptions Specific to Recreation Resources Analysis

1. Unless otherwise proposed as a Forest Plan amendment, the prohibition of motorized crosscountry travel is not a change to ROS. It is simply a prohibition within that ROS “zone” to 

travel off of designated routes. The ability to add or remove routes in the future is still guided 

by NFMA largely through local Forest Plan ROS and is not affected by the action of 

prohibiting motorized cross-country travel and limiting travel to designated routes throughout 

the Forest.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

44 - Plumas National Forest

2. Proposed additions to the NFTS would have a beneficial effect on the motor-vehicle 

experience by providing a variety of riding experiences (variety of easy-to-difficult riding 

experiences) and contributing to the continuity of the motor-touring experience, including 

access to dispersed recreation activities (both motorized and non-motorized). 

3. The Plumas National Forest’s Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report accurately represents

the most popular motorized and non-motorized recreation activities for analysis. 

4. Overall changes in the NFTS may result in corresponding changes in the net Semi Primitive 

Non Motorized ROS class acres available on the Forest and would require a plan amendment.

5. A discussion of unacceptable resource damage is found in other resource sections. 

6. Visual-resource effects on the PCT will be covered in the Visual Resources section of this 

analysis.

3.2.3.2 Data Sources

1. Plumas National Forest Plan for distribution of ROS classes. 

2. Forest’s NVUM. 

3.2.3.3 Recreation Resources Methodology by Action

The indicators address how alternatives respond to the Forest Plan and the Travel Management Rule: 

whether the motorized recreation opportunity conflicts with other recreation opportunities, 

specifically non-motorized opportunities; the proximity of motor vehicle use to populated areas or 

neighboring federal lands; the quality of the motorized recreation experience; and the quality of 

motorized access to dispersed areas.

For analyzing the effects of changes to the NFTS by vehicle class and season of use as well as the 

addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads or trails, indicator measures were used. Mileage 

available for each vehicle type is useful in analyzing the ability of Forest users to not only travel 

around the Forest and enjoy motorized recreation opportunities but also to access non-motorized 

recreation opportunities, such as trailheads, hunting, and dispersed recreation sites for activities such 

as fishing and camping, which the forest has determined are important based on both NVUM data and 

public scoping for this project. Mileage for motorized recreation is an indicator of the number and 

types of experiences available for motorcycles, ATVs, and 4WDs in each alternative. The changes to 

motorized mileages can be used to interpret the level of change in opportunities for motorized and 

non-motorized users. The details of the proposed seasonal closure relate to both the months that 

motorized recreation will not be allowed to use designated roads, trails or areas and, conversely, the 

time of year that conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses will be minimized. Also, the 

effect on non-motorized recreation activities that are accessed by native surface roads is considered. 

Number of acres located 1⁄2 mile away from roads, trails and boundaries are used to analyze the 

opportunity for non-motorized and ‘quiet’ recreation on the Forest. Finally, to determine the amount 

of dispersed recreation access provided under each alternative, the number of sites accessible by road 

or trail was determined for each alternative.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 45

3.2.3.3.1 Measurement Indicator 1: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

non-motorized recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts). It also addresses the “quiet recreation” issue.

Method: Number of acres outside a 1⁄2 mile buffer where motorized use is allowed (designated roads, 

trails and areas in the NFTS miles that would result under each alternative). Areas where motorized 

use is allowed (proposed or designated roads, trails and areas) were buffered by a distance of 1⁄2 mile. 

Areas outside of this buffer would be considered available for quiet recreation and non-motorized 

activities without the potential for use conflicts with motor vehicles. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 year.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest

Table 6. Acreage outside 1⁄2 mile of routes proposed for public use under each alternative as a 

measurement indicator of acreage affected by motorized use where quiet recreation and non-motorized 

activities without the potential for use conflicts with motor vehicles.

Acreage 

and % of 

Total Forest 

Acreage

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Acreage % Acreage % Acreage % Acreage %

All motorized 

routes 

traveling 

through the 

Forest 

212,452

b

17.7 234,463 19.5 228,710 19.0 220,290 18.3

b

3.2.3.3.2 Measurement Indicator 2: Motorized recreation opportunity

. Analysis of “All motorized routes traveling through the Forest” for the alternatives included the proposed trail and area 

additions and existing NFTS forest roads and trails.

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS to 

motorized recreation opportunities by alternative. 

Method: 

Roads: Number of miles available by vehicle class.

Trails: Number of miles available by vehicle class.

Areas: Number of acres in open areas by vehicle class.

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 year.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest 

Visitors should expect that the potential recreation experience may differ greatly among the 

alternatives, which contain routes ranging from high standard surfaced roads already designated for 

public highway-licensed motor vehicle use to roughly graded native surface roads and trails.

Table 7 displays the mileage by vehicle type for each alternative. As the table illustrates, all the 

action alternatives decrease the acreage open to cross country motor vehicle travel compared to 

Alternative 1. This would result in adverse impacts to off-highway motorized recreationists as crosscountry travel, including use of any unauthorized routes, is prohibited in all action alternatives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

46 - Plumas National Forest

Alternative 1 provides the greatest opportunity for motor vehicle recreation because the Forest would 

remain open to cross-country travel including use of approximately 1,107 miles of various 

unauthorized routes. Alternatives 2, 5 and 4 provide the highest mileage of NFTS roads and 

motorized trails in that order. The alternative with the lowest mileage of NFTS roads and motorized 

trails is Alternative 3.

Table 8 displays the total mileage available for each vehicle type by alternative. Unlicensed 

vehicles (ATVs and some motorcycles) cannot use passenger car roads unless the roads are 

designated for mixed use. Alternatives 4 and 5 include 4.1 miles of mixed use on one important ATV 

connector route (Table 9). All-Terrain Vehicles are not allowed on motorcycle trails and vehicles 

greater than 50” in width are not allowed on ATV and motorcycle trails. Table 9 displays the one open 

area proposed in Alternative 2.

Table 7. Mileage by vehicle type for each action alternative.

Vehicle Type

1

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage

Passenger Car Only 631 631 627 627

Mixed Use 3,487 3,487 3,491 3491

4WD Trails 325 109 217 265

ATV Trails 70 7 29 46

Motorcycle Trails 96 14 24 53

Total Miles 4,609 4,248 4,388 4,482

1

Table 8. Total mileage available for each vehicle type for each action alternative.

Under Alternative 1 (No-action) approximately 999,521 acres remain open to cross-country motor vehicle travel. This includes 

approximately 1,107 miles of unauthorized routes used by OHVs (4WD, ATV, Motorcycle). 

Vehicle Type

1

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage

Total Miles 4,609 4,248 4,388 4,482

Passenger Car 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118

4WD 4,443 4,227 4,335 4,383

ATV - Unlicensed 3,882 3,603 3,738 3,802

Motorcycle - Unlicensed 3,978 3,617 3,761 3,855

Motorcycle - Licensed 4,609 4,248 4,388 4,482 1

Table 9. Total Mileage Proposed for Mixed Use and Acreage of Open Areas

Under Alternative 1 (No-action) approximately 999,521 acres remain open to cross-country motor vehicle travel

Vehicle Type Season of 

Use Mileage Proposed for Mixed Use

1 2 3 4 5

All Vehicles Year-round 0 0 0 4.10 4.10

Vehicle Type

Season of 

Use Open Area Acreage Proposed to be Added to NFTS

1 2 3 4 5

Vehicles 50” or less 

in width Year-round 0 36 0 0 0
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 47

3.2.3.3.3 Measurement Indicator 3: Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS to 

motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities by alternative. 

Method: The Plumas NF has identified proposed trail additions which provide access to dispersed 

camping sites in each alternative. In some instances multiples sites may be accessed by these

proposed route additions. The number of dispersed camping sites shown in the table below represents 

the minimum number of dispersed camping sites potentially accessed in each alternative. Visitors 

selecting dispersed recreation areas, rather than developed areas, report they viewed highly developed 

areas as overcrowded, noisy, expensive, and too developed. These visitors preferred the 

characteristics of roaded, dispersed areas, including the lack of development, fees, regimentation, 

control, and greater privacy and the freedom to engage in activities that may conflict with others in 

developed locations, such as OHV use, bringing along a noisy dog, and occupying the site in a 

manner that meets their needs. In addition, dispersed recreation areas provide large groups better 

opportunity to camp in close proximity to each other, and away from others, than do most developed 

group campgrounds. 

The action alternatives have the potential to reduce motorized access to dispersed recreation 

across the Forest, resulting in reduced access to dispersed recreation by motor vehicles (Table 10). 

Decreased direct motor vehicle access to dispersed use areas would directly impact recreationists with 

campers and trailers, limiting their choices in parking locations to the designated system. Motor 

vehicle access to dispersed camping is reduced in all action alternatives (Table 10). 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 year.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest 

Table 10. Inventoried dispersed camp sites accessible by proposed motorized trail or system motorized 

trail of system road.

Alternative1 Sites accessible by 

proposed motorized trail 

or System Road

Percentage of inventoried 

dispersed recreation sites 

accessible by motor 

vehicle.

2 110 92%

3 89 75%

4 101 85%

5 110 92% 1

The action alternatives result in a relative decrease in the number of dispersed recreation camp 

sites accessible by motorized route from 8 to 25%, compared to Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 5 

pose the least impact to dispersed camping access followed by Alternative 4. The greatest impact to 

dispersed camping access is Alternative 3. Under Alternative 1, access to dispersed camping sites 

would continue. The number of dispersed camp sites on the Forest is difficult to determine. Currently, 

there are about 159 inventoried dispersed camping sites, which require some level of active 

management on the Forest. Of these sites, 40 dispersed camping sites are off state or county roads, 89 

off existing roads, while the remaining 30 are accessed from motorized trails or unauthorized routes. 

With continued cross-country travel under Alternative 1, more dispersed camping sites may develop 

Approximately 119 inventoried dispersed recreation sites can be accessed via system road or motorized cross-country travel.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

48 - Plumas National Forest

in the short and long terms. Some of the inventoried dispersed camping sites are located next to the 

existing NFTS and access to these sites would not be affected by the proposed alternatives.

3.2.3.3.4 Measurement Indicator 4: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and 

federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts).

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts) by alternative. Proximity to 

populated areas and compatibility of motor vehicle use were criteria considered by the 

interdisciplinary team during project design. Public involvement was used to determine where 

adjacent landowners wanted motorized trails and where they did not want them. For example this 

decision does not include trails adjacent to East Quincy where there have been noise and private land 

trespass problems. This decision does include some trails near Greenville where neighbors supported 

them and the trails are accessible without going through private land.

Method: Number of miles of new routes proposed within 1⁄2 mile of populated areas, neighboring 

federal land boundaries, wilderness boundaries, and private land boundaries. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 year.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest 

Table 11. Number of miles of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS under each alternative within 1⁄2 

mile of neighboring private and federal lands. 

Proposed Mileage to be Added to NFTS

2 3 4 5

Route 

Additions 165 0 74 120

Percent 

Change 7.6% 0% 3.4% 5.5%

Total Mileage by Alternative includes 2,197 miles of existing NFTS roads and motorized trails within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring 

private and federal lands and wilderness.

3.2.4 Affected Environment

The Plumas National Forest currently hosts a wide range of motorized and non-motorized recreation 

experiences that occur year round. Motorized recreation involves the use of highway-licensed cars, 

sedans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), dual-sport motorcycles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 

motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), four-wheel drives (4WDs), and snowmobiles, including 

highly customized and specialized machines able to travel extreme terrain. Non-motorized 

recreational activities, include hiking, camping, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, wildlife 

viewing, picnicking, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, snow camping and snow play. These opportunities are roughly depicted in the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) mapping completed at the time the Forest Plan was 

developed.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 49

3.2.4.1 Recreation Visitor Use

Visitor use estimates for the Forest were generated based on the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) survey that was conducted from October 2004 through September 2005. The survey was 

designed to assess existing recreation demand on the Forest by asking visitors what they did during 

their visit, and visitors could check multiple activities. This resulted in two categories of visitor use, 

activities participated in and main activity and it highlighted the fact that the two may or may not be 

related. For example, over 75% of Forest visitors reported participating in the viewing of natural 

features but less than 7% reported that as their main activity. On the other hand, 34% reported 

participating in fishing and 28% reported that as their main activity (Table 12).

Table 12. Plumas National Forest visits by participation and primary activity

Activity Participating (%) Main Activity (%)

Relaxing 77.2 11.3

Viewing Natural Features 75.1 7.3

Viewing Wildlife 60.6 1.1

Hiking/Walking 45.7 14.1

Fishing 34.1 27.5

Motorized Water Activities 32.9 11.1

Driving for Pleasure 26.9 3.2

Other Non-motorized 15.3 3.4

Developed Camping 11.4 1.5

Snowmobiling 9.8 9.0

Visiting Historic Sites 9.8 0.3

Some Other Activity 8.7 5.2

Picnicking 8.7 1.5

Nature Study 7.2 0.1

Gathering Forest Products 5.7 2.9

Non-motorized Water 4.1 1.1

Primitive Camping 2.7 0.1

Skiing 2.4 1.7

OHV Use 1.6 0.3

Backpacking 1.3 0.7

Bicycling 1.3 0.4

Resort Use 1.0 0.1

Hunting 0.9 0.5

Horseback Riding 0.3 0.1

The EIS NVUM data measures only the number of visits in which OHV use was the principal activity. This number does not 

include visits in which OHV use was secondary to some other type of recreational activity (e.g. hunting, camping, fishing, 

hiking, etc.) The NVUM data only applies to OHV use for recreational purposes. Users of OHVs for commercial purposes (e.g. 

mining, maintenance of permitted infrastructure, collecting firewood, etc.) or transportation purposes (e.g. driving into town from 

a private inholding) would not be counted in the NVUM data. The NVUM data measures the number of visits, which is distinct 

and separate from the number of activity days. Consequently, a person who goes on a week-long vacation using their OHV 

would be counted as only one visit according to NVUM data; but the forest may measure seven total visitor days for this visit.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

50 - Plumas National Forest

While access to all types of recreation is recognized as the most common motor vehicle use, it 

was reported that an estimated 27% of visits involved driving for pleasure, while 1.6 % of visits 

involved OHV use. OHV use as the primary activity was estimated for only 0.3% of visits.

Conversely, an estimated 46% of visits involved hiking/walking in the Forest with 14% of visits 

reporting hiking/walking as the primary activity.

Based on the reported 667,600 public visits to the Plumas National Forest (PNF) during fiscal 

year 2005, this would mean that 179,600 visits involved driving for pleasure, 10,700 visits involved 

the use of OHVs and the main activity for 2,000 visits to the PNF was OHV use. Additionally, 

305,100 visits involved hiking or walking and the main activity for 94,100 visits to the PNF. When 

motorized uses are combined, including OHV use, and driving for pleasure, the approximated number 

of visits is 190,300 or 28.5% and the main activity is 23,350 or 3.5%. When non-motorized uses are 

combined, including backpacking, fishing, hiking/walking, horseback riding, bicycling, and other 

non-motorized activities the approximated number of visits is 308,450 visits, or 46% for the main 

activity. Nearly all users of the Plumas National Forest rely on a vehicle to access their recreational 

activity.

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences

This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on recreation on the 

Forest. This analysis is focused on the effects of three management actions: (1) the prohibition of 

cross-country travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the national forest 

transportation system (NFTS), and (3) changes to the existing NFTS. Nearly all forest visitors, 

regardless of the purpose for their visit, use the motorized transportation system to reach their 

destination. Changes to traditionally accepted forest practices, such as cross-country motorized travel, 

alters the diversity of motorized and non-motorized opportunities on the Forest. Visitors seeking a 

quiet, non-motorized experience often utilize motor vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, 

destinations, or geographic areas for non-motorized recreational activities.

The recreation analysis used a series of measurement indicators to measure change from existing 

conditions for each of the alternatives considered in the FEIS. Indicators were developed to respond 

to the significant issues identified by the public during scoping. The indicators were not used to 

establish desired conditions or legal standards for recreational uses (e.g., “quiet recreation”, “conflicts 

between users”, and “conflicts with private property”) on the Plumas National Forest. Nor were the 

indicators used to identify routes in close proximity to private property. Instead, the indicators were 

used to determine how each alternative responds to the significant issues and to identify the potential 

for conflict with other recreation opportunities. They are intended to provide both context (e.g., how 

much change) and intensity (e.g., how close the alternative will come to responding to the issue) for 

the changes brought about by the alternatives.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 51

3.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects for all Alternatives

3.2.5.2 Alternative 1

The No-action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. This alternative 

maintains the status quo and provides maximum access and motorized recreation opportunity. Under 

the No-action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS and no cross-country travel prohibition 

would be put into place. The Step 2 order, restricting cross-country travel, would expire. The Travel 

Management Rule would not be implemented, and no Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would be 

produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to designated routes. The agency 

would take no affirmative action on any unauthorized routes.

• Does Not Prohibit Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds No New NFTS Facilities

3.2.5.2.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel.

Under this alternative, cross-country motor vehicle travel would continue. Motorized recreation 

would not be reduced. Alternative 1 includes the most motorized travel opportunity of all alternatives 

with 999,521 acres open to motorized use including approximately 1,107 miles of unauthorized 

routes. With no change to the managed use of existing NFS roads and trails, this alternative would

result in the least impact to motorized recreation. Since Alternative 1 represents the existing 

condition, few adverse impacts are incurred by motorized recreationists. The unauthorized routes, 

however, vary greatly in condition and the quality of recreational experience. In some areas, visitors 

may have difficulty making sense of, and navigating, the dense web of unauthorized routes. This 

alternative does not represent a cohesively designed or well-managed recreation system. The existing 

4 acre Four Corners open area would continue to be available for use.

Indicator(s): (1) Non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) 

impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use 

conflicts).

3.2.5.2.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and 

vehicle class. 

Continued cross-country travel would have a negative effect in both short and long term context for 

non-motorized opportunities due to continued noise, dust, physical presence, possible use conflicts 

and displacement. Under this alternative the proposed route additions would decrease quiet recreation 

on the Forest by 5.5 percent with 14.0 percent of the Forest available for quiet recreation and 4.0 

percent of the Forest (14% minus 10% Primitive and Semi-Primitive acreage) could be affected in the 

future with continued expansion of cross-country travel and proliferation of unauthorized routes. 

When compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 1 would have the greatest impact on the 

Forest’s “quiet” recreation opportunities. Alternative 1 has 999,521 acres open to motorized cross 

country travel (including approximately 580 miles of unauthorized routes) within 1⁄2 mile of 

neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas, potentially having noise, dust, and 

physical presence impacts on neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas. When 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

52 - Plumas National Forest

compared to the action alternatives, Alternative 1 has the greatest impacts on neighboring private and 

federal lands and wilderness areas. 

Designated motor vehicle routes would not be defined and published on a motor vehicle use map 

(MVUM). As a result, a higher frequency of user conflicts between non-motorized and motorized 

recreation users would continue in the short and long terms under Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 provides motorized access to 119 dispersed recreation sites; more than all the action

alternatives. This alternative represents the least adverse impact to dispersed recreationists seeking 

motorized access.

Indicator(s): (1) non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) type 

of motorized access to dispersed recreation, (4) Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and Federal lands.

3.2.5.2.3 Direct/indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS. 

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing more mixed use would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities while changes in 

class that restrict motor vehicle on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation diversity. 

No season of use restrictions are proposed to the existing NFTS under this alternative. 

Alternative 1 does not provide mixed use. . Alternative 1 provides less mixed use motorized 

recreation opportunity when compared to Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Indicator(s): (1) Motorized recreation opportunity.

3.2.5.3 Alternative 2

The Proposed Action is the proposed changes to the NFTS and the prohibition of cross-country travel 

as described in the NOI published January 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 2): 1. The prohibition of 

cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, motorized trails and areas by the 

public except as allowed by permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use). 2. The 

addition of approximately 361 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the current NFTS trails for 

public motor vehicle use, and 3. The addition of one 36-acre open area, where use of motor vehicles 

by the public would be allowed anywhere within that specifically delineated area is also proposed.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds: 361 Miles of NFTS Motorized Trails

• Adds: One Specifically Delineated 36-Acre Open Area to Motor Vehicles

3.2.5.3.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel.

Under this alternative, cross-country motor vehicle travel would be prohibited. The prohibition of 

motor vehicle use off the NFTS and proposed open areas would have a beneficial effect on nonmotorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring federal 

lands in the short and long terms. Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel would also curtail ongoing effects from motor vehicles such as noise, dust and physical presence in the short and long 

terms. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 53

Prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel in Alternative 2 would result in a net loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. Although motorized recreation would be reduced, this 

alternative proposes the 36 acre Sly Creek open area for cross-country motor vehicle travel, with a 

season of use from 5/1 to 10/15, in addition to the existing 4 acre Four Corners open area. Area 

perimeters would be defined with either signs or fencing. A parking area would be established and a 

kiosk installed posting rules, regulations, Tread Lightly information, and area map. The Sly Creek 

Use Area would require mitigation before it can be used. That mitigation would include improved 

access and watershed restoration. This open area was used for material to construct the Sly Creek 

dam. The adjacent campground would benefit by improvements to the site.

The loss of available open acreage is somewhat offset, however, by the proposed addition of 

motorized routes to the NFTS. Although motorized recreation opportunities on open acreage would 

be greatly reduced, other motorized recreation opportunities would be available. 

Indicator(s): (1) Non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) 

impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use 

conflicts).

3.2.5.3.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and 

vehicle class.

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails may have a negative effect in both short and long term 

context for non-motorized opportunities due to an increase in noise, dust, physical presence, possible 

use conflicts and displacement. Under this alternative the proposed route additions would decrease 

quiet recreation on the Forest by 1.8 percent with 17.7 percent of the Forest available for quiet 

recreation. When compared to the other action alternatives, the proposed route additions under 

Alternative 2 would have greater impact on the Forest’s “quiet” recreation opportunities than 

Alternatives 3-5. Alternative 2 proposes 165 miles of road and trail route additions within 1⁄2 mile of 

neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas, potentially having noise, dust, and 

physical presence impacts on neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas. When 

compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 2 has more impacts on neighboring private and 

federal lands and wilderness areas than Alternatives 3-5. The season of use restrictions on proposed 

trail additions may have a negative effect in the short and long terms to motorized opportunities and a 

beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities by increasing the acreage available for nonmotorized activities during the closure.

Motorized, non-motorized, and mixed-use roads, trails, and areas would be administratively 

defined and published on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better 

plan recreational pursuits based on an individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of 

user conflicts between non-motorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the 

short and long terms.

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails would have a beneficial effect on motorized 

opportunities. The proposed trail additions in Alternative 2 contribute to a variety of experiences with 

easy-to-difficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles. The proposed route additions also 

contribute to the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities by reducing dead-end routes, 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

54 - Plumas National Forest

increasing loop and connector opportunities, and providing access to a diversity of dispersed 

recreation activities. 

Alternative 2 proposes trail additions to the NFTS (361.3 miles), presenting a beneficial effect on 

motorized recreation opportunities for a diversity of vehicle classes. This alternative proposes yearround motorized opportunities on 249.9 miles of trails for motorcycles, ATVs and 4WDs. An 

additional 111.4 miles of trail would be open to all vehicle classes seasonally. Alternative 2 includes 

the French Creek, Flea and Granite Basin and Four Trees motorcycle single track and ATV riding 

trails. These three trail systems provide exceptional riding experiences for all levels of motorcycle 

riders. They are sponsored by very active groups who are committed to maintaining and improving 

the riding conditions of these trails. In the rest of the Forest, proposed designated trails would provide 

access to many outstanding points of interest with groups committed to maintaining these trails. 

This alternative proposes additional motorized opportunities on 361 miles of trails for 

motorcycles, ATVs and 4WDs. Dual sport highway-legal motorcycles and nonhighway-legal 

motorcycles would have the most opportunities on proposed trails in this alternative with all proposed 

trail additions open to these vehicle classes. About 82 miles of trail would be for motorcycle singletrack. About 63 miles of trail would be for ATVs, while 216 miles of trail would be for highway-legal 

high-clearance and nonhighway-legal vehicles.

Alternative 2 provides motorized access to 110 dispersed camping sites; more than all the other 

action alternatives. This alternative represents the least adverse impact to dispersed recreationists 

seeking motorized access.

Indicator(s): (1) non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) type 

of motorized access to dispersed recreation, (4) Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and Federal lands.

3.2.5.3.3 Direct/indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS. 

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing more mixed use would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Changes in class 

that restrict motor vehicle on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation diversity. No 

season of use restrictions are proposed to the existing NFTS under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 does not provide mixed use. The NFTS of maintenance level 3-5 roads would only 

be available for highway-legal vehicle classes. The prohibition of mixed use which restricts 

nonhighway-legal motor vehicles on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation 

diversity. Of particular concern for motorized recreationists, two campgrounds on Slate Creek Road, 

between Quincy and Meadow Valley, which have established use for OHV related family camping, 

would no longer be accessible for nonhighway-legal motor vehicles. Alternative 2 provides less 

motorized recreation opportunity through proposed mixed use changes when compared to 

Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Indicator(s): (1) Motorized recreation opportunity.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 55

3.2.5.4 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 meets the objective of prohibiting cross-country travel, but proposes no new additions to 

the existing system of roads and trails. It responds to the issues of proposed citizen inventoried 

roadless areas (CIRAs) and natural resource impacts by prohibiting cross-country travel without 

adding any additional facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a baseline for comparing 

the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds No New NFTS Facilities

3.2.5.4.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Under this alternative, cross-country motor vehicle travel would be prohibited. The prohibition of 

motor vehicle use off the NFTS and proposed open areas would have a beneficial effect on nonmotorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring federal 

lands in the short and long terms. Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel would also curtail ongoing effects from motor vehicles such as noise, dust and physical presence in the short and long 

terms. 

Prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel in Alternative 3 would result in a net loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. The existing 4 acre Four Corners open area would 

continue to be available for use.

Indicator(s): (1) Non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) 

impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use 

conflicts).

3.2.5.4.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and 

vehicle class. 

By adding no presently unauthorized trails, a positive effect would occur in both short and long term 

context for non-motorized opportunities due to a reduction in noise, dust, physical presence, possible 

use conflicts and displacement. Under this alternative 19.5 percent of the Forest would be available 

for quiet recreation. When compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 would have least 

impact on the Forest’s “quiet” recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 proposes 0 miles of road and 

trail route additions within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas, 

potentially reducing noise, dust, and physical presence impacts on neighboring private and federal 

lands and wilderness areas. When compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 has the least 

impacts on neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas.

Motorized, non-motorized, and mixed-use roads, trails, and areas would be administratively 

defined and published on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better 

plan recreational pursuits based on an individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of 

user conflicts between non-motorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the 

short and long terms.

By adding no presently unauthorized trails, Alternative 3 would have a negative effect on 

motorized opportunities. The lack of proposed trail additions in Alternative 3 would not help 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

56 - Plumas National Forest

contribute to a variety of experiences with easy-to-difficult riding experiences for all trail class 

vehicles.

Single track motorcyclists are particularly impacted. The existing road and trail system on the 

Plumas NF was developed without any programmatic consideration for the single track experience. 

Existing system single-track consists of 14 miles of isolated trail segments. These segments do not 

provide any single track trail network opportunities to allow for loop travel or day-length experiences. 

Such opportunities are of great importance to motorcycle riders and are evident by user created single 

track trail systems which tend to concentrate in focused forest locations, rather than be dispersed 

through general forest. User created trails in Granite Basin typifies very focused network 

development.

The lack of proposed route additions would not improve motor-touring opportunities and would 

limit access to a diversity of dispersed recreation activities, now considered to be traditional OHV 

destinations. These include vistas and unique cultural, geologic and vegetative features that have 

locally established lore for OHV recreationists. Some popular dispersed campsites are among these 

destinations.

Alternative 3 provides motorized access to 89 dispersed camping sites; the least of all action 

alternatives. This alternative represents the greatest impact to dispersed recreationists seeking 

motorized access.

Indicator(s): (1) non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) type 

of motorized access to dispersed recreation, (4) Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and Federal lands.

3.2.5.4.3 Direct/indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS.

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing more mixed use would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Changes in class 

that restrict motor vehicle on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation diversity. No 

season of use restrictions are proposed to the existing NFTS under this alternative. 

Alternative 3 does not provide mixed use. The NFTS of maintenance level 3-5 roads would only 

be available for highway-legal vehicle classes. The prohibition of mixed use which restricts 

nonhighway-legal motor vehicles on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation 

diversity. Of particular concern for motorized recreationists, two campgrounds on Slate Creek Road, 

between Quincy and Meadow Valley, which have established use for OHV related family camping, 

would no longer be accessible for nonhighway-legal motor vehicles. Alternative 3 provides less 

motorized recreation opportunity through proposed mixed use changes when compared to alternatives 

4 and 5. 

Indicator(s): (1) Motorized recreation opportunity.

3.2.5.5 Alternative 4

Alternative 4 emphasizes natural resource protection and avoidance of CIRAs. This alternative 

prohibits cross-country travel, adds no motorized routes to CIRAs, California red legged frog critical 

aquatic areas and does not add routes where resource concerns require extensive trail mitigation. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 57

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel

• Adds: 140 Miles of NFTS Motorized Trails

• Changes Vehicle Class on 4.1 Miles of NFTS Roads

3.2.5.5.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Under this alternative, cross-country motor vehicle travel would be prohibited. The prohibition of 

motor vehicle use off the NFTS and proposed open areas would have a beneficial effect on nonmotorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring federal 

lands in the short and long terms. Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel would also curtail ongoing effects from motor vehicles such as noise, dust and physical presence in the short and long 

terms. 

Prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel in Alternative 4 would result in a net loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. . The existing 4 acre Four Corners open area would 

continue to be available for use.

Indicator(s): (1) Non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) 

impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use 

conflicts).

3.2.5.5.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and 

vehicle class. 

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails may have a negative effect in both short and long term 

context for non-motorized opportunities due to an increase in noise, dust, physical presence, possible 

use conflicts and displacement. Under this alternative the proposed route additions would decrease 

quiet recreation on the Forest by 0.5 percent with 19.0 percent of the Forest available for quiet 

recreation. When compared to the other action alternatives, the proposed route additions under 

Alternative 4 would have lesser impact on the Forest’s “quiet” recreation opportunities than 

alternatives 1, 2 and 5 and slightly more impact on the Forest’s “quiet” recreation opportunities than 

Alternative 3. Alternative 4 proposes 74 miles of road and trail route additions within 1⁄2 mile of 

neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas, potentially having noise, dust, and 

physical presence impacts on neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas. When 

compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 4 has fewer impacts on neighboring private and 

federal lands and wilderness areas than Alternatives 1, 2 and 5. The season of use restrictions on 

proposed trail additions may have a negative effect in the short and long terms to motorized 

opportunities and a beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities by increasing the acreage 

available for non-motorized activities during the closure. 

Motorized, non-motorized, and mixed-use roads, trails, and areas would be administratively 

defined and published on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better 

plan recreational pursuits based on an individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of 

user conflicts between non-motorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the 

short and long terms.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

58 - Plumas National Forest

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails would have a beneficial effect on motorized 

opportunities. The proposed trail additions in Alternative 4 contribute to a variety of experiences with 

easy-to-difficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles. The proposed route additions also 

contribute to the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities by reducing dead-end routes, 

increasing loop and connector opportunities, and providing access to a diversity of dispersed 

recreation activities. 

Alternative 4 includes the Granite Basin motorcycle single track and ATV areas, but excludes the 

French Creek area due to California red legged frog concerns and most of the Flea area due to 

watershed concerns. All proposed trails in Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas (CIRAs) have been

dropped from this alternative to reduce impacts to these areas. In the rest of the Forest, proposed trails 

would provide access to many outstanding points of interest with groups committed to maintaining 

these trails.

Alternative 4 proposes trail additions to the NFTS (140.2 miles), presenting a beneficial effect on 

motorized recreation opportunities for a diversity of vehicle classes. This alternative proposes year 

around motorized opportunities on 124.6 miles of trails for motorcycles, ATV’s and 4WDs. An

additional 15.6 miles of trail would be open to all vehicle classes seasonally. Dual sport highwaylegal motorcycles and nonhighway-legal motorcycles would have the most opportunities on proposed 

trails in this alternative with all proposed trail additions open to these vehicle classes. About 9.7 miles 

of proposed trail would be for motorcycle single-track. About 22.4 miles of proposed trail would be 

for ATVs, while 108.1 miles of proposed trail would be for highway-legal high-clearance and 

nonhighway-legal vehicles.

Alternative 4 provides motorized access to 101 dispersed camping sites; the second least. This 

alternative represents the second greatest impact to dispersed recreationists seeking motorized access.

Indicator(s): (1) non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) type 

of motorized access to dispersed recreation, (4) Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and Federal lands.

3.2.5.5.3 Direct/indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS. 

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing more mixed use would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Changes in class 

that restrict motor vehicle on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation diversity. No 

season of use restrictions are proposed to the existing NFTS under this alternative. 

Alternative 4 proposes mixed use on about 4.1 miles of NFTS roads. Mixed use on NFTS roads 

would benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Alternative 

4 provides less motorized recreation opportunity through proposed route additions and proposed 

mixed use changes when compared to Alternative 2 and 5, but it provides more motorized recreation 

on existing NFTS roads through mixed use when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 

would be beneficial for motorized recreation opportunities, albeit less than Alternative 5. 

Indicator(s): (1) Motorized recreation opportunity.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 59

3.2.5.6 Alternative 5

Alternative 5 emphasizes both access and motorized recreation opportunities and natural resource 

protection. This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and incorporates suggestions for additional 

and alternative routes received during scoping. This includes trails identified during scoping as 

necessary to access dispersed campsites and recreational use and destination points of interest. Trails 

with extreme resource problems are not included. Maintenance on trails with resource concerns 

would occur thereby allowing trails with resource concerns to be included. Trails with extensive or 

critical trail mitigations would be added to the NFTS, but not placed on the MVUM as open to the 

public until the mitigation has been completed.

• Prohibits Cross-country Motorized Travel 

• Adds: 234 Miles of NFTS Motorized Trails

• Changes Vehicle Class on 4.1 Miles of NFTS Roads

3.2.5.6.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Under this alternative, cross-country motor vehicle travel would be prohibited. The prohibition of 

motor vehicle use off the NFTS and proposed open areas would have a beneficial effect on nonmotorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring federal 

lands in the short and long terms. Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel would also curtail ongoing effects from motor vehicles such as noise, dust and physical presence in the short and long 

terms. Prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel in Alternative 5 would result in a net loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. 

Indicator(s): (1) Non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) 

impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use 

conflicts).

3.2.5.6.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and 

vehicle class. 

Alternative 5 includes the second highest motorized trail mileage (364 miles) of the alternatives that 

add trails to the NFTS. This alternative has the second highest mileage of motorcycle-only trail (53

miles) of the alternatives that add motorized trails. Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails 

may have a negative effect in both short and long term context for non-motorized opportunities due to 

an increase in noise, dust, physical presence, possible use conflicts and displacement. Under this 

alternative the proposed route additions would decrease quiet recreation on the Forest by 1.2 percent 

with 18.3 percent of the Forest available for quiet recreation. When compared to the other action 

alternatives, the proposed route additions under Alternative 5 would have greater impact on the 

Forest’s “quiet” recreation opportunities than Alternatives 3 and 4 and less impact on the Forest’s 

“quiet” recreation opportunities than Alternative 2. Alternative 5 proposes 120 miles of road and trail 

route additions within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas, 

potentially having noise, dust, and physical presence impacts on neighboring private and federal lands 

and wilderness areas. When compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 5 has more impacts 

on neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas than Alternatives 3 and 4. The season 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

60 - Plumas National Forest

of use restrictions on proposed trail additions may have a negative effect in the short and long terms 

to motorized opportunities and a beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities by increasing the 

acreage available for non-motorized activities during the closure.

Motorized, non-motorized, and mixed-use roads, trails, and areas would be administratively 

defined and published on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better 

plan recreational pursuits based on an individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of 

user conflicts between non-motorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the 

short and long terms.

Adding presently unauthorized trails would have a beneficial effect on motorized opportunities. 

The proposed trail additions in Alternative 5 contribute to a variety of experiences with easy-todifficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles. The proposed route additions also contribute to 

the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities by reducing dead-end routes, increasing loop and 

connector opportunities, and providing access to a diversity of dispersed recreation activities. 

Alternative 5 includes the Granite Basin and Four Trees motorcycle single track and ATV areas, 

but excludes most of the French Creek area due to California red legged frog concerns and most of 

the Flea area due to watershed concerns. Alternative 5 includes the Granite Basin motorcycle single 

track and ATV area, establishing trail networks to meet demand for a specific, quality recreation

experience that is not met by riding on wider four-wheel vehicle trails and roads. This area provides

exceptional riding experiences for all levels of motorcycle riders, adding diversity to motorized 

recreational opportunities on the Plumas. The area is sponsored by very active groups that are 

committed to maintaining and improving the riding conditions of these trails. In the rest of the Forest, 

proposed designated trails will provide access to many outstanding points of interest with groups 

committed to maintaining these trails. Without these trails, the Plumas National Forest would not be 

able to offer a single track experience, which is highly sought after by many of our recreating public. 

Alternative 5 proposes trail additions to the NFTS (234.1 miles), presenting a beneficial effect on 

motorized recreation opportunities for a diversity of vehicle classes. This alternative proposes yearround motorized opportunities on 178.8 miles of trails for motorcycles, ATV’s and 4WDs. An 

additional 55.3 miles of trail would be open to all vehicle classes seasonally. Dual sport highwaylegal motorcycles and nonhighway-legal motorcycles would have the most opportunities on proposed 

trails in this alternative with all proposed trail additions open to these vehicle classes. About 39 miles 

of proposed trail would be for motorcycle single-track. About 39 miles of proposed trail would be for 

ATVs, while 156 miles of proposed trail would be for highway-legal high-clearance and nonhighwaylegal vehicles.

Alternative 5 provides motorized access to 110 dispersed camping sites; the same as Alternative 

2. This alternative represents the nearly identical impact to dispersed recreationists seeking motorized 

access as Alternative 2 due to trails added to the alternative specifically to access dispersed sites even 

though it has fewer proposed trails than Alternative 2. Alternative 5 accesses fewer dispersed sites 

than Alternative 1.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 61

Indicator(s): (1) non-motorized recreation opportunity, (2) motorized recreation opportunity, (3) type 

of motorized access to dispersed recreation, (4) Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and Federal lands.

3.2.5.6.3 Direct/indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS. 

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing more mixed use would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Changes in class 

that restrict motor vehicle on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation diversity. No 

season of use restrictions are proposed to the existing NFTS under this alternative. 

Alternative 5 proposes mixed use on about 4.1 miles of NFTS roads. Mixed use on NFTS roads 

would benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. The 

prohibition of mixed use which restricts nonhighway-legal motor vehicles on the NFTS would 

negatively affect motorized recreation diversity. Alternative 5 provides less motorized recreation 

opportunity through proposed route additions when compared to Alternative 2, but it provides more 

motorized recreation on existing NFTS roads through mixed use when compared to Alternatives 2 

and 3. Alternative 5 would have beneficial impacts for motorized recreation opportunities, albeit less 

than Alternative 2. 

Indicator(s): (1) Motorized recreation opportunity.

3.2.6 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis for recreation considers the impact of the alternatives when combined 

with the following past, present, and foreseeable future actions and events: routes both NFTS and 

unauthorized, any projects with road actions with decisions that have not been implemented on the 

ground, any projects with road actions with decisions that are not yet in INFRA, any projects with 

road actions in projects listed on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (that do not yet have decisions). 

Road actions are considered as new construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, or opening old 

roads, not road maintenance or use. These actions were selected because they have caused or have the 

potential to cause changes in recreation opportunities, public access, or the creation of routes on the 

ground. The spatial boundary (forest wide) of the cumulative effects analysis was selected because 

impacts to the recreation system in one area of the Forest can affect the continuity of the system and 

public access opportunities in other parts of the Forest. The temporal scope is 20 years and was 

selected because impacts to recreation and public access can continue over time. Furthermore, the 

identification of unclassified motorized routes during the route inventory captured the network of 

routes which have shaped the current recreation settings and opportunities.

Measurement indicators 1, 2, 3, and 4 were used in the cumulative effects analysis. Measurement 

indicator 1 looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on non-motorized recreation (dust, 

noise, use conflicts). It also addresses the “quiet” recreation issue. Quiet recreation is defined by 

measurement indicator 1 as the acres outside 1⁄2 mile of an area where motorized use is allowed. For 

cumulative effects analysis, quiet recreation acreage for the No Action Alternative was determined 

using the existing NFTS, other State, County, or private roads traveling through the Forest, and the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

62 - Plumas National Forest

currently identified unclassified OHV routes. Quiet recreation acreage for the action alternatives was 

determined using the existing NFTS roads and any proposed route and area additions. 

Measurement indicator 2 looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS to motorized 

recreation opportunities by alternative by analyzing roads, motorized trails, and areas added to the 

NFTS. The total motorized mileage in an alternative includes proposed route additions mileage and 

motorized NFTS mileage, considered to be operational maintenance levels 2-5. 

Measurement indicator 3 looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS to motorized 

access to dispersed recreation opportunities by alternative by analyzing number of dispersed sites 

accessed as a result of the additions identified in Measurement indicator 3. 

Measurement indicator 4 looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and federal lands by alternative by analyzing the number of miles that occur within 1⁄2 mile of 

neighboring lands. For Alternative 1, routes considered were open roads on the existing NFTS and 

any proposed route and area additions. 

3.2.6.1 Alternative 1

Unrestricted cross-country motorized travel under this alternative has the potential to create resource 

issues in the future and a proliferation of user created routes single track routes that are not properly 

located. This alternative has the greatest potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation 

settings as it is difficult to predict where future cross-country motorized use would occur. Dust, noise, 

and motor vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a “quiet” recreation 

experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 84.7 percent of the Plumas NF would be affected by 

motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, the greatest amount of all the 

alternatives. This alternative also has the greatest impact on neighboring private and federal lands and 

wilderness areas, as determined using measurement indicator 5, with about 580 miles of unauthorized 

motorized routes occurring within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands, the highest 

amount of disturbance when compared to the other alternatives. This alternative has the highest 

potential cumulative impact on non-motorized recreation opportunities and neighboring federal and 

private lands and wilderness areas. 

With no proposed additions or changes to the use of existing NFTS roads or trails and no 

prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, this alternative results in the least impact to motorized 

recreation opportunities. Since no net change would be made from the current management situation, 

no cumulative effects to motorized recreation would result.

3.2.6.2 Alternative 2

This alternative has the potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings when 

considering the proposed route additions, the existing NFTS, and other roads traveling through the 

Forest. Dust, noise, and motor vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a 

“quiet” recreation experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 80.3 percent of the Plumas NF 

would be affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, less than the 

No Action Alternative, but most among the action alternatives. This alternative, combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, also has the potential to impact neighboring 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 63

private and federal lands and wilderness areas. About 165 miles of proposed route additions occur 

within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas. The proposed route 

additions provide for a 7.6 percent increase from the current condition of open NFTS roads occurring 

within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas. This alternative has the 

highest potential cumulative impact on non-motorized recreation opportunities among the action 

alternatives, but less of an impact than the No Action Alternative or the current condition.

This alternative would have beneficial cumulative effects to motorized recreation. Proposed route 

additions contribute to a variety of riding experiences as well as the continuity of the motor-touring 

opportunities. The route additions also provide loops, connectors, and access to a diversity of 

dispersed recreation activities which can benefit both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities by providing access to trailheads, dispersed campsites etc. Proposed road additions and 

open NFTS roads would provide about 4,609 miles of motorized recreation opportunity, more than 

the other action alternatives and the current condition. 

3.2.6.3 Alternative 3 

This alternative improves the non-motorized recreation settings. Dust, noise, and motor vehicle 

presence would be reduced for non-motorized recreationists seeking a “quiet” recreation experience. 

Cumulatively under this alternative, 80.5 percent of the Plumas NF would be affected by motorized 

use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, the least of all the alternatives. Only the 

existing NFTS and other State, County, or private roads traveling through the Forest were considered 

for Alternative 3. This alternative, combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, also has the potential to impact neighboring private and federal lands. Since there are no 

proposed route additions less potential cumulative impact on neighboring federal and private lands 

than Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. This alternative has the most beneficial cumulative impact to nonmotorized recreation opportunities.

The open NFTS roads would provide about 4,248 miles of motorized recreation opportunity, less 

than all the alternatives. This alternative has the most potential cumulative impact on motorized users 

by providing fewer motorized recreation opportunities than the current condition. All cross-country 

travel would be prohibited, and no route additions, area additions, or mixed use would be proposed. 

3.2.6.4 Alternative 4 

This alternative has the potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings when 

considering the proposed route additions, the existing NFTS, and other roads traveling through the 

Forest. Dust, noise, and motor vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a 

“quiet” recreation experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 81.0 percent of the Plumas NF 

would be affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, and the second 

least of all the alternatives. Although Alternative 4 proposes route additions, these route additions are 

in close enough proximity to the existing NFTS that cumulatively their effect on “quiet” recreation is 

the only slight higher than Alternative 3. This alternative, combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, also has the potential to impact neighboring private and federal 

lands. About 74 miles of proposed route additions occur within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

64 - Plumas National Forest

federal lands, providing the second least potential cumulative impact on neighboring federal and 

private lands. The proposed route additions provide for a 3.4 percent increase from the current 

condition of open NFTS roads occurring within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and 

wilderness areas. This alternative and Alternative 3, when compared to the other action alternatives 

and the current condition, have the most beneficial cumulative impact to non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.

This alternative would have beneficial cumulative effects to motorized recreation. Proposed route 

additions contribute to a variety of riding experiences as well as the continuity of the motor-touring 

opportunities. The route additions also provide loops, connectors, access to a diversity of dispersed 

recreation activities, which can benefit both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by 

providing access to trailheads, dispersed campsites etc. Proposed road additions and open NFTS roads 

would provide about 4,388 miles of motorized recreation opportunity, more than alternative 3 but less 

than Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6. Proposed mixed use, which adds vehicle classes to the NFTS, would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. 

3.2.6.5 Alternative 5 

This alternative has the potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings when 

considering the proposed route additions, the existing NFTS, and other roads traveling through the 

Forest. Dust, noise, and motor vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a 

“quiet” recreation experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 81.7 percent of the Plumas NF 

would be affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation. This 

alternative, combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, also has the 

potential to impact neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness areas. About 120 miles of 

proposed route additions occur within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness 

areas. The proposed route additions provide for a 5 percent increase from the current condition of 

open NFTS roads occurring within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and federal lands and wilderness 

areas. This alternative has more beneficial cumulative impact to non-motorized recreation 

opportunities than current condition and Alternative 2.

This alternative would have beneficial cumulative effects to motorized recreation. Proposed route 

additions contribute to a variety of riding experiences as well as the continuity of the motor-touring 

opportunities. The route additions also provide loops, connectors, access to a diversity of dispersed 

recreation activities, which can benefit both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by 

providing access to trailheads, dispersed campsites etc. Proposed road additions and open NFTS roads 

would provide about 4,482 miles of motorized recreation opportunity, more than Alternatives 3 and 4, 

but less than Alternative 1 and 2. Proposed mixed use, which adds vehicle classes to the NFTS, would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. 

3.2.7 Inventoried Roadless Areas 

The project does not propose any motorized trails or areas in Forest Service Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. The project does not propose any motorized trails or areas in semi-primitive and primitive 

non-motorized land allocations. Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Plumas National Forest are 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 65

allocated as semi-primitive non-motorized areas in the Forest Plan so these areas were avoided to be 

consistent with the Forest Plan.

3.2.8 Citizens Inventoried Roadless Areas

In 2001, the California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) completed its own inventory of potential 

wilderness areas on California public lands. For the purpose of this analysis, these areas will be 

referred to as citizen-inventoried roadless areas (CIRAs). The CWC inventory identified 229,579

acres of land on the PNF as potential wilderness areas, approximately 25% of which is within agencyidentified Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). 171,738 acres of the CWC-inventoried areas are 

outside of IRAs. 

Because they include a number of long-standing developed recreation sites and the roads used to 

access those sites, many of the CIRAs provide a very different experience than found in adjacent 

IRAs. There are currently 53.5 miles of NFS roads and motorized trails and 35.0 miles of 

unauthorized routes in CIRAs (Table 13 and Table 14). Existing route density within CIRAs is 0.20 

miles per square mile, which is lower than the general forest area where route density averages 0.59 

miles per square mile. In comparison, route density within IRAs is 0.04 miles per square mile.

Management direction for IRAs is provided by the 1988 LRMP, as amended. No trails in IRAs 

were proposed in any of the five alternatives.

Table 13. NFTS Routes in Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative

Motorized trail 

additions in CIRAs. 

Alternative 1

(miles)

Alternative 2

(miles)

Alternative 3

(miles)

Alternative 4

(miles)

Alternative 5

(miles)

Motorcycle Trails 0 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.25

Trail Vehicles <50” 0 6.77 0.00 0.00 3.21

All Vehicle Types 0 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40

Subtotal miles 0 27.17 0.00 0.00 17.87

Existing NFTS roads 

and trails in CIRAs

Alternative 1

(miles)

Alternative 2

(miles)

Alternative 3

(miles)

Alternative 4

(miles)

Alternative 5

(miles)

Roads open to all 

vehicles

41.29 41.29 41.29 41.29 41.29

Motorcycle Trails 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trail Vehicles <50” 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

All Trail Vehicle Types 14.81 14.81 14.81 14.81 14.81

Subtotal NFTS roads 

and motorized trails

56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10

NFTS miles in CIRAs 56.10 83.27 56.10 56.10 73.97
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 66

Table 14. Unauthorized and NFTS Routes in Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative and CIRA area.

CIRA Name

Miles of Existing Roads, Existing Trails, and Proposed Trails Within CIRAs

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Roads

(Exist)

Trails

(Exist)

Prop. 

Trails

Roads

(Exist)

Trails

(Exist

Prop. 

Trails

Roads

(Exist)

Trails

(Exist

Prop. 

Trails

Roads

(Exist)s

Trails

(Exist

Prop. 

Trails

Roads

(Exist)

Trails

(Exist

Prop. 

Trails

Adams Peak 0.38 0 0 0.38 0 0.005 0.38 0 0 0.38 0 0 0.38 0 0.005

Bucks Lake 3.96 0 0 3.96 0 0 3.96 0 0 3.96 0 0 3.96 0 0

Chips Creek 0.67 4.18 0 0.67 4.18 0 0.67 4.18 0 0.67 4.18 0 0.67 4.18 0

Crystal Peak 2.03 0 0 2.03 0 1.20 2.03 0 0 2.03 0 0 2.03 0 0

Diamond 

Mountain 1.01 0.96 0 1.01 0.96 0 1.01 0.96 0 1.01 0.96 0 1.01 0.96 0

Dixie Mountain 2.82 0 0 2.82 0 0 2.82 0 0 2.82 0 0 2.82 0 0.72

Feather Falls 6.49 0 0 6.49 0 0 6.49 0 0 6.49 0 0 6.49 0 0

Grizzly 

Mountain 3.59 0 0 3.59 0 4.80 3.59 0 0 3.59 0 0 3.59 0 3.82

Horton Ridge 1.52 0.69 0 1.52 0.69 1.81 1.52 0.69 0 1.52 0.69 0 1.52 0.69 0.36

Lakes BasinYuba 2.48 0.61 0 2.48 0.61 0 2.48 0.61 0 2.48 0.61 0 2.48 0.61 0

Last Chance 1.70 0 0 1.70 0 7.88 1.70 0 0 1.70 0 0 1.70 0 7.79

McKesick 

Peak 3.76 0 0 3.76 0 2.72 3.76 0 0 3.76 0 0 3.76 0 2.72

Middle Fork 

Feather River 4.64 6.86 0 4.64 6.86 1.51 4.64 6.86 0 4.64 6.86 0 4.64 6.86 0.84

Mount Jura 2.82 1.51 0 2.82 1.51 1.53 2.82 1.51 0 2.82 1.51 0 2.82 1.51 1.17

Squaw Peak 0 0 0 0 0 5.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03

Thompson 

Peak 3.42 0 0 3.42 0 0.40 3.42 0 0 3.42 0 0 3.42 0 0.40

Totals 41.29 14.81 0 41.29 14.81 27.17 41.29 14.81 0.00 41.29 14.81 0 41.29 14.81 17.86
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 67

3.2.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no impacts to designated or eligible wild river corridors in any of the alternatives because 

there are no routes or proposed trails within these corridors. Miles of proposed motorized trails in the 

scenic and recreation river corridors are shown in the table below. Alternative 1 has the greatest 

impact to designated, recommended and eligible scenic and recreation river corridors because cross 

country travel would not be prohibited (including use of approximately 72 miles of unauthorized 

routes within these areas). Unauthorized routes would continue to proliferate with associated soil, 

water, vegetation, noise and scenic impacts to river corridors. Alternative 2 has the next greatest 

impact, with 15.0 miles, Alternative 5 with 7.5, Alternative 4 with 3.0 miles and Alternative 3 with 

none. 

Table 15. Proposed Motorized Trails (Alts. 2-5) within Scenic and Recreation River Corridors

River Type

Proposed Mileage to be Added to NFTS

2 3 4 5

Designated Scenic 

Rivers 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2

Designated Recreation 

Rivers 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6

Recommended Scenic 

Rivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eligible Scenic Rivers 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.7

Eligible Recreation 

Rivers 12.5 0.0 2.0 6.0

Total Scenic and 

Recreation Rivers 15.0 0.0 3.0 7.5

All proposed trails within the scenic and recreation river corridors are consistent with 

management direction to protect outstandingly remarkable values except for Alternative 2’s Trails 

7M01 and 13M10. (Trail 7M01 has adverse effects to water quality and 13M01 has adverse effects to 

a Special Interest plant). Alternative 3 is consistent with management direction because it adds no 

trails to the NFTS. All of the motorized trails included in Alternatives 4 and 5 meet management 

direction and protect outstandingly remarkable values. The table below displays management 

direction to protect outstandingly remarkable values and determinations for all proposed trails that are 

located in or have a portion of their length in the scenic or recreation river corridors. The project 

record contains further information on the Forest’s wild and scenic river direction. Information on 

recreation and scenic criteria was part of the recreation analysis. Information on the vegetative criteria 

was obtained from the botany analysis (FEIS 3.8 and Appendix A). Information on the ecologic 

criteria was obtained from the aquatic and wildlife species analysis (FEIS 3.6, 3.7 and Appendix A). 

Information on hydrologic criteria was obtained from the soil and water resources analysis (FEIS 3.5 

and Appendix A). Information on the cultural criteria was obtained from the cultural resources 

analysis (FEIS 3.10 and Appendix A).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

68 – Plumas National Forest

Table 16. Scenic and Recreation River Direction to Protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values and 

Determinations for Proposed Trails

River Direction and ORVs Trail Miles Alt. Determination

Middle Fork 

Feather 

River 

Designated - Recreation 

– trails for recreation use 

will be provided where 

needed

11M09 0.2 2, 5 Meets direction. Trail located above 

the railroad to a tunnel entrance, 

access needed for railroad and 

fishing.

12M04 0.4 2, 4, 5 Meets direction. Trail located above 

Camp Layman, needed for fishing 

access.

Designated – Scenic –

protect scenic values, no 

interference with 

recreational use of river

10M13 0.1 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail provides access and parking for 

river access (Nelson Point).

10M14 0.1 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail provides access to rest room at 

developed rec site (Red Bridge)

10M15 0.0 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Screened by vegetation, ends at 

boundary of corridor

11M08 0.4 2 Meets direction and protects values. 

Screened by vegetation, does not 

access river 

11M08B 0.0 2 Meets direction and protects values. 

Screened by vegetation, ends at 

boundary of corridor

East Branch 

North Fork 

Feather 

River

Eligible - Recreation -

Trails compatible and 

protect scenic, cultural, 

vegetative values

9M65 0.5 2, 4, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Heavy vegetation screening. Cultural 

resource and botany surveys found 

no sites.

Little North 

Fork Middle 

Fork Feather 

River

Eligible – Recreation -

Trails compatible protect 

vegetative, scenic, 

recreational values

6M20E 0.5 2 Meets direction and protects values. 

Botany survey found no sites. Single 

track trail with river crossing, not very 

noticeable. Useful river access for 

motorcycle or foot travel. 

6M21 0.3 2 Meets recreation and scenic direction 

for trails. Trail is actually a system 

road (23N18S) inadvertently included 

in proposed action. Not visible from 

river. No effect to recreation value of 

river.

6M29 1.4 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Botany survey found no sites. Single 

track trail with river crossing, not very 

noticeable. Useful river access for 

motorcycle or foot travel. 

6M29B 0.2 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Botany survey found no sites. Trail 

not visible from river (over 500 feet 

away), screened by vegetation. 

6M29C 0.6 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Botany survey found no sites. Trail 

not visible from river, screened by 

vegetation.

6M51 0.8 4, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Botany survey found no sites. Trail 

not visible from river (over 800 feet 

away), screened by vegetation.

Slate Creek Eligible – Recreation -

Trails compatible and 

protect hydrologic, 

vegetative, ecologic, 

9M14S 0.1 2 Meets recreation direction for trails. 

Trail is actually a system road 

(22N55Y) inadvertently included in 

proposed action. Not visible from 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 69

River Direction and ORVs Trail Miles Alt. Determination

cultural values river, screened by vegetation.

9M14A 0.4 2 Meets recreation direction for trails. 

Trail is actually a system road 

(22N55Y) inadvertently included in 

proposed action. Not visible from 

river, screened by vegetation.

9M15 0.6 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail not visible from river, screened 

by vegetation. Periodic trail 

maintenance would protect water 

quality. Botany survey found no sites. 

Project includes protection measures 

to ensure cultural values are 

maintained.

9M21 0.2 2, 4, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail not visible from river, screened 

by vegetation. Periodic trail 

maintenance would protect water 

quality. Botany and cultural resource 

surveys found no sites. Project 

includes season of use to protect 

California spotted owl.

9M23 0.5 2, 4, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail not visible from river, screened 

by vegetation. Periodic trail 

maintenance would protect water 

quality. Botany and cultural resource 

surveys found no sites. Project 

includes season of use to protect 

California spotted owl.

South 

Branch 

Middle fork 

Feather 

River

Eligible – Recreation -

Trails compatible and 

protect hydrologic, scenic 

values

7M01 0.6 2 Does not meet direction because 

hydrologic values are not protected. 

Trail has extreme adverse effects to 

water quality. Trail provides 

recreation access to river. 

Squaw 

Queen 

Creek

Eligible – Recreation -

Trails compatible and 

protect cultural, 

vegetative values

12M10 0.5 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail not visible from the river, 

screened by vegetation. Botany and 

cultural resource surveys found no 

sites.

12M10A 0.0 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail ends at boundary of river 

corridor. Botany and cultural resource 

surveys found no sites.

12M12 0.7 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail has a river crossing and 

provides recreation access to river. 

Botany and cultural resource surveys 

found no sites.

13M09 0.1 2, 4, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail provides recreation access to 

Camp 13. Cultural resource survey 

found no sites. Project includes 

requirements to avoid TES plant sites 

during trail maintenance.

13M10 5.4 2 Does not meet direction because 

vegetative values are not protected. 

Trail goes through Mimulus 

pygmaeus and has adverse effects.

Trail located in sagebrush and 

meadow, not visible from river. 

Project includes measures to protect 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

70 – Plumas National Forest

River Direction and ORVs Trail Miles Alt. Determination

cultural resources. 

13M11 0.0 2 Meets recreation direction for trails. 

Trail not visible from river, barely 

reaches river corridor. Trail nonexistent in places. Inadvertently 

included in proposed action.

14M07 0.0 2 Meets recreation direction for trails. 

Trail not visible from river, barely 

reaches river corridor. No access to 

this trail without 13M10, which does 

not meet direction for recreation 

rivers.

Nelson 

Creek

Eligible – Scenic - Trails

compatible and protect

vegetative, fishery, 

recreational, cultural 

values

10M13 0.1 2, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Access and parking for river access 

(Nelson Point). Project includes 

protection measures to ensure 

cultural values are maintained. 

Botany survey found no sites. 

Periodic maintenance would protect 

water quality for fish. 

Silver Creek Eligible – Scenic - Trails

compatible and protect

ecologic values

7M13 0.4 2 Meets direction and protects values. 

In upper reaches, trail not visible from 

river. Project includes season of use 

to protect mountain yellow-legged 

frog.

8M10 0.6 2, 4, 5 Meets direction and protects values. 

Trail not visible from river. Project 

includes season of use to protect 

northern goshawk

8M20 0.2 2 Meets direction and protects values. 

In upper reaches, trail not visible from 

river. Project includes season of use 

to protect mountain yellow-legged 

frog.

3.2.10 Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Table 17. Summary comparison of alternatives by environmental effects for recreation.

Indicators – Recreation Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each 

Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Proximity: Non-Motorized Recreation Compatibility (The extent of 

non-motorized recreation activities displaced by proposed motor 

vehicle use).

1 2 5 4 3

Proximity: Proximity of motor vehicle use to populated areas, 

neighboring federal lands (The number of NFTS miles within 

proximity to populated areas or neighboring federal lands (within 

WUI zone).

1 2 5 4 3

Average for Non Motorized Recreation Resources 1 2 5 4 3

Opportunity: Quality and diversity of motorized recreation 

experience (The number of miles devoted to each vehicle class). 5 4 1 2 3

Opportunity: Quality of motorized access to dispersed recreation 

opportunities (The number of miles devoted to each vehicle class 

for access to dispersed activities). 

5 4 1 2 3

Average for Motorized Recreation Resources 5 4 1 2 3

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative with the least impact on the recreation resources related to the indicator; A score of 1 

indicates the alternative has the most impact for recreation resources related to the indicator.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 71

3.2.11 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Alternative 1 does not comply with the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of 

Decision because it would allow motor vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails and limited offhighway vehicle use areas.

None of the alternatives impact Semi Privative Non Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

areas as all proposed trails are outside of the “influence” zone of these areas. 

None of the alternatives impact Inventoried Roadless Areas because no trails are added to these 

areas.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

72 – Plumas National Forest

3.3 Transportation Facilities

3.3.1 Introduction

Between draft and final Environmental Impact Statements, existing system road average annual 

maintenance costs were updated to reflect last year’s contract road maintenance costs. Miles of 

motorized trails in serpentine, propose motorized trail mileage, and trail system affordability were 

updated to reflect increased proposed trail mileage for Alternative 4 and decreased trail mileage for 

Alternative 5. Motorized mixed use mileage was updated to reflect changing two roads from 

maintenance level 3 to maintenance level 2 thus allowing mixed use on these roads.

This section of the environmental analysis examines the extent to which alternatives respond to 

transportation facilities direction established in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. The Forest Plan transportation facilities direction was established under the 

implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Forest 

Roads and Trails Act (FRTA). The National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) consists of roads, 

trails, and airfields. The NFTS provides for protection, development, management, and utilization of 

resources on the National Forests. There are other roads and trails existing on the Forest that are not 

currently part of the NFTS. Transportation facilities considered in this analysis include roads and 

trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use. This analysis considers changes needed to the NFTS to 

meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Decisions regarding changes in the transportation facilities 

must consider: 1) providing for adequate public safety, and 2) providing adequate maintenance of the 

roads and trails that will be designated for public use. The analysis in this section focuses primarily 

on these two aspects of the NFTS.

3.3.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction

Direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects transportation facilities includes:

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 212 (36 CFR 212) is the implementing regulation for 

the FRTA and includes the Travel Management Rule published in the Federal Register on November 

9, 2005. Part 212 Subpart B provides criteria for designation of roads and trails. Providing safe 

transportation facilities and considering the affordability of maintaining the transportation facilities 

are two of the criteria. 

Forest Service Manual Sections 2350 and 7700 contain agency policy for management of the 

National Forest Transportation System. The policy requires the development of trail management 

objectives (TMOs) and road management objectives (RMOs). The TMOs and RMOs document the 

purpose of each trail or road. The purpose for the trail or road sets the parameters for maintenance 

standards needed to meet user needs, resource protection and public safety. Forest Service Handbook 

7709.59 Chapter 60 describes the maintenance management system the Forest Service uses and the 

maintenance standards needed to meet road management objectives (RMOs) for the road system, 

including considerations for public safety.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 73

Regional Forester’s letters, file code 7700/2350, dated 08/26/06 and 06/20/07 contain procedures 

National Forests in Pacific Southwest Region will use to evaluate safety aspects of public travel on 

roads when proposed changes to the NFTS will allow both highway legal and non-highway legal 

traffic on a road (motorized mixed use).

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) regulates the use of motor vehicles in California. 36 CFR 

212.5a makes the CVC applicable to NFTS roads in California. The CVC sets standards and 

qualifications for motor vehicles and vehicle operators. It defines the safety equipment needed for 

highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles. It also defines the roads and trails where non-highway 

legal motor vehicles may be operated without being subject to CVC requirements.

3.3.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

3.3.3.1 Transportation Specific Assumptions

1. Any motor vehicle use authorized by state law is occurring on the NFTS unless there are 

Forest specific prohibitions. 

2. Motor vehicle use by special use permit or other permitted activities are outside the scope of 

this proposal (fuel wood gathering, motorized Special Use Permit event, Recreation 

Residences, mining activities, etc.). 

3. Motorized trails eligible classes are high clearance vehicles (4WD etc.), ATV and 

motorcycles. Low clearance highway legal vehicles are not prohibited on trails but will not be 

found using trails.

4. There is some need for maintenance generated by traffic on any route open to motor vehicle 

use. When the users are the recreating public, financial responsibility for this maintenance 

falls on the Forest Service.

5. The CVC establishes standards and qualifications for motor vehicle operators 

Public Safety – 36 CFR 212.55 requires public safety be considered when designating roads, 

trails and areas for motor vehicle use. The proposed additions and changes to the NFTS have been 

evaluated for the effects on public safety.

Affordability – 36 CFR 212.55 requires consideration of the need for maintenance and 

administration of the designated NFTS. Costs for the NFTS system include costs for needed 

maintenance work that has not been completed for various reasons (deferred maintenance) and costs 

of maintenance that should be performed routinely to maintain the facility to its current standard 

(annual maintenance). In addition, there may be additional costs associated with proposed changes to 

the NFTS (implementation costs). These costs may be for improving unauthorized routes that will be 

added to the NFTS, costs for proposed safety and resource improvements, costs for changing 

maintenance levels, and costs for closing routes to use by motor vehicles.

3.3.4 Affected Environment

The road system has evolved over time. The first roads built through the Plumas National Forest were 

routes providing access to Chester, Greenville, Quincy and Portola along the Feather River. These 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

74 – Plumas National Forest

early roads followed existing trails used by miners and trappers. As transportation needs changed over 

time, the routes were reconstructed to higher standards.

In 1910, work was completed on the Western Pacific Railroad in the North Fork of the Feather 

River. Completion of Highway 70 in 1937 opened the Feather River drainage to automobile traffic, 

encouraging tourism associated with the abundance of wildlife and natural beauty. The Forest 

undertook a transportation planning effort in the 1920s with a focus on access for fire protection, but 

little road construction actually occurred. The Civilian Conservation Corps built some roads in the 

1930s. In 1935 another Forest transportation study was conducted, again with the goal of enhancing 

fire protection, but little road construction occurred until America entered World War II, when 

emphasis was directed towards developing access to strategic mineral deposits. Even with this 

emphasis, most of the Forest remained inaccessible by vehicle.

In the late 1940s, America demanded timber to support its building boom. Congress appropriated 

large road budgets to develop an infrastructure for removing timber from previously remote areas. 

Main roads were designed and constructed by the Bureau of Public Roads, now the Federal Highway 

Administration; these roads were normally constructed to highway standards. The Forest Service was 

responsible for providing a long-term, sustainable flow of timber. Development of a system of lowervolume project roads, such as the roads within timber sale areas, fell to the agency. Often the road 

location, design, and construction standards were left to the timber purchaser’s discretion. In the 

urgency to provide timber access, many miles of primary timber access roads were hastily surveyed 

and constructed with insufficient attention paid to possible watershed impacts and long-term stability 

issues. Many roads were constructed during this period, accessing large areas of old growth and late 

serial stage timber throughout the Forest.

In the early 1950s, the Forest Service began requiring the use of geometric standards for road 

design that set limits on maximum grade steepness and minimum curve radius. These standards were 

developed with the limited horsepower and primitive braking systems available on log trucks at the 

time in mind. (Today’s trucks have far more power and much better braking systems.) The standards 

resulted in long sustained grades and large cuts and fills. Most of the high-volume roads were 

designed and constructed with crowned running surfaces, roadside ditches, and ditch relief culverts. 

This design template concentrates surface runoff at culvert outlets and often contributes to offsite 

resource damage.

The majority of the roads on the Forest were constructed from 1960 through 1990 in support of a 

robust timber program, which averaged 203 million board feet of timber from 1974 to 1990. Road 

construction programs were large. To ensure that the Forest Service was receiving the quality of road 

paid for, an emphasis was placed on contract administration. A national training and certification 

program was developed to ensure that contract administrators were qualified and experienced. Timber 

companies that used the roads for hauling were required to provide for maintenance of the roads they 

used as authorized by the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA) of 1964. Large reconstruction 

budgets in the 1970s and 1980s and the authorization in FRTA to use requirements on purchasers of 

National Forest timber to fund needed road reconstruction allowed managers to reconstruct many 

problem road segments associated with early road construction practices.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 75

During this period road standards were modified several times. The geometric design standards 

introduced in the 1950s were used until 1976, when nongeometric design methods were implemented. 

These standards permitted the road alignment to follow the existing contour of the ground as closely 

as possible, resulting in significantly less excavation, embankment, and ground disturbance. Also, 

roads were typically designed with an out-sloped configuration, thereby reducing the concentration of 

road surface runoff. In the early 1980s, the agency began a shift in emphasis away from commodity 

outputs to a more holistic view of resource management. This new focus allowed the Forest Service 

to sacrifice serviceability of the road in order to reduce potential environmental impacts. Lower 

design standards and nongeometric design methods coupled with well trained administrators 

significantly reduced many of the environmental impacts associated with early road construction and 

use.

By the mid-1980s, the amount of new road construction began to taper off. The timber program 

was fluctuating, and the majority of the arterial and collector road system was in place. New road 

construction was primarily limited to short spur roads needed to access individual timber stands. As 

timber harvest decreased, maintenance of the transportation system became an issue. 

The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), issued in 1988, 

established land allocations applied to the Forest. Some of these, such as Late-Successional Reserves 

and Riparian Reserves, are not considered available for timber harvest. Currently, approximately 77% 

of the land base is available for programmed timber harvest. The annual harvest levels of 200 million 

board feet common in the 1970s and 1980s have been reduced to an estimated annual sale quantity of 

15 million board feet. A significant portion of the road system initially developed to facilitate timber 

harvest now accesses lands where timber harvest is either not permitted or is not the primary 

management emphasis. This means that while the Forest Service still requires timber purchasers to 

perform maintenance made necessary by their use, the road system will receive a very limited amount 

of maintenance from timber harvest in the future.

The current road inventory for the Plumas National Forest is 4,137 miles, which includes 

approximately 458 miles of cost share roads. These are NFTS roads that are jointly financed and 

maintained by the Forest and the cooperating companies Sierra Pacific Industries, Soper Wheeler, 

Collins Pine and Pacific Gas and Electric. The Forest Service manages the roads as part of the 

transportation system. The cooperators have real property rights in individual roads documented in 

recorded easements. The Forest Service cannot make unilateral decisions to decommission, 

reconstruct, or change maintenance levels. Road decisions must be made in accordance with the terms 

of the applicable Cooperative Road Construction and Use Agreements with each company. 

Forest-wide average costs per mile to maintain each operational maintenance level (ML) were 

developed and applied to the road system to calculate the estimated total cost. The average annual 

maintenance costs are shown in the following table. The average costs per mile were derived from 

condition survey estimates. This includes costs for maintaining route markers and signs needed for 

public safety.

The Plumas National Forest expects to receive $700,000 in Forest Service appropriated funds. 

Cooperators and timber purchasers invest approximately $500,000 in road maintenance work per year 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

76 – Plumas National Forest

on the Forest. The remaining short fall means that some roads are not maintained on a yearly basis 

and maintenance is completed on roads with the most use. 

Table 18. Existing System Roads Average Annual Maintenance Needs

Operational Maintenance Level Miles Cost per Mile Annual Maintenance Cost

1 262 $82 $21,000

2 3,241 $82 $266,000

3 404 $407 $165,000

4 106 $3,527 $373,000

5 124 $3,527 $437,000

Total 4,137 $306 $1,262,000

The expected average annual motorized trail maintenance cost by alternative is shown in the 

following table. The cost per mile for trail maintenance is estimated to be the following; all vehicles -

$225 per mile, 50”and less - $112/mile and motorcycle - $56/mile. Costs include safety and resource 

improvements on system trails. The Plumas National Forest expects to receive $25,000 in Forest 

Service appropriated funds for motorized trail maintenance. Trail maintenance money has been 

declining each year and the Plumas National Forest is dependent on volunteer labor and grants for 

any additional trail maintenance. 

Table 19. Existing Motorized Trail Average Annual Maintenance Cost by Alternative

Alt 1- 5

All Vehicles Miles 109

50" Less Miles 7

Motorcycle Miles 14

Total Miles 130

Total Maintenance $26,100

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences

3.3.5.1 Measurement Indicator 1: Public Safety

Adding unauthorized routes to the trail system: Most of the trails added to the system would not 

have safety concerns. Routes with safety concerns would be identified and corrections made during 

trail maintenance work. Some of the more demanding motorcycle singletrack trails could be a safety 

concern for the inexperienced rider. Local riding maps with difficulty ratings would be helpful to 

direct riders to trails of their ability. 

Soils derived from serpentinite and other types of ultra-mafic bedrock can contain asbestos fibers 

that may cause health concerns. Soils derived from these magnesium-iron rich rocks are commonly 

referred to as serpentine soils. The following table depicts the number of miles of trails proposed to 

be added to the NFTS that traverse serpentine soils. All trails in serpentine soils in Alternative 5 have 

been sampled for asbestos and no asbestos was detected.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 77

Table 20. The Number of Miles of Motorized Trails in Serpentine Ecosystems by Alternative

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

OHV 4WD 3.2 0 0.9 0.9

OHV ATV 2.2 0 0 0.1

Motorcycle 4.5 0 0.7 4.4

Total Miles 9.8 0 1.6 5.4

Motorized Mixed Use: The Travel Management Rule (TM), 36 CFR 212, 251, 261, and 295, 

super cedes past practices and enforcement of OHV use on the National Forests. In consideration of 

public safety and to best comply with State traffic laws, as required by 36 CFR 212.5a, the Pacific 

Southwest Region, R5, equates Forest Service roads maintained for passenger vehicle use 

(Maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5) to roads defined as “highways” under the California Vehicle Code 

(CVC). (This determination is also in concurrence with US Department of Transportation regulations 

at 23 CFR 460.2 and 23 CFR 655.603 which define “Roads Open to Public Travel” and require signs 

and traffic control devices on such roads be in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and Highways.) In making this determination, the Forest Service has 

aligned OHV use on FS Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5 roads to CVC restrictions and requirements for 

OHV use on highways. This policy was further clarified by the Regional Forester by letter, dated 

January 13, 2009, entitled Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest Roads in the Pacific Southwest 

Region. Travel Management on the Plumas NF is consistent with this direction. 

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s fact sheet on “Teen Drivers”

(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html) indicates that, “per 

mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash.” 

Designation for motorized mixed use involves allowing unlicensed children to operate motor vehicles 

on roads. We believe unlicensed children, unfamiliar with rules of the road in general and conditions 

on unsurfaced NFS roads in particular, are even more likely to be involved in crashes than licensed 

teenage drivers. At a time when highway safety officials nationwide are raising minimum age and 

driving experience requirements for a first driver’s license as well as instituting graduated 

requirements for the first licenses received, it is foolish for the Forest Service to disregard risks 

involved when young people operate motor vehicles.

Motorized mixed use (MMU) on high clearance roads (maintenance level 2): All the high 

clearance roads currently open to the public on the Plumas National Forest were determined to have 

minimal safety concerns and will be designated as open to all vehicles.

Motorized mixed use (MMU) on passenger car roads: One passenger car road (4.0 miles) has 

been proposed for mixed use (See Chapter 2 Table 2). Mixed use analysis consistent with Regional 

direction showed that the probability and severity of risk is low for mixed vehicle use on this road. 

This road has no accident history and has very few safety concerns. It is near the end of the passenger 

car segment and is narrower and has more curves then the previous passenger car segment. It is out 

sloped and requires slower speeds. It will be posted for mixed use to warn drivers to anticipate ATVs 

and motorcycles. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

78 – Plumas National Forest

The following table displays the number of miles of proposed and existing motorized trails. 

Alternative 1 is displayed to show the miles of unauthorized routes as if they were added to the trail 

system. These miles would remain open and therefore would continue to have potential safety and 

exposure concerns to the public. The table also shows the miles of proposed motorized mixed use 

roads consistent with California vehicle code requirements.

Table 21. Public Safety Measurement Indicator – Proposed and Existing Motorized Trails

Alt 1 

(No Action)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

4WD Trail Miles 1,036 325 109 217 265

ATV Trail Miles 81 70 7 29 46

Motorcycle Miles 120 96 14 21 53

Total OHV Trail Miles 1,237 491 130 270 364

Motorized Mixed Use on 

Low Clearance Roads 0 0 0 4 4

3.3.5.2 Measurement Indicator 2: Transportation System Affordability

Table 22 below displays the proposed and existing motorized trails and estimated costs for each 

alternative. The total cost shown at the bottom of the table includes the estimated annual maintenance 

costs as well as implementation costs for motorized trails. Costs include safety and resource 

improvements on the motorized trails, work needed to bring unauthorized routes to acceptable 

standards for use by motor vehicles and the cost of producing the motor vehicle use map. The 

following cost per mile for trail maintenance is estimated to be the following: all vehicles-$225 per 

mile, 50” and less-$112/mile and motorcycle-$56/ mile. The following cost per mile to bring the 

proposed trail to minimum trail standards is estimated to be the following: all vehicles-$1,000 per 

mile, 50” and less-$500/mile and motorcycle-$250/ mile. These costs are averaged over all miles and 

will be accomplished with grant money and volunteer labor. 

Table 22. Trail System Affordability

Alt 1 

(No Action)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Annual Maintenance: $26,093 $86,341 $26,093 $53,249 $67,745

Cost of adding trails 0 $384,000 $116,000 $236,750 $301,250

Cost of implementing 

MVUM $0 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

Total Estimated cost for 

Alternative $26,093 $500,341 $172,093 $319,999 $398,995

3.3.5.3 Alternative 1 – No action

3.3.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.3.5.3.1.1 Public Safety

Alternative 1 includes the most motorized route mileage of the all alternatives (1,237 miles) and 

cross-country travel on 999,521 acres is not prohibited. Since no change is proposed to the managed 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 79

use of existing NFS roads and trail, this alternative would result in the greatest impact to motorized 

safety. Under Alternative 1 an unknown number of unauthorized routes with natural occurring 

asbestos would remain open.

This alternative has the highest mileage of 4X4 motorized routes (1,036 miles), ATV routes (81 

miles) and motorcycle only routes (120 miles) of all alternatives, but none of these would become 

system trails. These routes would continue to cause resource damage and would need a certain 

amount of maintenance in order to continue to be usable. The routes, however, vary greatly in 

condition and the quality of recreational experience provided. In some areas, visitors may have 

difficulty making sense of, and navigating, the dense web of routes. This alternative does not 

represent a cohesive, designed, or well-managed recreation system.

Maintenance, signing and trail improvements would not occur and therefore safety concerns 

would not be addressed. Maps to help direct riders to the appropriate trails for their skill level would 

not be available to the public.

3.3.5.3.1.2 Transportation System Affordability 

Alternative 1 requires the least amount of investment and maintenance because no trails or areas 

would be added to the system. 

3.3.5.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

3.3.5.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.3.5.4.1.1 Public Safety

Alternative 2 includes the highest proposed motorized trail mileage of all the action alternatives (361 

miles). This alternative proposes the highest mileage of motorcycle only trails (82 miles) of all the 

action alternatives. The Forest would be closed to cross-country travel. Maintenance, signing and trail 

improvements would occur. Maps to help direct riders to the appropriate trails for their skill level 

would be available to the public. Alternative 2 would have 1.45 miles of motorized trail segments in 

areas that may have natural occurring asbestos present. These trail segments would have to be tested 

to ensure that they do not actually have asbestos before being open to the public. 

3.3.5.4.1.2 Transportation System Affordability

Alternative 2 requires the highest amount of investment and maintenance because 361 mile of 

motorized trails and the 36 acre Sly Creek Area would be added to the system. Trails added to the 

system would be maintained thereby reducing the amount of damage inflicted on other resources.

3.3.5.5 Alternative 3

3.3.5.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.3.5.5.1.1 Public Safety

Alternative 3 has no proposed additional NFTS motorized trail miles. This alternative results in the 

least impact to public safety. The Forest would be closed to cross-country travel. Alternative 3 would 

have 0 miles of motorized trail segments in areas that have natural occurring asbestos present.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

80 – Plumas National Forest

3.3.5.5.1.2 Transportation System Affordability

Alternative 3 requires the least amount of investment and maintenance because no trails would be 

added to the system. 

3.3.5.6 Alternative 4

3.3.5.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.3.5.6.1.1 Public Safety

Alternative 4 includes the least proposed motorized trail mileage of alternatives with proposed 

additional motorized trails (140 miles). This alternative includes the least mileage of proposed 

motorcycle-only trails (10 miles) for all the action alternatives. The Forest would be closed to crosscountry travel. Maintenance, signing and trail improvements would occur. Maps to help direct riders 

to the appropriate trails for their skill level would be available to the public. Alternative 4 would have 

0 miles of motorized trail segments in areas that have natural occurring asbestos present.

3.3.5.6.1.2 Transportation System Affordability

Alternative 4 requires the lowest amount of investment and maintenance of alternatives with proposed 

additional motorized trails because only 140 mile of motorized trails would be added to the system. 

3.3.5.7 Alternative 5

3.3.5.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.3.5.7.1.1 Public Safety

Alternative 5 includes the second highest proposed motorized trail mileage of all the action 

alternatives (234 miles). This alternative included the second highest mileage of proposed motorcycle 

only trails (39 miles) of all the action alternatives. The Forest would be closed to cross-country travel. 

Maintenance, signing and trail improvements would occur. Maps to help direct riders to the 

appropriate trails for their skill level would be available to the public. Alternative 5 would have 0 

miles of motorized trail segments in areas that have natural occurring asbestos present.

3.3.5.7.1.2 Transportation System Affordability

Alternative 5 requires the second highest amount of investment and maintenance of the action 

alternatives because 234 mile of motorized trails would be added to the system. 

3.3.5.8 Cumulative Effects

The cost of adding and maintaining trails will come from grants and the value of volunteer labor. As 

increased use of the motorized trail system occurs, additional trails, trail heads and sanitary facilities 

may need to be added in the future.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 81

3.3.6 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives

Table 23. Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Effects for Facilities

Indicators – Facilities Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each 

Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Public Safety 1 2 5 4 3

Transportation System Affordability 5 2 5 4 3

Average for Facilities Resources 2 1 5 4 3

1 

3.3.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the best for facilities resources related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the 

alternative is the worst for facilities resources related to the indicator

All alternatives comply with the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 

other regulatory directions.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

82 – Plumas National Forest

3.4 Visual Resources

Between draft and final Environmental Impact Statements, mileage for Retention and Partial 

Retention Visual Quality Objective Area was updated to reflect increased proposed trail mileage for 

Alternative 4 and reduced trail mileage in the French Creek drainage and the dropped area at Sly 

Creek for Alternative 5.

3.4.1 Introduction

This section examines the extent to which alternatives respond to visual resources management 

direction established in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) and the Travel Management (TM) Rule. The Forest Plan visual resources direction was 

established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).

In the development of the Plumas Forest Plan, the Forest’s visual resources were inventoried to 

determine the landscape’s scenic attractiveness (Variety Class inventory) and the public’s visual 

expectations (Sensitivity Level inventory). Based upon these inventories, Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQOs) were established for all Forest land areas. The VQOs establish minimum acceptable 

thresholds for landscape alterations from an otherwise natural-appearing forest landscape. For 

example, areas with a Retention VQO are expected to retain a natural appearance; areas with a Partial 

Retention VQO may have some alterations, but they remain subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape; areas with a Modification VQO can have alterations that do not look natural appearing. 

Visual Resources management direction in the Forest Plan includes a goal to maintain high visual 

quality from recreational development, major travel routes, and other high use areas. Standards and 

Guidelines in the Forest Plan include direction to vary Visual Quality Objectives according to land 

use; restore high visual quality to lands apparent from high-use areas; and maintain visual quality 

along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT), specifically a Partial Retention VQO in the foreground zone of 

the PCT. 

Roads and trails create linear alterations in landscapes that can be mitigated through sound 

design. Unmitigated, they present uncharacteristic line qualities in forest landscapes. Landscapes with 

a dense canopy cover have the capability of masking these linear alterations; sparsely covered 

landscapes have less capability. The proliferation of unauthorized routes, particularly in sparsely 

covered landscapes, can adversely affect the Forest’s visual resources.

3.4.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects visual resources includes:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 

and its implementing regulations, required the inventory and evaluation of the Forest’s visual 

resource, addressing the landscape’s visual attractiveness and the public’s visual expectations. 

Management prescriptions for definitive land areas of the Forest are to include Visual Quality 

Objectives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 83

Travel Management Rule. The TM Rule does not cite aesthetics specifically, but in the 

designation of trails or areas, the responsible official shall consider effects on Forest resources, with 

the objective of minimizing effects of motor vehicle use. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). No specific direction related to visual 

resources is in the Final Supplemental ROD.

Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest 

Plan contains Forest-wide management direction in the form of Goals, and Standards and Guidelines 

for visual resources.

3.4.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

3.4.3.1 Assumptions specific to visual resources analysis:

1. The basic Measurement Indicator for the visual resources is compliance with the Retention 

and Partial Retention VQOs.

2. A second Measurement Indicator has been added to analyze effects on the PCT.

3. Other high-use areas identified in the Forest Plan are already incorporated in the adopted 

VQOs.

4. Visual resources restoration, as identified in the Forest Plan, is limited to natural regeneration.

5. NFTS additions that contribute to the continuity of motor touring will have a beneficial effect 

on visual resources, since it is assumed that dead-end route situations will be reduced. 

3.4.3.2 Data Sources:

Forest Plan for distribution of VQOs.

3.4.3.3 Visual Resources Indicators:

1. The extent to which the proposed NFTS falls within the Retention and Partial Retention 

VQOs (number of miles traversing landscapes that are to remain natural to near-natural 

appearing in character). 

2. The extent to which the proposed NFTS are in proximity to the PCT and meet the Partial 

Retention VQO in the foreground zone. 

3.4.3.4 Visual Resources Methodology by Action: 

1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. The 

prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicles will have a positive effect on the Forest’s 

visual resources. Improvement of the visual resource is long-term; unauthorized routes and 

impact areas will gradually heal over time. 

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding trails and areas to the NFTS, including identifying vehicle 

class. Table 24 and Table 25 document the miles of trails in Retention and Partial Retention 

Visual Quality Objective areas. Table 26 illustrates the number of proposed OHV mileage 

within 1⁄2 mile of the PCT (1/2 mile is the maximum distance for defining the foreground 

distance zone per the Visual Management System, Agriculture Handbook 462). Noncharacteristic line quality created by trail segments is the greatest impact to the visual 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

84 – Plumas National Forest

resources – the location and design of these segments can significantly reduce their visual 

impact.

3. Changes to the existing NFTS. There are no changes to the existing NFTS other than the 

Deans Valley Road (4.1 mi.) being made available for mixed use.

Table 24. Proposed OHV Mileage within Retention Visual Quality Objective Area

Vehicle Type Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Mileage % Mileage % Mileage % Mileage %

OHV 4WD 19.5 59 0 0 13.0 78 16.6 78

Less than 50” 5.8 18 0 0 3.1 18 4.1 19

Motorcycle 7.6 23 0 0 0.6 4 0.6 3

Total/% Existing 32.9 33 0 0 16.7 17 21.3 21

Alternative 1 has 99.8 miles of unauthorized routes within Retention Visual Quality Objective Area

Table 25. Proposed OHV Mileage within Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective Area

Vehicle Type Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Mileage % Mileage % Mileage % Mileage %

OHV 4WD 52.8 64 0 0 27.4 76 37.9 67

Less than 50” 14.1 17 0 0 6.2 17 9.0 16

Motorcycle 15.8 19 0 0 2.5 7 9.7 17

Total/% Existing 82.7 24 0 0 36.1 10 56.6 16

Alternative 1 has 346.5 miles of unauthorized routes within Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective Area

Table 26. Proposed OHV Mileage within 1⁄2 Mile of the Pacific Crest Trail

Vehicle Type Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage

OHV 4WD 0 0 0 0

Less than 50” 0 0 0 0

Motorcycle 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0

Alternative 1 has 0.77 miles of unauthorized routes within 1⁄2 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The “viewshed” is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects associated 

with changes in the NFTS.

Indicator(s): The extent to which the proposed NFTS falls within the Retention and Partial Retention 

VQOs (number of miles traversing landscapes that are to remain natural to near-natural appearing in 

character); and proposed NFTS within 1⁄2 mile of the Pacific Crest Trail.

Methodology: GIS analysis of proposed NFTS segments in relation to Retention and Partial 

Retention VQOs, or within 1⁄2 mile of the PCT. The analysis will take into consideration 

slope/topography, vegetative screening and distance to determine if proposed NFTS segments meet 

the Retention or Partial Retention VQO.

Rationale: Compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs), 

or the foreground distance zone Forest Plan direction for the PCT.

Changes to the existing NFTS

No change in effect for visual resources.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 85

Cumulative Effects

Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The “viewshed” is the unit of spatial analysis for determining cumulative effects.

Indicator(s): Number of view sheds that are or have the potential to be affected by motor vehicle 

travel. 

Methodology: Identify Forest view sheds such as scenic byway corridors, and views from the PCT 

for cumulative effects analysis. Using the same GIS analysis as identified above, determine if any of 

the proposed NFTS segments exceed the Partial Retention VQO threshold (Modification VQO) when 

added to past, present or foreseeable actions. 

Rationale: Compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs).

3.4.4 Affected Environment

In the development of the Plumas Forest Plan, the Forest’s visual resources were inventoried to 

determine the landscape’s scenic attractiveness (Variety Class inventory) and the public’s visual 

expectations (Sensitivity Level inventory). Based upon these inventories, Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQOs) were established for all Forest land areas. The VQOs establish minimum acceptable 

thresholds for landscape alterations from an otherwise natural-appearing forest landscape. For 

example, areas with a Retention VQO are expected to retain a natural appearance; areas with a Partial 

Retention VQO may have some alterations, but they remain subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape; areas with a Modification VQO can have alterations that do not look natural appearing.

Visual quality objectives describe different degrees of acceptable alteration of the natural 

landscape. The Objectives are considered the measurable standards for the management of the “seen” 

aspects of the land. Roads and trails create linear alterations in landscapes that are hard to mitigate, 

making Retention and Partial Retention VQO achievement difficult. Landscapes with a dense canopy 

cover have the capability of masking these linear alterations; sparsely covered landscapes have less 

capability. The proliferation of unauthorized routes, particularly in sparsely covered landscapes, can 

adversely affect the Forest’s visual resources.

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences

3.4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No action

3.4.5.1.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Approximately 446 miles out of 1,107 miles of unauthorized (40%) routes are in retention and partial 

retention VQOs. Additional routes would develop with no prohibition of cross-country motorized 

vehicle travel. Users would continue to create additional motorcycle single track and quad trails. Two 

routes would impact the Pacific Crest Trail.

3.4.5.1.2 Direct/Indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes, and areas) to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

86 – Plumas National Forest

3.4.5.1.3 Changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the NFTS would occur.

3.4.5.1.4 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for having a negative cumulative effect for visual resources. 

The continued proliferation and concentration of user-created route segments may create 

uncharacteristic line quality in forest landscapes. The Pacific Crest Trail would continue to see 

possible impact from additional user created trails within 1⁄2 mile of the trail.

3.4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

3.4.5.2.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The continued proliferation and concentration of user-created route segments would cease to occur.

The Pacific Crest Trail would have no unauthorized routes impacting the trail.

3.4.5.2.2 Direct/Indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes, and areas) to the NFTS

Approximately 116 miles of proposed trails out of 446 miles of unauthorized (26%) routes are in 

retention and partial retention VQOs. The majority of these trails are not visible because they are 

screened by vegetation and have little or no cut banks or fill slopes. No additional routes would 

develop with a ban on cross-country motorized vehicle use. The Sly Creek Use area, which is on top 

of the hill that was used for borrow to build the Sly Creek Dam, is screened from the Sly Creek 

Campground, the Sly Creek Reservoir, and the Sly Creek Road (21N16) with vegetation that blocks 

any view of the area. 

3.4.5.2.3 Changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the existing NFTS will occur. 

3.4.5.2.4 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 has the second highest potential for having a negative cumulative effect for visual

resources. With a ban on cross-country travel, over time an improvement of the visual resource would 

occur with unauthorized routes and impact areas gradually disappearing. The Pacific Crest Trail 

would no longer have possible impact from additional user created trails within 1⁄2 mile of the trail.

3.4.5.3 Alternative 3 

3.4.5.3.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The continued proliferation and concentration of user-created route segments would cease to occur.

The Pacific Crest Trail would have no unauthorized routes impacting the trail.

3.4.5.3.2 Direct/Indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes, and areas) to the NFTS

This alternative does not add any trails. Therefore, there is no effect (0% proposed trails) in retention 

and partial retention VQOs. No additional trails would develop with a ban on cross-country motorized

vehicle use. 

3.4.5.3.3 Changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the existing NFTS will occur.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 87

3.4.5.3.4 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3 has the lowest cumulative effect for visual resources because no unauthorized routes are 

proposed to be added to the trail system. With a ban to cross-country travel, over time an 

improvement of the visual resource would occur with unauthorized routes and impact areas gradually 

disappearing. The Pacific Crest Trail would no longer have possible impact from additional user 

created trails within 1⁄2 mile of the trail.

3.4.5.4 Alternative 4 

3.4.5.4.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The continued proliferation and concentration of user-created route segments would cease to occur.

The Pacific Crest Trail would have no unauthorized routes impacting the trail.

3.4.5.4.2 Direct/Indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes, and areas) to the NFTS

Approximately 53 miles of proposed trails out of 446 miles of unauthorized (12%) routes are in 

retention and partial retention VQOs. The majority of these trails are not visible because they are 

screened by vegetation and have little or no cut banks or fill slopes. No additional trails would 

develop with a ban on cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

3.4.5.4.3 Changes to the existing NFTS

The Deanes Valley Road will be available for mixed use.

3.4.5.4.4 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 4 has second lowest potential cumulative effect for visual resources with the second 

lowest miles of trails added to the trail system. With a ban to cross-country travel, over time an 

improvement of the visual resource would occur with unauthorized routes and impact areas gradually 

disappearing. The Pacific Crest Trail would no longer have possible impact from additional user 

created trails within 1⁄2 mile of the trail.

3.4.5.5 Alternative 5 

3.4.5.5.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The continued proliferation and concentration of user-created route segments would cease to occur.

The Pacific Crest Trail would have no unauthorized routes impacting the trail.

3.4.5.5.2 Direct/Indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes, and areas) to the NFTS

Approximately 78 miles of proposed trails out of 446 miles of unauthorized (17%) routes are in 

retention and partial retention VQOs. The majority of these trails are not visible because they are 

screened by vegetation and have little or no cut banks or fill slopes. No additional trails would 

develop with a ban on cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

3.4.5.5.3 Changes to the existing NFTS

The Deanes Valley Road will be available for mixed use.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

88 – Plumas National Forest

3.4.5.5.4 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has third lowest potential cumulative effect for visual resources with the third lowest 

miles of trails added to the trail system. With a ban to cross-country travel, over time an improvement 

of the visual resource would occur with unauthorized routes and impact areas gradually disappearing. 

The Pacific Crest Trail would no longer have additional impact from possible user created trails 

within 1⁄2 mile of the trail.

3.4.6 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives

Table 27. Visual Resources Indicator Assessment

Indicators – Visual Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Disturbance/Integrity: Compliance with the Retention and 

Partial Retention VQOs.

1 2 5 4 3

Disturbance/Integrity: Meets Partial Retention VQO from PCT 1 5 5 5 5

Average for Visual Resources 1 2 5 4 3

1

3.4.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the best for visual quality related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative 

is the worst for visual quality related to the indicator.

Alternative 1 does not comply with regulatory direction. All other alternatives comply with the 

Plumas Forest Plan and other regulatory directions.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 89

3.5 Soil and Water Resources

3.5.1 Changes to this Section between DEIS and FEIS

• Effects indicator data have been updated to reflect the small number of proposed trails for 

which the soil and water resource rating was changed.

• While the cumulative effects methodology has not changed since the DEIS, additional 

descriptive material has been added to clarify the methodology. 

• The analysis purpose of the Erosion Hazard Rating indicator has been clarified.

• Input from the 2007 HFQLG FRA Pilot Project Monitoring Report to Congress for Question 

17 has been updated with the 2008 version. 

• Additional information is provided to describe the rationale for the Season of Use mitigation.

3.5.2 Introduction

The Plumas National Forest has managed the landscape as open to cross-country motor vehicle travel 

(motorized travel off of designated National Forest System (NFS) roads, trails or areas). Repeated use 

has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized routes. These routes generally developed without 

environmental analysis or public involvement, and do not have the same status as NFS roads and NFS 

trails included in the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS). This has resulted in unplanned 

roads and trails created without meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management 

Practices (BMPs). As a result, effects to soil and water resources have occurred in some locations.

The purpose of the Soil and Water Resource section is to analyze the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the alternatives on soil and water resources, specifically long-term soil 

productivity and hydrologic function. The land management activities proposed under this project 

have the potential to affect soil and water resources in a beneficial, indifferent, or adverse manner. 

This report identifies maintenance and mitigation measures needed to have a functioning trail system 

with minimal effects to these resources.

The soil resource provides many essential functions for NFS lands. It sustains plant growth that 

provides forage, fiber, wildlife habitat and watershed protection. It absorbs precipitation, stores water 

for plant growth, and gradually releases surplus water, which attenuates runoff rates. It sustains 

microorganisms which recycle nutrients for continued plant growth. The National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 and other acts recognized the fundamental need to protect, and where appropriate, 

improve the quality of soil. The alternatives could potentially affect soil productivity and its other 

ecosystem functions and is therefore addressed in this section.

Protection of water quantity and quality is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service. 

Management activities on NFS lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic 

function of watersheds, including the volume, timing, and quality of streamflow. The use of roads, 

trails, and other areas on National Forests for public operation of motor vehicles has potential to 

affect these hydrologic functions through interception of runoff, compaction of soils, and detachment 

of sediment. Management decisions to eliminate cross-country motorized travel and add new trails 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

90 – Plumas National Forest

and areas to the NFTS could potentially affect watershed functions and are therefore addressed in this 

section.

3.5.3 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction

Direction relevant to the project as it affects soil resources includes:

National Forest Management Act of 1976. Renewable Resource Program. “recognize the 

fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air 

resources.”

National Soil Management Handbook. The Soil Management Handbook (USDA 1991) is a 

national soils handbook that defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, establishes 

guidance for measuring soil productivity, and establishes thresholds to assist in Forest Planning.

Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement. The Forest Service Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1) establishes Regional Soil 

Quality Analysis Standards and provides threshold values that indicate when changes in soil 

properties and soil conditions would potentially result in a significant change in soil productivity 

(including soil loss, porosity, and organic matter), soil hydrologic function, or soil buffering capacity. 

The analysis standards are to be used for areas dedicated to growing vegetation. They are not applied 

to lands with other dedicated uses, such as developed campgrounds, administrative facilities or in this 

case, the actual land surface authorized for travel by the public using various kinds of vehicles.

Regional Forester’s Letter (dated Feb 5, 2007). This letter provided clarification to Forest 

Supervisors on the appropriate use of the R5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH 

Supplement 2509.18-95-1). It states in part:

Analysis or evaluation of soil condition is the intended use of the thresholds and indicators in 

R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1. They are not a set of mandatory standards or 

requirements. They should not be referred to as binding or mandatory requirements in NEPA 

documents. Standards and guidelines in Forest Land and Resource Management Plans 

provide the relevant substantive standards to comply with NFMA. 

The thresholds and indicators represent desired conditions for the soil resource. Utilization of the 

thresholds and indicators provides a consistent method to analyze, describe and report on soil 

condition throughout the Region. 

Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The 1988 Forest Plan 

establishes Standards and Guidelines to prevent significant or permanent impairment of soil 

productivity on page 4-44 (USDA 1988). The analysis standards are to be used for areas dedicated to 

growing vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses, such as developed 

campgrounds, administrative facilities or in this case, the actual land surface authorized for travel by 

the public using various kinds of vehicles.

Direction relevant to the project as it affects water resources includes:

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes as federal policy the 

control of point and non-point pollution and assigns the States the primary responsibility for control 

of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by National Forests in California is 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 91

achieved under state law (see below). Section 404 permit requirements for discharge or placement of 

fill in a stream channel that carries waters of the US, as administered by the US Army Corps of 

Engineers, will be appropriately satisfied prior to construction of any applicable maintenance or 

mitigation prescribed by this FEIS for existing trails proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. This section requires the identification of water bodies 

that do not meet, or are not expected to meet, water quality standards or are considered impaired. The 

list of affected water bodies, and associated pollutants or stressors, is provided by the State Water 

Resources Control Board and approved by the US EPA. The most current list available is the 2006 

303(d) list (SWRCB, 2006). The Plumas National Forest has three streams listed as impaired: Dolly 

Creek and Little Grizzly Creek (both due to heavy metal contamination from the Walker Mine and 

Walker Tailings sites) and the North Fork Feather River (mercury and temperature). The addition of 

trails to the NFTS would not cause additional mine tailings or mercury to enter the stream course. The 

temperature concerns on the North Fork Feather River are due to the hydropower facilities and dams.

Non-point source pollution on Plumas National Forest (including state Waste Discharge 

Requirements) is managed through the Regional Water Quality Management Plan (USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (USFS R5), 2000). Water Quality Management for Forest 

System Lands in California (USDA, 2000) contains the 1981 Management Agency Agreement 

(MAA) between the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and USDA, Forest 

Service. The State Board has designated the Forest Service as the management agency for all 

activities on National Forest System lands and the MAA constitutes the basis of regional waivers for 

non-point source pollution. USFS R5 and CA Regional Water Quality Control Boards are currently in 

the process of working with the State and Regional boards to modify the water quality management 

program and the MAA to reflect changes that have occurred in state non-point source pollution 

control policy. However, the 1981 MAA has never been rescinded and remains in effect.

The MAA does not provide the Forest Service with a basis for waiver of point source discharges 

and USFS is not exempt from point source pollution control regulations, including National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination Permitting (NPDES) requirements. However, point source pollution control 

permitting is generally not applicable to this project because USFS transportation facilities, including 

drainage features on those facilities, are not considered point sources since those facilities do not 

channel pollutants to a discrete conveyance structure.

The Regional Water Quality Management Plan relies on implementation of prescribed best 

management practices (BMPs). Best Management Practices are procedures, techniques, and 

mitigation measures that are incorporated in project actions to protect water resources and prevent or 

diminish adverse effects to water quality. The Plan BMPs have been certified by CSWRCB and 

approved by US EPA. The Plan includes one BMP for OHV use (4-7) and 28 BMPs related to road 

construction and maintenance (2-1 to 2-28). Since all of these BMPs address drainage control, erosion 

and sedimentation control, or protection of stream channels along motorized NFTS facilities, the 

practices apply to both Forest roads and OHV trails.

Of particular relevance for motorized travel management, BMP 4-7 requires each Forest to: (1) 

identify areas or routes where OHV use could cause degradation of water quality; (2) identify 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

92 – Plumas National Forest

appropriate mitigation and controls, and (3) restrict OHV use to designated routes. This BMP further 

requires Forests to take immediate corrective actions if considerable adverse effects are occurring or 

are likely to occur (See below Sections “Effects Analysis Methodology and “Affected 

Environment/Environmental Consequences”).

Regional Water Quality Control Board—Central Valley and Lahontan Regions—Beneficial 

Uses and State Water Quality Objectives. Beneficial uses are defined under California State law in 

order to protect against degradation of water resources and to meet state water quality objectives. The 

Forest Service is required to protect and enhance existing and potential beneficial uses during water 

quality planning (California Regional Water Quality Control Board [CRWQCB] 1998). A small 

portion of the eastern side of the Forest drains to the Great Basin and is under jurisdiction of the CA 

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects analysis 

for this FEIS is designed to include all effects on beneficial uses of water that occur away from 

locations of actual land use and are transmitted through the fluvial system (USDA Forest Service 

1990). Beneficial uses of surface water bodies that may be affected by activities on the Forest are 

listed in Chapter 2 of the Central Valley Region’s Water Quality Control Plan (hereinafter referred to 

as the “Basin Plan”) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins (CRWQCB 1998). Existing 

and potential beneficial uses are defined for Lake Almanor, North Fork Feather River, Middle Fork 

Feather River, source to Little Last Chance Creek, Frenchman Reservoir, Little Last Chance Creek to 

Lake Oroville, Lake Davis, Lakes Basin Lake, and Lake Oroville for the Feather River from the fish 

barrier dam in Oroville to the Sacramento River, for the watershed areas that are sources to 

Englebright Reservoir on the Yuba River, and for the Yuba River downstream of Englebright 

Reservoir. The defined existing beneficial uses are listed in the Riparian Conservation Objectives

(RCO) Analysis (Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix A in the project record).

The California Water Code. Consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state 

laws related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related 

to water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the National Forests and are directed at 

protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the proposed action is section 

13369, which deals with nonpoint-source pollution and best management practices.

The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006 (included in the California

Water Code). This Act provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources 

Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which are authorized by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

2004 SNFPA includes a strategy for aquatic management that provides broad goals for riparian areas. 

Land management activities that move ecosystem conditions toward these goals will restore and 

maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the region’s waters as mandated by the 

Clean Water Act, and will support the Forest Service’s mission to provide habitat for riparian- and 

aquatic-dependent species per other federal mandates, including the National Forest Management Act 

and the Endangered Species Act. The SNFPA aquatic management goals address several aspects 

associated with aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems, including Water Quality, Species Viability, 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 93

Plant and Animal Community Diversity, Special Habitats, Streamflow Patterns and Sediment 

Regimes, and Stream Banks and Shorelines.

To achieve these goals, the aquatic management strategy defines six Riparian Conservation 

Objectives (RCOs) as well as management standards and guidelines associated with each objective. 

The 2004 ROD requires that each Forest project shall define riparian conservation areas (RCAs) that 

delineate aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats and are to be managed consistent with the RCOs and 

associated standards and guidelines. The RCO analysis for this project, presented in Appendix A of 

the Soil and Water Resource Report, assesses the level of consistency of project alternatives with 

RCO objectives and standards and guidelines.

RCAs widths for this project are consistent with those suggested in the 2004 ROD: (1) Perennial 

Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream; (2) 

Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side of 

the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream; (3) Streams in Inner Gorge (stream 

adjacent slopes greater than 70 percent gradient): top of inner gorge; (4) Special Aquatic 

Features(includes lakes, wet meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs) or Perennial 

Streams with Riparian Conditions extending more than 150 feet from edge of streambank or 

Seasonally Flowing streams with riparian conditions extending more than 50 feet from edge of 

streambank: 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever width is greater.

Specific Standards and Guidelines for water resources that apply to the Motorized Travel 

Management EIS are summarized generally in the Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix B—

Streamside Management Zone Plan, in the project record.

Plumas National Forest Land Management Resource Plan (“Forest Plan”). The 1988 Forest 

Plan was amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision. 

The Forest Plan states “maintain or, where necessary, improve water quality using Best Management 

Practices.” Subsequent Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines state: “implement BMPs to meet water 

quality objectives and improve the quality of surface water on the Forest.” Streamside Management 

Zone (SMZ) widths presented in the Forest Plan are now defined by the RCA widths required by the 

2004 SNFPA ROD. The Forest Plan requires preparation of an SMZ plan, which is presented in 

Appendix B of the Soil and Water Resource Report. 

3.5.4 Effects Analysis Methodology

This section describes the methodology used for the effects analysis of the proposed project for soil 

and water resources. This section establishes indicators chosen to measure potential effects, the 

analysis area, timeframe, methods used (including field survey methods), and assumptions made for 

the effects analysis to soil and water resources of all action alternatives.

The overall methodology used for effects analysis of soil and water resources is separated into 

two topics to be analyzed. The first topic is a site-specific analysis of each individual, existing 

unauthorized route that is proposed for addition to the current NFTS. The second topic is an analysis 

of each project alternative as a whole.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

94 – Plumas National Forest

3.5.4.1 Site Specific Analysis Indicators for Existing Unauthorized Routes: 

• Indicator #1: BMP Evaluation E08 Rating (Pass, Fail or At-Risk) for each segment of each 

route.

• Indicator #2: Stream Diversion Potential at route/stream crossings.

Geographic Scope of the Soil and Water Resource Analysis. Plumas National Forest watershed 

staff performed initial or abbreviated field surveys of the full length of every existing, unauthorized 

route that is proposed for addition to the current NFTS under Alternatives 2 through 5. Subsequent 

field visits to potentially problematic routes identified by the initial field surveys were performed in 

summer 2008 to assess water quality effects and to formulate mitigations. The focus of these surveys 

was to determine whether the unauthorized route was causing adverse soil and water resource effects, 

or had the potential to cause future adverse effects and, if so, whether these adverse effects could be 

mitigated within the scope of this project. The goal of these surveys, and subsequent field visits and 

discussions, is to make one of four ratings of soil and water effects for each proposed trail:

1. Low:

2.

The route was considered, a field visit was made and the soil and water resource effects 

would not be adverse (assuming routine maintenance of the trail).

Moderate: 

3.

The route was considered, a field visit was made and soil and water effects are 

currently less than adverse. Site-specific maintenance measures are prescribed to prevent 

future potential adverse effects to soil and water resources. For routes rated as “moderate”, 

since adverse effects have not been currently observed, maintenance for these routes may 

occur after the route is added to the NFTS and legal for traffic under one of this project’s 

alternatives. Site-specific maintenance may include addition or modification of route drainage 

features (out-sloping, switchbacks, rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts); and 

addition or modification of existing route stream crossing structures.

High: 

4.

The route was considered, a field visit was made and soil and water effects are 

currently adverse. Site-specific mitigations may include addition or modification of route 

drainage features (out-sloping, switchbacks, rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts); 

addition or modification of existing route stream crossing structures; and designation of 

acceptable seasons of use and vehicle class. Mitigations for routes rated “High” are necessary 

to reduce current soil and water resource effects to less than adverse. The watershed staff 

recommends that these routes may be added to the NFTS with this FEIS but not be legal for 

traffic until these critical mitigations are in place and proper installation is verified by Forest 

staff.

Extreme: The route was considered, a field visit was made and a determination was made that 

the soil and water resource effects are currently adverse. The route is not recommended by 

the watershed staff for addition to the NFTS. The reason for this recommendation is that 

mitigations to reduce soil and water resource effects to less than adverse are not available 

within the scope of the analysis for this FEIS, typically due to physical or topographic 

constraints (such as the route’s close proximity to streams, frequent stream crossings, steep 

slopes, or highly erosive soils). Substantial relocation of a proposed trail is typically not a 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 95

mitigation available because the new trail location would involve ground outside the 

geographic area surveyed and analyzed by PNF specialists for this FEIS

Field surveys performed in fall 2007 and summer 2008 were completed for all of the roughly 370 

miles proposed for addition to the NFTS throughout all action alternatives. Further, subsequent field 

visits to potentially problematic routes identified by the initial field surveys to assess potential 

maintenance or mitigation were performed in summer 2008. The proposed Sly Creek play area was

surveyed in summer 2008. Trail 5M30 (1.5 miles long) and 6M48 (0.28 miles) were not surveyed per 

the initial survey methodology because this route was located within the perimeter of the 2008 Butte 

Lightning Complex wildfires and was generally unsafe to access in summer and fall 2008. However, 

abbreviated surveys of these routes were performed. The abbreviated survey covered the entire length 

of the proposed trails but the full set of initial field survey data was not gathered due to time and 

safety constraints. However, the determination of the soil and water resource impact level was made 

based upon key elements of the initial survey protocol. See Appendix A of the FEIS or Appendix G of 

the Soil and Hydrology Report for more information.

The entire set of existing, unauthorized routes described in the No-action alternative (totaling 

approximately 1,107 miles) was not surveyed for existing condition because all of these routes are not 

proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Timeframe for the Analysis: The site-specific analysis establishes the existing condition of the 

routes. The analysis also indicates mitigations or maintenance needed to reduce soil and water 

resource effects to less than adverse or to prevent future adverse effects. 

Passive vegetative recovery of existing, unauthorized routes that are not proposed for addition to 

the NFTS is expected to occur within 20 to 30 years. Recovery depends upon soil type, precipitation 

amounts and level of disturbance to soil productivity and hydrologic function.

Field survey methodology. The methodology used to assess the existing condition of 

unauthorized routes stems from general direction for soil and water resources in the Forest Plan and 

from the Standards and Guidelines listed in the 2004 SNFPA ROD (see above Section “Analysis 

Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction” for specific information). 

The Pacific Southwest Region has developed a “Best Management Practices Evaluation Program 

(BMPEP)” (USDA 2002) to assess both the implementation of BMPs and BMP effectiveness. The 

Program consists of 25 evaluation protocols. Two protocols were used on this project: Evaluation 

E08, “Road Surface Drainage and Protection,” and E09, “Stream Crossings”. Standardized forms for 

Evaluations E08 and E09 are utilized to assess BMPs 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-10 and 2-23. 

Roads and trails may differ in terms of potential impacts to water resources. Trail surfaces may be 

much narrower than road surfaces so the amount of sediment that is dislodged and mobilized from a 

trail surface may be less than the sediment dislodged from a road surface of similar soil texture. The 

USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model component for roads incorporates a direct 

relationship between the width of a road and the amount of erosion leaving the road prism (i.e., in 

comparing one road that is twice as wide as another road, the amount of eroded material leaving the 

wider road prism is predicted to be twice the amount of erosion than the narrower road). However, 

whether or not significant erosion occurs from a road or trail depends largely upon how well the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

96 – Plumas National Forest

route’s drainage features disperse runoff and prevent concentration of flow along the surface, down 

fill slopes, along cut slopes, etc. A narrow trail surface and template is usually equally capable of 

disrupting natural drainage patterns and concentrating runoff as a wider road template. The surface 

drainage and protection BMPs that are evaluated by E08 are the same practices that are necessary to 

protect water quality effects from OHV trails. Applied appropriately to the type of NFTS facility, the 

E08 evaluation allows flexibility in assessing whether the route drainage features adequately protect 

water quality. Mitigations prescribed in the field also take into account the steeper grades encountered 

on OHV trails. For example, prescribed waterbar or rolling dip spacing is shorter on the steeper OHV 

trails.

WEPP modeling is not part of the analysis methodology for trails proposed by this project 

because field surveyors focused on observing, for each route proposed, whether route drainage was 

effectively dispersed, whether erosion occurred, and whether erosion entered stream channels rather 

than on collecting the extensive fill slope and buffer length and gradient data necessary to run the 

theoretical WEPP model.

The E08 effectiveness evaluation criteria and rating scheme were used for the analysis of the field 

survey data collected on unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS as trails. These 

unauthorized routes are typically old temporary roads used in past timber sales, old firelines, or usercreated routes so evaluation of whether or not BMPs were implemented at the time of route creation 

is not appropriate. However, the E08 effectiveness evaluation criteria indicate whether the drainage 

features, and the surface and slope characteristics of the route template—as these route features 

currently exist on the ground—are effective in preventing adverse effects to soil resources and water 

quality. The E08 effectiveness evaluation consists of objective measures of road surface rilling; 

erosion and/or failure of route fill slopes, cutslopes, and inside ditches; whether or not erosion from 

these features is delivered to stream channels; and scour and/or plugging of route cross drain 

structures (rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts).

The full length of each proposed trail was field surveyed and evaluated by dividing each route 

into a number of separate segments. Beginning and end points of segments were defined at the points 

where surface drainage left the route (i.e., a cross drain feature, a stream crossing, or a sag in route

profile). The E08 effectiveness criteria were applied to each separate segment. The Pacific Southwest 

Region BMPEP scoring system was applied to each set of segment data, resulting in an objective 

rating of “Pass,” “Fail” or “At-Risk.” This scoring system emphasizes whether or not route-generated 

sediment is delivered to a stream channel; any one E08 criterion which indicated sediment delivery to 

a channel automatically results in a “Fail” rating for that segment.

Ratings of “Fail” or “At-Risk” for one or more segments of a proposed trail did not necessarily 

result in a “Moderate,” “High,” or “Extreme” rating for the route, but did indicate that further 

investigation of that route was necessary before rating the route as “Low” for soil and water effects. 

Further investigation consisted of a subsequent field visit to investigate potential water quality effects

and possible mitigation measures or a closer look at other data collected during the initial survey, such 

as route slope, route width, soil texture, frequency of cross drain structures, route location (near 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 97

ridgetop or mid-slope), proximity to nearest stream channel, and route/stream crossing characteristics 

(including diversion potential). 

Effectiveness criteria for evaluation E09, “Stream Crossings” were evaluated for every stream 

crossing on the proposed trails. “Pass”, “Fail” or “At-Risk” ratings were not determined for the E09

data because most of the E09 criteria (such as route and fill slope rilling, fill slope failure, and 

drainage ditch stability) are included in the E08 evaluation. However, four criteria are specific to 

stream crossings and are unique to the E09 evaluation (crossing scour at outlet, plugging and piping 

of crossing structures, and the crossing’s potential to divert the stream down the proposed trail). 

Effectiveness deficiencies observed for these four crossing criteria were considered in rating each 

route for soil and water effects. The diversion potential criterion is presented as an indicator for the 

direct and indirect effects analysis for each alternative. A minimum of two soil texture samples were 

collected on each route to indicate erosion potential of the route and to verify soil survey map units. 

Additional soil texture samples were collected where ground conditions and ocular observations 

indicated that the soil texture had changed significantly.

Copies of the Watershed Field Survey form and the BMPEP rating scheme are presented in the 

Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix C in the project record. A summary of E08 ratings for all 

proposed trails surveyed to date are presented for each District in Appendix F, G and H of the the Soil 

and Water Resource Report in the project record.

3.5.4.2 The Field Survey Protocol: Potential Impacts, Assumptions and Limitations

3.5.4.2.1 Soil Resource

The principal concern or effect to be assessed for the soil resource is the potential for soil erosion and 

subsequent effects on soil productivity or the ability of the soil to produce vegetation. The 1988 

Forest Plan establishes Standards and Guidelines to prevent significant or permanent impairment of 

soil productivity, and the Region 5 Soil Management Handbook establishes soil quality analysis 

standards (see above Section “Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other 

Direction”). However, both documents only apply to areas dedicated to growing vegetation. Erosion 

of trail system surfaces, fill slopes and cut slopes are not a concern in regards to soil productivity 

because all of the routes proposed for addition to the NFTS currently exist on the landscape are no 

longer dedicated to growing vegetation. The proposed trail areas would be dedicated to motor vehicle 

use. Therefore, the soil quality analysis standards were not applied to the route areas proposed for 

addition to the NFTS. Erosion and sediment generated by system trail surfaces is a concern to water 

quality if there is potential for its delivery to a water feature. These factors were included in the 

analysis for water resource concerns.

Secondary effects from erosion are the loss of soil depth, infiltration capacity and permeability or 

reduction in the soil hydrologic function. Erosion of Forest landscapes due to cross-country travel on 

previously untracked areas is a concern to the soil resource because that erosion can disturb the Ahorizon (organic-rich topsoil) portion of soil profiles (Figure 2) to the point where vegetative 

productivity in those disturbed areas is reduced.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

98 – Plumas National Forest

Figure 2. Cross-country travel on previously untracked areas can modify surface water runoff timing 

and magnitude due to vehicle ruts, particularly on steep and/or moist slopes. Multiple passes could 

disturb the topsoil portion of the soil profile to the point where vegetative productivity is lost. Photo taken 

in 2003 near Smith Lake on Mount Hough Ranger District. This area was subsequently protected and 

restored using grant funds from the CA State Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation. 

3.5.4.2.2 Water Resources

All road and trail templates that currently exist on the landscape, whether these templates are 

unauthorized routes or part of the NFTS, modify surface-water runoff timing and magnitude owing to 

interception of surface and subsurface runoff during rainfall and snowmelt events. Road and trail cutslopes can intercept subsurface spring flows, causing groundwater flows that would have percolated 

slowly through the hillside to become surface flows that run much more quickly over land 

Figure 3). All road and trail surfaces intercept and concentrate precipitation and snowmelt to some 

degree. Runoff that would have been well dispersed and would have flowed slowly over wellvegetated hillsides is instead concentrated in roadside ditches or surface drains (rolling dips or 

waterbars), flowing much more quickly. The result is a modification of the natural watershed drainage 

regime that is created by nearly every road and trail on the landscape. This modification is frequently 

manifested as a network of unnatural, small drainage (i.e. stream) channels created by a road or trail.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 99

cut slope with slope break

road

fill slope

Figure 3. Typical cross section of a road template.

Cross-country travel on previously untracked areas can cause similar modification of surface 

water runoff timing and magnitude due to the vehicle track ruts that can occur (Figure 2). Such rutting 

occurs much more readily when ground conditions are wet in late fall and early spring.

The magnitude of effects to surface water runoff timing and volume caused by roads and trails 

may be insignificant for individual routes, particularly those located near ridge tops or in lowprecipitation areas. However, even these individually insignificant effects can add up to cumulative 

effects that can accelerate stream erosion processes, resulting in the alteration of physical processes in 

streams and potential loss or degradation of beneficial uses of water in those streams. Watersheds 

with high route densities can result in significant and long lasting degradation of water quality and 

aquatic habitat.

A second potential impact to water resources of NFS roads, trails, and cross-country travel is the 

generation of erosion that can be delivered as fine sediments to stream channels. Runoff on nearly all 

road and trail surfaces will result in mobilization of at least some amount of fine material that will 

eventually leave the surface. The mean amount of road-generated sediment for gravel-surfaced roads 

can be as much as 16 times less than for native surface roads. (Coe 2006) Sedimentation effects are 

also substantially less for roads and trails that have been designed, constructed and maintained with 

quality drainage systems that disperse runoff effectively. However, roads and trails that are 

constructed with few or no surface drainage features (rolling dips or waterbars) or are entrenched, 

may result in runoff flowing down the surface for hundreds or thousands of feet. Other route 

templates that are sloped inward to the hillside will concentrate runoff in a roadside ditch that, if 

infrequently drained, may also run for hundreds or thousands of feet. Runoff that remains confined to 

a surface or ditch for long runs may gain enough flow magnitude to mobilize substantial amounts of 

fine material, resulting in surface ruts or eroding ditches (Figure 4).

This concentrated runoff from poorly drained roads and trails – and the sediment carried with it -

will eventually flow off of the surface at the next down gradient cross drain feature, stream crossing, 

or natural sag in the road profile. The outlets of surface drains (rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief 

culverts) that are spaced too far apart are often observed to be significant and continual sources of 

sediment (Figure 5). Oftentimes on uncontrolled or poorly drained roads or trails, the runoff will 

leave the road or trail at an inopportune location, such as down a steep slope that is not well 

vegetated, resulting in additional erosion from the road or trail fill slope (Figure 6Figure 6). If the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

100 – Plumas National Forest

runoff is concentrated on a surface or in a ditch for a great distance, even well vegetated slopes can be 

badly eroded where the runoff leaves the road or trail, creating a perpetual source of erosion that can 

even cut through much of the road or trail template width, resulting in tons of sediment mobilized and 

delivered downslope. Further, runoff that is concentrated in ditches for long runs can also lead to 

under-cutting of the road or trail cutslope, adding more sediment to the ditch flow. For steep, 

unvegetated cut slopes, such undercutting may result in slopes so steep that the slopes will not be 

stable again for decades, until the slope ravels to the ridgetop.

Figure 4. In 2002, Road 22N25 on Feather River Ranger District exhibits severe rutting as a result of a 

poorly drained surface that concentrates runoff. This road was reconstructed in 2003.

Road/stream crossings are significant sources of sedimentation on NFS lands. Even well-drained 

roads and trails will likely deliver some amount of surface-generated sediment to stream channels at 

crossings. For the approximately 50-200 feet of a well designed road or trail surface (length 

depending upon the slope of the terrain) that approaches the stream channel on both sides of the 

crossing (between the crossing and the nearest surface or ditch cross-drain structure), there is really 

no other place for surface-generated erosion to go but into the stream channel or streamside 

vegetation buffer. 

Apart from this inevitability, a second sediment impact frequently observed at stream crossings is 

diversion of the stream by the road or trail. Poorly designed, constructed, or maintained road or trail 

surfaces (e.g. rutted, entrenched roads or roads with berms created by poor grading practices) may 

capture the stream flow at crossings, sending the entire stream flow, including flood flows, down the 

road or trail surface. Eventually, this flow may leave the surface at inopportune locations, resulting in 

the drastic erosion sites described above (Figure 6).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 101

Figure 5. Due to infrequent cross drain spacing, the outlet of this rolling dip on 22N25 was badly eroding 

and delivered sediment off of the road to the neighboring riparian area. This road was reconstructed in 

2003. (Clipboard is shown for scale).

Culverts at road/stream crossings, even those that are properly sized and maintained, are 

susceptible to plugging during extreme flood events. Such plugging, usually initiated by woody 

debris caught across the span of the culvert inlet, may result in the flood flow over-topping the road or 

trail and returning to the channel over the steep, and oftentimes unarmored, crossing fill slope. In 

large floods, over-topping can cut through the entire width of the road or trail template at the crossing, 

resulting in tens to hundreds of tons of fine sediment delivered to the stream channel. Plugged stream 

crossings can also be captured and diverted down the road or trail, resulting in the drastic erosion 

events described above.

Active restoration or obliteration of one or more unauthorized routes or areas is not part of any of 

this project’s action alternatives. Without active restoration or obliteration of road and trail templates 

(including out-slope and re-contour of road and trail areas to closely match the natural topography 

and removal of culverts and other stream crossing structures), some amount of the potential water 

resource effects described above will persist for periods of years to decades following prohibition of 

public motorized vehicle use on the Plumas National Forest. Impacts to water resources will be 

reduced, however, over this period due to the vegetative recovery that will occur on routes in which 

traffic is prohibited.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

102 – Plumas National Forest

Figure 6. This bank erosion occurred on 22N25 during a normal precipitation year when concentrated 

surface drainage left the road at an inopportune location. The slump material was delivered to the RCA 

of Pinchard Creek, which is located less than 150 feet from the road. This road was reconstructed in 

2003. (clipboard is shown for scale).

At a broad scale, sediment production from motor vehicle use of native-surfaced NFTS roads and 

trails is typically increased by higher levels of traffic and is reduced by proper design, installation, 

and maintenance of road drainage features (including out-sloped surface, rolling dips, waterbars, 

ditches, and ditch relief culverts).

3.5.5 Analysis Methodology for Each Project Alternative as a Whole:

As defined in the regulations for implementing NEPA, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40, 

Sections 1500-1508, direct effects are those effects which are caused by the project actions and which 

occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are those caused by the action, which 

are later in time or farther removed in distance from the location of the action. 

Direct and indirect effects of each project alternative will be analyzed together for three separate 

action components:

1. The prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

2. The addition of facilities (trails and/or areas) to the Plumas National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS)

3. Changes to the existing NFTS, including deletions of existing facilities or changing the 

vehicle class and season of use for existing facilities

3.5.5.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel. 

Indicator # 1: Total mileage of proposed trails and roads open to motorized traffic on Plumas 

National Forest System lands 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 103

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 25 to 30 years

Spatial boundary: Area of land managed by the Plumas National Forest.

Methodology: A Geographic Information System (GIS) data layer was created for the road and trail 

locations proposed for each alternative. The route locations are based on information from the public 

(digitized from maps) and Global Positioning System (GPS) data from contractors and Forest Service 

Employees. This GIS data layer, the corporate NFTS roads GIS layer (created from PNF INFRA 

database), and the corporate GIS ownership layer were used to calculate the total miles of routes and 

roads open to motorized traffic by alternative. Limitations to this calculation include unauthorized 

routes not found during data call and errors in the INFRA database such as missing roads or included 

roads that had been removed from the NFTS.

Indicator # 2: Total mileage of proposed trails and roads open to motorized traffic on Plumas 

National Forest System lands that are situated in hydrologically sensitive areas

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 25 to 30 years

Spatial boundary: Hydrologically sensitive areas are Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) as 

defined by the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

Methodology: A GIS layer for hydrologically sensitive areas was created using known information 

from corporate GIS layers for PNF streams, lakes, and meadows. The GIS route location layer 

described above for proposed roads and trails, the corporate NFTS roads GIS layer, the hydrologically 

sensitive layer, and the corporate GIS ownership layer were used to calculate the total miles of routes, 

trails and roads open to motorized traffic within hydrologically sensitive areas by alternative. 

Limitations to this calculation include those mentioned above for Indicator #1 plus errors in the 

stream and meadow layers. The corporate stream layer is based on a crenulations model and some 

portions of the Forest are either over mapped or under mapped depending on the topography. The 

corporate stream type designation (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral) was based on an office 

exercise, so the designations of these are not always accurate. The meadow and lake corporate layers 

only include the larger features identified on topographic maps.

Indicator # 3: Total mileage of proposed trails and roads open to motorized traffic on Plumas 

National Forest System lands by Maximum Potential Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR)

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 25 years on the westside and 30 years on the eastside

Spatial boundary: Area of land managed by the Plumas National Forest and maximum potential of 

EHR as defined by the Plumas National Forest Soil Resource Inventory, which is an Order 3 soil 

survey (USDA Forest Service 1989).

Methodology: EHR is a risk assessment of specific soil factors that induce accelerated erosion 

(USDA 1990). The purpose of the EHR is to: (1) evaluate the likelihood of accelerated sheet and rill 

erosion from a specific soil disturbing activity, (2) evaluate the risk for adverse consequences, and (3) 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

104 – Plumas National Forest

identify approximate soil cover amounts needed to achieve an acceptable risk. A corporate GIS soil 

layer was created based on the PNF Soil Resource Inventory, including the calculated maximum EHR 

for each soil map unit. The Plumas National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (USDA 1989) was a 

broad survey and identifies general soil map units; it does not delineate the exact location of each soil 

type. Map unit soil textures for trails proposed for addition to the NFTS were confirmed using the soil 

texture samples described in the Site Specific Analysis section above.

The GIS route location layer described above for proposed roads and trails, the corporate NFTS 

roads GIS layer, the soil layer, and corporate GIS ownership layer were used to calculate the total 

miles of proposed NFTS trails by EHR for each alternative. Limitations to this calculation include 

those mentioned above for Indicator #1 plus the fact that the soil layer only includes broad general 

information about soil map units.

While similar in nomenclature, note that the “Low”, “Moderate”, “High”, and “Very High” 

categories that result from the EHR assessment are distinct from the “Low”, “Moderate”, “High”, and 

“Extreme” soil and water resource effect ratings that are determined for each trail proposed for 

addition to the NFTS (Appendix A). The purpose of the EHR indicator is to give a broad description, 

for each alternative, of how the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel would affect the 

number of miles of motorized roads and trails located in areas at risk of accelerated erosion. The EHR 

categories are not used to make site-specific determinations of soil and water resource effects for 

individual trails proposed for addition to the NFTS.

3.5.5.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of adding trails and areas to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 25 or 30 years

Spatial boundary: Area of land managed by the Plumas National Forest

Indicator(s): (1) BMP Evaluation E08 Rating (Pass, Fail or At-Risk) for each segment of each trail 

proposed for addition to the NFTS; (2) Stream Diversion Potential at stream crossings for each trail 

proposed for addition to the NFTS

Methodology: Field survey methodology and the process for developing E08 ratings are described 

above under “Site Specific Analysis Indicators for Existing Unauthorized Routes.” E08 ratings of 

“Fail” or “At-Risk” for one or more segments of a proposed trail indicated that further investigation 

was necessary. Further investigation consisted of a second field visit by a PNF hydrologist or a closer 

look at other data collected during the initial survey and other site-specific information available in 

PNF files. Second field visits investigated the scale of potential water quality impacts from the 

proposed route and possible maintenance or mitigation measures available. All routes rated as “High” 

or “Extreme” were visited by a PNF hydrologist. The number of Stream Diversion Potential locations 

was totaled for each proposed route and each alternative from the diversion potential data gathered 

during the initial field surveys.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 105

3.5.5.1.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the existing NFTS

The only change to existing NFTS facilities would be the mixed use proposed for approximately 4.1 

miles of National Forest System roads in Alternatives 4 and 5. These alternatives would allow nonhighway legal vehicles to use the Slate Creek Road as shown in Chapter 2 under the descriptions of 

the alternatives. Direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources due to changes in the vehicle 

class allowed on existing NFTS facilities are expected to be negligible. Allowing narrower, non-street 

legal vehicles to travel existing NFS roads would not lead to a change in the width of those roads.

3.5.5.1.4 Cumulative Effects of the Three Alternative Components as a Whole

As defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40, Sections 1500-1508, cumulative effects 

are those effects “on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time.”

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 25 to 30 years

Spatial boundary: Motorized road and trail density calculations are based on watersheds created for 

the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act EIS and ROD. These 

watersheds are generally on a HUC -7 scale.

Indicator: Density based on miles per square mile (mi/mi

2

Methodology: The route location GIS layer described above was used in conjunction with the

HFQLG watershed GIS layer, and the corporate NFTS roads GIS layer to calculate the total miles of 

routes, proposed trails, and roads open to motorized traffic on both public and private lands for each

alternative. Limitations to this calculation include unauthorized routes not found during data call and 

errors in the INFRA database such as missing roads or included roads that were removed from the 

NFTS; additionally, there isn’t a HFQLG watershed identified in the Paradise area (see the Soil and 

Water Resource Report, Appendix D—Watershed Maps in the project record).

) of proposed trails and roads open to 

motorized traffic on public and private lands within Plumas National Forest watersheds.

As stated above, the combination of the three action components analyzed for direct and indirect 

effects was then added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions to analyze the cumulative 

effects of implementing each alternative as a whole.

Past actions are represented by the existing condition of Plumas National Forest watersheds. The 

existing condition of Plumas National Forest watersheds and the sensitivity to disturbance of these 

watersheds were analyzed in Appendix N of the 1999 Final EIS for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 

Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG FRA) (see the Soil and Water Resource Report, 

Appendix E in the project record). This analysis was performed for all watersheds containing Plumas 

National Forest System lands. The watersheds were analyzed at a scale that ranged between 

Hydrologic Unit Code 7 (HUC-7) and HUC-6. The watersheds range in size from 1,192 to 23,516 

acres, with a mean of 8,536 acres. Watershed sensitivity ratings for each watershed were developed 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

106 – Plumas National Forest

based upon Erosion Hazard Rating, the percent of the watershed in slopes greater than 60%, the 

percent alluvial stream channels, rain-on-snow or thunderstorm potential, and vegetative recovery 

potential. Watershed condition ratings for each watershed were developed based upon road density, 

road/stream crossing density, condition of alluvial stream channels, and percentage of land disturbed. 

The sensitivity rating and condition rating for each watershed were multiplied to derive a sensitivity 

condition rating, which determined a risk of cumulative watershed effects of low, moderate, high or 

very high.

The condition and sensitivity of these Plumas National Forest watersheds, i.e. the existing 

condition of these watersheds, has changed little since that 1999 HFQLG FEIS analysis. More than 15 

miles of alluvial channels have been restored since 1999; particularly eastside meadow channels that 

had been subjected to head-cuts and gully erosion, but the length of these reaches total a relatively 

small amount of the total alluvial stream channels that exist on the Forest. Data presented in the 2008 

HFQLG FRA Pilot Project Monitoring Report to Congress for “Question 17: What is the effect of 

activities on indicators of watershed condition?” indicate that little change in watershed condition has 

occurred since 1999 (Table 28). Road density decreased approximately 3.0%, primarily due to 

obliteration of more than 80 miles of road implemented by Plumas National Forest staff. The number 

of road/stream crossings decreased by 1.8% (a total decrease of 57 crossings), again due primarily to 

the obliteration of roads mentioned above. Near-stream road density decreased by 5.5%, a larger 

percent decrease than the total road density decrease because the road obliteration projects were 

focused on roads that contributed significant volumes of sediment to stream channels.

Table 28. Summary of HFQLG Question 17 Monitoring Plan Results (2008).

Watershed 

Condition 

Indicator

Total acreage of 

sub-watersheds 

reporting

Unit of 

Measure

Pre-Project

Condition

Post-Project

Condition

Percent 

Change

Road Density 788,000 acres miles per 

square mile

2.97 2.88 - 3.0%

Near-Stream 

Road Density

308,000 acres miles per 

square mile

3.62 3.42 - 5.5%

Equivalent 

Roaded Acres

(ERA)

1,220,000 acres equivalent 

roaded acres

61,800

(5.1%)

79,400

(6.5%)

+ 28%

Near-Stream ERA 17,700 acres equivalent 

roaded acres

472 489 +3.6%

Number of 

Road/Stream 

Crossings

571,000 acres number 3,108 3,051 - 1.8%

The percentage of land disturbed in Plumas National Forest watersheds has increased since the 

1999 HFQLG EIS as reflected in the reported increase in Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA). The ERA 

measure is derived from site disturbance coefficients used to track general changes in hydrologic 

function of watersheds. The coefficients have been developed by comparing the effect of a land use 

activity to that of a road in terms of altering surface runoff patterns and timing. For example, the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 107

Plumas National Forest has typically modeled one acre of single-tree selection harvest with tractor 

yarding as being equivalent to 0.15 to 0.2 acres of roaded landscape. The ERA increase of 17,600 

acres across the entire HFQLG FRA pilot project area, as reported in the 2008 Monitoring Report, 

when expressed as a percentage of watershed area, results in a 1.4% average increase (from 5.1% to 

6.5%). However, this average increase results when the ERA increase is applied to only the HUC-8 

subwatershed areas in which work occurred (a total of 1.220 million acres). Much of the HFQLG 

watershed areas were devoid of work between 1999 and 2008. When the ERA increase of 17,600 

acres is applied over the entire area of HFQLG watersheds in which work occurred (2.256 million 

acres), the resulting average increase is 0.8%. 

To describe existing condition, the ERA increase for each HFQLG watershed that includes 

Plumas NFS lands is presented in the Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix E in the project 

record. Between 1999 and 2008, work has occurred in 80 HFQLG watersheds. The data indicate that 

the change in ERA for these watersheds, expressed as a percentage of the HFQLG watershed area, 

ranges from -0.85% to 7.92% with an average increase of 0.94%. The median increase is 0.39%. The 

reported ERA increases are predominantly due to vegetation management actions (group selection 

and fuel reduction thinning treatments) that have occurred under the HFQLG FRA Pilot Project. 

Designs for these vegetation projects are closely controlled to assure that the resulting ERA model 

outputs for the project watersheds, when expressed as a percentage of total watershed area, do not 

cause exceedance of the prescribed Threshold of Concern (TOC). Predominantly, the TOC for Plumas 

NF watersheds is prescribed to be 12-14% of the watershed area. 

To further describe existing condition, since 1999, none of the analyzed PNF vegetation 

management projects have resulted in an exceedance of the TOC for any of the project watersheds 

(except for the burned area projects discussed in the paragraph below). In most cases, the ERA 

increase (0.8% on average, as stated above) is minor and leaves the analysis watershed well below 

threshold. For the remaining watersheds, including the one that experienced the 7.9% increase in ERA 

and several others that were close to the TOC under the pre-project condition, vegetation management 

activities are minimized or controlled so that the TOC is not exceeded. 

In the past year, several vegetation management projects have been proposed on PNF lands to 

recover timber from areas that were severely burned in the wildfires of 2007 and 2008. High-intensity 

wildfire has left much of these areas with diminished levels of effective ground cover to disperse 

precipitation and runoff and protect soils from accelerated erosion. These projects do propose timber 

harvest and management actions in watersheds that have ERA totals that exceed the TOC. Modeling 

for these projects typically indicates that the management activities would result in additional ERAs, 

but the additional ERA total is a small fraction of the ERAs that were added as a result of the fire. For 

example, for the proposed action for the Moonlight and Wheeler (2007 Fires) Fire Recovery and 

Restoration Project, the Indian Creek watershed below Antelope, Babcock was modeled to have a 

total ERA of 19.7% of the watershed area, well in excess of the 13% TOC (USDA 2009). However, 

just 1.9% of the ERA was attributed to the proposed timber management actions and 16.6% was 

attributed to the watershed effects of the high-intensity wildfire. Watershed effects attributed to 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

108 – Plumas National Forest

wildfire are typically short-lived as brushy vegetation quickly establishes effective ground cover 

within 2-3 years. 

The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as trails would not increase the percentage of 

land disturbed because these routes already exist on the landscape. The prohibition of cross-country 

travel would reduce future land disturbance on the Forest and would allow passive recovery of 

unauthorized routes that have already disturbed the landscape. 

ERA values are reported in Appendix E of the Soil and Water Resource Report only to describe 

existing condition. As stated above, for this FEIS, motorized road and trail density is used as the 

indicator for cumulative watershed effects. For Forest timber projects, the typical indicator used to 

assess cumulative watershed effects is ERA, but ERA is not a good indicator for this project. To 

illustrate this, consider that for watershed 110067, the watershed with the highest existing motorized 

route density (6.48 mi/mi2

Table 29

), the total miles of routes in the watershed (92 miles) comprises less than 

2% of the watershed area, a small fraction of the TOC ( ). The total mileage of unauthorized 

routes in this watershed is 39 miles. Allowing for the narrower width of these routes, the unauthorized 

routes comprise less than 0.4% of the watershed area, a small and likely insignificant fraction of the 

typical TOC. Unlike timber projects that can affect broad areas of a watershed, the relatively small 

area disturbed by motorized routes does not reflect the effect these routes can have on watershed 

condition. The effect of greatest concern to watershed condition is not the area disturbed but, rather, 

the general effect of motorized roads and trails concentrating natural runoff patterns and often 

channeling runoff to a point that leads to excessive erosion of the route and adjacent landscape. 

Narrow trails can disrupt natural drainage patterns and concentrate runoff to the same degree as roads. 

Therefore, total motorized road and trail density was chosen as the indicator for analyzing cumulative 

watershed effects. 

For each alternative, the density of roads and routes that would be open to motorized vehicle 

traffic within each analysis watershed is compared with a cautionary density value. The cautionary 

value does not represent an exact level at which a detrimental Cumulative Watershed Effect (CWE) 

would occur. Rather, it serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of risk of significant adverse cumulative 

effects occurring within a watershed. Analysis watersheds that have exceeded this density level 

require additional, focused analysis, as presented below in the “Environmental Consequences” 

section. The exact level of road/route density that would result in a detrimental CWE is dependent 

upon a variety of factors that are specific to each analysis watershed. These factors include soil type, 

hillslope gradient and road location. Based upon past experience and observations on the Plumas NF, 

for the purpose of this project analysis, Forest watershed staff has determined a road/route density 

cautionary level of 4.0 miles per square mile. Watersheds with motorized road and route densities that 

have exceeded this threshold are at risk of detrimental CWE.

A short-term timeframe is not applicable to the cumulative effects analysis. For existing 

unauthorized routes that are not proposed for addition to the NFTS, it will be assumed that passive 

recovery of soil cover and the vegetative productivity of soils, with concurrent reductions in erosion 

and sedimentation from road surfaces, will occur over a 25 year period on the westside and 30 year 

period on the eastside. As stated above, effects to soil and water resources due to changes in the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 109

vehicle class allowed on existing NFTS facilities are expected to be negligible. The vast majority of 

soil and water resource effects of the unauthorized routes and areas that are proposed for addition to 

the NFTS have already occurred since these routes currently exist on the landscape. It is assumed that 

all of the reasonably foreseeable actions presented in Appendix C will proceed in the future regardless 

of which project alternative is selected.

3.5.6 Affected Environment

3.5.6.1 Climate

Weather in the planning area follows a Mediterranean pattern of wet winters and dry summers. East 

of the Sierra crest, marine influence lessens and there is a greater range in daily and seasonal 

temperatures, lower precipitation and humidity, and rain from summer thunderstorms is normal. Most 

precipitation on both sides of the crest falls as winter frontal disturbances are lifted and cooled over 

the mountains. 

Over 95% of the precipitation in the planning area occurs during winter months. Precipitation 

ranges from 15 inches on the eastside of the Sierra crest, to as much as 90 inches on the westside. 

Winter temperatures below 0°F and summer temperatures above 100°F have been recorded. 

Snowpack is common from December through May at elevations above 4,000 feet, although 

individual winter storms may bring rain to the highest elevations. Thunderstorms generally occur 

during the summer months and most frequently on the eastside of the range.

3.5.6.2 Watershed Condition

Streamflow in the planning area corresponds to seasonal precipitation, with low flows during summer 

and fall, and higher flows during winter and spring. Floods can occur throughout winter and spring, 

with large peak flows causing major flooding. Storm events that cause these peak floods occur 

approximately every 1 to 10 years (Department of Water Resources: California Climate Facts, circa 

1960). Warm mid-winter rainstorms on snowpack generate most large floods. 

The watersheds in the planning area are composed of a variety of soil types that influence the 

timing of water movement to streams. Some soils contribute to rapid runoff and abrupt increases in 

streamflow during storm events. Other soils moderate runoff and streamflow. Shallow soils usually 

generate quicker winter and spring runoff than deeper soils do. Deep soils not only absorb and store 

more water than shallow soils, they also release more to summer flows. The deep soils of large 

alluvial areas, such as meadows, not only store and release water, but moderate high flows and 

increase late season flows (USDA 1999).

A combination of road construction, soil compaction, ground cover reduction, and degradation of 

stream channels and riparian conditions has generated "accelerated over natural conditions" runoff 

and sediment yields from many watersheds (USDA 1999).

Streams in the planning area range from high gradient (usually headwater channels that are 

sources and transporters of sediment, water, nutrients, and large wood), to low gradient channels 

(usually in riparian ecosystems), which can be very sensitive to changes in the amount of water and 

sediment delivered to them. Degradation of Sierra Nevada streams, and their aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems, has been linked to dams, reservoirs, water diversions, livestock grazing, invasive species, 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

110 – Plumas National Forest

mining, water pollution, roads, logging, direct changes to stream channels and stream flows, and 

recreational and residential developments (USDA 1999).

The low gradient channels of the east and central areas generally flow through large, wide 

meadows. On the westside, channels more often flow through narrow valley bottoms. Most meadow 

streams were once a braided network of shallow channels that overflowed their banks each year and 

covered the meadows with water. The meadows remained wet most of the year, slowly releasing 

water to downstream reaches well into the dry season. Today, most of these meadow channels have 

been deeply gullied. Rather than holding water close to the surface of the meadow, gullied streams are 

deep and wide enough to contain most flood flows and subsequently drain much of the water from 

meadows early in the dry season. Through this process, wetland areas have evolved into dry lands 

that foster dry land conditions and species (USDA 1999).

3.5.7 Environmental Consequences

3.5.7.1 Alternative 1

As described in Chapter 2 of this EIS, under the No-action alternative (Alternative 1), current 

management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No changes would be 

made to the current NFTS, and no cross-country travel prohibition would be put into place. The 

Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to designated trails.

Unauthorized routes would continue to have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities. Routes 

would continue to proliferate.

1. Cross-country travel: For Alternative 1, motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, 

NFTS trails and areas by the public would continue except as prohibited by Forest Order. 

2. Roads, Trails and Areas Added to Existing NFTS: No roads, trails or areas are proposed 

for addition to the NFTS under Alternative 1.

3. Changes to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): None are 

proposed in Alternative 1.

3.5.7.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects:

3.5.7.1.1.1 Alternative 1, Action Component 1: Prohibition of Cross-Country Vehicle Travel

Under Alternative 1, cross-country motorized travel would be permitted on Plumas National Forest 

areas beyond the authorized NFTS. Approximately 5,023 miles of existing routes and roads on 

Plumas NFS lands would be available to motorized traffic (Table 31), including 2,183 miles situated 

in hydrologically sensitive areas. Motorized traffic would be prohibited on none of the miles of 

existing, unauthorized routes (totaling 1,107 miles) that are currently open to motorized traffic, 

including 459 miles of existing routes situated in hydrologically sensitive areas. As described above, 

direct and indirect effects to water resources due to motorized travel on these routes include increased 

peak flows and sediment loads.

Past cross-country motorized travel on these unauthorized routes has resulted in soil compaction 

and erosion of the A-horizon portion of soil profiles to the point where vegetative productivity in 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 111

those disturbed areas is significantly reduced. Certain soil types are more susceptible to erosion. Table 

31 displays the number of miles of NFTS routes on Plumas NF lands available to motorized traffic 

within the different Erosion Hazard Rating categories. Direct and indirect effects to soil resources due 

to the continuation of cross-country traffic include a continuation of these soil compaction and 

erosion effects.

In the short term (considered to be a 1-year timeframe for the purpose of this analysis), the 

unauthorized routes disturbed by motor-vehicle use would not change because these routes would still 

be open to motorized traffic. The short-term reductions in sediment delivery to stream systems in the 

vicinity of these routes predicted for Alternatives 2 through 5 would not occur. 

Restoration of soil vegetative productivity would potentially not occur on the 1,107 miles of 

unauthorized routes as a result of Alternative 1 because motorized traffic would not be prohibited on 

these areas. Vegetative recovery would presumably occur on some of these routes if public members 

are not interested in traveling upon them over the long term. However, without a defined prohibition, 

it is difficult to predict how many routes would experience vegetative recovery. Without vegetative 

recovery, these unauthorized routes would not regain their hydrologic and geomorphic functions over 

the long term (considered to be a 25 to 30 year timeframe for the purpose of this analysis). 

With continued motorized traffic, the increased peak flow effect that has occurred to date as a 

result of these unauthorized routes will remain over the long term because the road templates will 

continue to intercept subsurface runoff and concentrate surface runoff. Additionally, without 

vegetative recovery, unauthorized routes with continued motorized traffic would not experience the 

decreased amounts of erosion sediment delivery to area stream channels that would be experienced 

under Alternatives 2 through 5. 

Cross-country traffic on areas that are currently untracked would not be prohibited under 

Alternative 1. The potential would exist for proliferation of new unauthorized routes with the same 

type of effects to soil and water resources that are observed on existing, unauthorized routes. Erosion 

and disturbance of the A-horizon (organic-rich topsoil) portion of soil profiles in areas that are 

currently untracked could occur, impacting soil vegetative productivity. Modification of surface water 

runoff timing and magnitude due to vehicle track ruts on currently untracked areas could occur, 

particularly on steep slopes, impacting water resources downslope of those areas.

3.5.7.1.1.2 Action Component 2: Addition of Facilities (Routes and Areas) to the NFTS

Direct and indirect effects for this component are not applicable to Alternative 1 because no facilities 

are proposed to be added to the NFTS.

3.5.7.1.1.3 Action Component 3: Changes to the existing NFTS

Direct and indirect effects for this component are not applicable to Alternative 1 because no changes 

to the existing NFTS are proposed.

3.5.7.1.2 Cumulative Effects

When compared with Alternatives 2 through 5, no apparent long-term (25-30 year) benefit to soil and 

water resources would occur under Alternative 1 because motorized traffic would be allowed on all 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

112 – Plumas National Forest

1,107 miles of inventoried existing, unauthorized routes that are currently open to motorized traffic. 

Additionally, potential risks to long-term watershed condition are apparent under Alternative 1 as a 

result of the potential for further proliferation of cross-country traffic on areas that are currently 

untracked. Erosion and disturbance of the A-horizon portion of soil profiles in areas that are currently 

untracked would likely occur, potentially impacting soil vegetative productivity. Modification of 

surface water runoff timing and magnitude due to vehicle track ruts on currently untracked areas 

would likely occur, particularly if such use occurred on steep slopes, potentially impacting water 

resources downslope of those areas.

The net effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on each subwatershed is 

indicated by the total mileage and density of routes and roads open to traffic on public and private 

roads within the watershed (Table 31). Road and route density could continue to proliferate under 

Alternative 1 but would decrease significantly under Alternatives 2 through 5. It is possible that some 

existing unauthorized routes could revegetate due to lack of motorized traffic on routes that no longer 

hold interest to the public. This would decrease cumulative impacts to Forest soil and water resources. 

However, there is a greater possibility that the number of unauthorized routes would increase without 

a prohibition on cross-country motorized travel, resulting in an increased cumulative impact to Forest 

soil and water resources.

3.5.7.2 Alternative 2

As described in Chapter 2 of this EIS, the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) consists of these proposed 

changes to the NFTS and the prohibition of cross-country travel.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Trails and Areas Added to the Existing NFTS: For Alternative 2, a total of 361 miles of 

existing, unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the NFTS as trails open to 

motorcycles, ATVs, a combination of these two vehicle types, or all vehicles. Also, the 36-

acre Sly Creek area would be open year-round to motorized vehicles with widths that do not 

exceed 50”.

3. Changes to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): no changes 

proposed.

3.5.7.2.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

3.5.7.2.1.1 Alternative 2, Action Component 1: Prohibition of Cross-Country Vehicle Travel

The effect of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would be to end traffic on Plumas 

National Forest areas beyond the authorized NFTS. For Alternative 2, 4,301 miles of routes and roads 

on Plumas NF lands would be available to motorized traffic (Table 31), including 1,857 miles situated 

in hydrologically sensitive areas. Motorized traffic would be prohibited on at least 746 miles of 

existing, unauthorized routes that are currently open to motorized traffic, including 325 miles of 

existing routes situated in hydrologically sensitive areas. Direct and indirect effects to water resources 

due to prohibition of motorized travel on these routes include reduced peak flows and sediment loads. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 113

Past cross-country motorized travel on these routes has resulted in soil compaction and erosion of 

the A-horizon portion of soil profiles to the point where vegetative productivity in those disturbed 

areas is significantly reduced. Certain soil types are more susceptible to erosion. For Alternative 2, 

Table 31 displays the number of miles of NFTS routes on Plumas NFS lands available to motorized 

traffic within the different Erosion Hazard Rating categories. Direct and indirect effects to soil 

resources due to prohibition of cross-country traffic include cessation of these soil compaction and 

erosion effects.

In the short-term (considered to be a 1-year timeframe for the purpose of this analysis), the 

unauthorized routes and areas disturbed by motor-vehicle use would not change much because 

removal of vegetation, compaction of soils, and alteration of drainage patterns require time to heal 

without active restoration. Thus, short-term reductions in peak flows would be small and 

unquantifiable since the routes would continue to intercept and concentrate surface flows. However, 

short-term reductions in sediment delivery to stream systems in the vicinity of these routes would be 

realized. Erosion of native-surfaced roads and routes is typically higher for routes with active 

motorized traffic. 

Due to the highly compacted condition and the loss of A-horizon for soils in many of these areas, 

this analysis assumes that full restoration of the original soil productivity would not occur as a result 

of traffic prohibition alone. However, analysis indicates that, by prohibiting traffic, all of these routes 

hold the potential to substantially revegetate and regain much of their hydrologic and geomorphic 

functions over the long term (considered to be a 25 to 30-year timeframe for the purpose of this 

analysis). Vegetation growth on lands throughout the Forest is typically vigorous, due to favorable 

climate and precipitation. Additionally, needle scatter and litter fall from nearby trees is usually 

sufficient to provide seed source and the soil cover and organic input necessary to facilitate re-growth 

of vegetation. Recent experience in closing and obliterating roads on all three Ranger Districts 

indicate that for the vast majority of the obliterated road areas the addition of straw mulch is not 

necessary to provide the cover necessary to protect and keep soils in place or to restore sufficient 

organic concentrations in the soils. Needle scatter and placement of slash is typically sufficient to 

provide soil cover. 

The Plumas NF land base totals approximately 1.146 million acres. Re-vegetation of 746 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes under Alternative 2 could restore productivity on, at most, 800 acres of 

Forest land (less than 0.07% of the land base). The addition of 361 miles of routes to the NFTS would 

likely preclude productivity on no more than 400 acres of PNF land (less than 0.04% of the land 

base). For all action alternatives, the revegetation of existing unauthorized trails is important for 

hydrologic function but amounts to little in terms of the amount of productive land on the Forest.

With regard to soil compaction, the recent Long-term Soil Productivity (LTSP) study indicates 

that severe compaction of forest soils does not preclude the re-establishment of vegetation (Powers 

2005). The National ten-year results indicate that soil compaction effects on total biomass 

productivity (all vegetation within a site, not just tree growth) differs depending upon the soil particle 

size or soil texture, along with other factors such as initial bulk density, rock content, and climate. On 

soils characterized as “sandy”, compacted plots had greater biomass productivity than uncompacted 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

114 – Plumas National Forest

plots; on soils characterized as “loamy”, compaction resulted in little change in biomass productivity; 

and on soils characterized as “clayey”, compaction resulted in up to a 50% reduction in biomass 

productivity at particular sites in the Southern Coastal plains, primarily in areas with poor soil 

drainage or high water table. This ten-year publication incorporated results from 6 of the 12 

California sites. Recently in June 2007, during the National LTSP Conference, additional results were 

presented by David Young (R5 North Zone Soil Scientist) incorporating 9 of the 12 California sites to 

reach ten years; these sites include all study sites within the Sierra Nevada (including Challenge 

Experimental Forest located on the Feather River Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest). The 

latest results have concluded that severe soil compaction, even at degrees that far exceed what is 

considered detrimental by Regional analysis standards (a vibrating drum roller, typically used in 

highway construction, was used), has little effect on soil productivity at most sites, at least at ten 

years of growth (based on personal communications with David Young, June through July 2007). 

These results will be revisited and published after ten year data is available for all 12 California LTSP 

sites. It is clear from this study and observations of roads closed in the past on the Forest, that 

compacted road surfaces are typically still capable of absorbing and holding the water necessary to 

support vegetative recovery in the Mediterranean climate of the Plumas National Forest. 

Active restoration or obliteration of unauthorized routes (including out-sloping and re-contouring 

routes to closely match the natural topography and removal of culverts and other stream crossing 

structures) is not a part of any of the project alternatives because effects analysis for the ground 

disturbance associated with obliteration of each existing route was not feasible on the timeframe 

available for this EIS. Future PNF projects will investigate and prioritize existing routes that need 

active restoration to ameliorate soil and water impacts. Funding sources, both inside and outside the 

USFS, will be utilized to perform NEPA planning and on-the-ground implementation of needed 

obliteration. 

Without active restoration, much of the increased peak flow effect that has occurred to date as a 

result of these unauthorized routes will remain over the long term. The route templates, including any 

cut slopes, ruts, ditches, or culverts that currently exist, will continue to intercept subsurface runoff 

and concentrate surface runoff. However, the long-term establishment of vegetative growth on these 

routes will somewhat reduce area peak flows. More significantly, this vegetation will substantially 

decrease the amount of erosion from these areas and the amount of sediment delivered to area stream 

channels. The vegetative canopy will intercept precipitation and significantly reduce detachment of 

soil particles from the former route surface due to rain-splash erosion. Stems that grow on the route 

surface will intercept surface runoff, slowing and lengthening the runoff flow path to reduce the 

occurrence of concentrated runoff that generates erosion. Roots of vegetation that re-grows on these 

routes will act to hold vast areas of soil in place. Re-established vegetation will transpire a significant 

portion of precipitation that formerly ran down and off the road surface.

In addition to soil and water improvements realized by the prohibition of motorized traffic on 

these 746 miles of existing unauthorized routes, prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are 

currently untracked would prevent the same type of effects to soil and water resources that are 

observed on existing, unauthorized routes. Erosion and disturbance of the A-horizon (organic-rich 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 115

topsoil) portion of soil profiles in areas that are currently untracked would be prevented, protecting 

soil vegetative productivity. Modification of surface water runoff timing and magnitude due to vehicle 

track ruts on currently untracked areas, particularly if such use occurred on steep slopes, would be 

prevented, protecting water resources downslope of those areas. 

Unauthorized use of existing routes by motorized traffic following prohibition could delay or 

prevent recovery.

3.5.7.2.1.2 Alternative 2, Action Component 2: Addition of Facilities (Routes and Areas) to the 

NFTS

Alternative 2 proposes to add 361 miles of existing, unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Additionally, 

Alternative 2 would allow year-round motorized vehicle traffic within the 36-acre Sly Creek area. In 

general, any direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources caused by motorized travel on these 

previously unauthorized routes have already occurred. Water resource effects that have already 

occurred include modification of surface-water runoff timing and magnitude owing to interception of 

surface and subsurface runoff during rainfall and snowmelt events. Water resource direct effects that 

have already occurred also include the generation of erosion that can be delivered as fine sediments to 

stream channels. Indirect effects that have already occurred include potentially significant and long 

lasting degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat. Direct effects to soil resources that have 

already occurred include a loss of vegetative productivity for the routes and areas subjected to 

motorized vehicle traffic, due to loss of soil cover, soil compaction, and loss of soil hydrologic 

function.

Of the 361 miles of trail proposed under Alternative 2, roughly 30 miles are described in 

Appendix A as being redundant (4 miles), system roads already on the NFTS (6 miles), routes with 

access issues (4 miles), or routes that were not located by PNF surveyors (16 miles). These proposed 

routes are not included in the direct and indirect effects indicator data for this section.

For Alternative 2, E08 evaluation data indicates that 126 miles (35% of the 361 miles proposed 

for addition to the NFTS) contain at least one segment that rates as “Fail” for effectiveness in 

protecting water quality (Table 31). Typically, these segments “fail” because of delivery of routegenerated sediment to stream channels or because the route has captured a stream channel. Over half 

of these effects can be mitigated (Table 31). For Alternative 2, 122 route/stream crossings were 

observed to either be currently diverting stream flow down the route surface or having the potential to 

divert stream flow if the route/stream crossing plugged. “Moderate”, “High” or “Extreme” ratings for 

soil and water resource effects were rated for 331 proposed miles of trails, meaning that soil and 

water effects are currently adverse or have the potential to be adverse in the future. Of these 331 

miles, 72 miles are rated as “High”, meaning that soil and water effects are currently adverse but can 

be mitigated. Fifty-four miles of routes proposed under Alternative 2 are rated “Extreme” for soil and 

water effects, meaning that effects are currently adverse and effective mitigation of these effects in the 

route’s current location is not available within the scope of this FEIS, typically due to physical or 

topographic constraints. For example, many of the “Extreme” routes are located along stream 

channels on steep, erosive soils and are entrenched, a combination that results in no viable alternative 

for adequately draining the route to prevent sediment from entering the channel. Other “Extreme” 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

116 – Plumas National Forest

routes are located within active stream channels and would require a new location, a mitigation that is 

beyond the scope of this EIS. Site specific survey, effects and mitigation information for each route is 

included in Appendix A of the FEIS and Appendices F, G, and H of the Soil and Water Resource 

Report, in the project record.

Site-specific mitigations would include addition or modification of route drainage features (outsloping, rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch-relief culverts) and addition or modification of existing route 

stream crossing structures. Where applied, these mitigations will ameliorate water quality impacts 

that are currently adverse along the proposed routes by dispersing runoff and surface drainage or by 

stabilizing stream crossings. Routine maintenance of these mitigations would also assure long-term 

sustainability of the proposed trails. Short-term water quality impacts associated with installation of 

these mitigations would be prevented by applying BMPs during construction.

3.5.7.2.1.3 Season of Use Mitigation

On the Feather River Ranger District there are two areas, Flea Mountain and French Creek Basin

The primary objectives of the wet season closure are to protect the drainage structures from 

damage, to protect the road or trail tread from rutting and other damage, and to minimize impacts to 

soil productivity and water quality at stream crossings or where drainage off of roads or trails 

becomes concentrated, potentially carrying sediment and other materials into stream courses. 

, 

where a wet season closure is needed below 4,000 feet in elevation. A wet season closure is a project 

designed mitigation measure for protecting native surfaced roads and trails that are susceptible to 

rutting and soil erosion. Rutting is the creation of furrows or grooves in the travel way due to vehicle 

travel when the soil strength cannot support the weight of the vehicle. Ruts commonly occur when the 

soil and subgrade are saturated, causing the soil strength to be low. Rutting causes direct damage to 

travel-way treads, concentrates runoff that can lead to gully erosion, leads to trail widening, loss of 

vegetation, ground cover, and organic material and increased compaction beyond desirable 

conditions. Wet season use can also damage drainage structures such as rolling dips, waterbars, and 

other waterbreaks. In contrast to rutting, compaction of the designated travel way is beneficial in 

creating a good running surface in native materials. Compaction is optimal when soil voids are only 

partially filled with water, rather than fully saturated.

Typically, both surface soils and subsoils are dry at the start of the fall and winter rainy season. 

During the first rains only the surface soil is wetted while the subsoil remains dry, and has high 

strength. The interface between moist and dry soil is the wetting front. As precipitation falls during 

the season, a portion of the moisture moves into and through the soil, increasing the depth of wetting 

front. The characteristics of the rainfall events in the Fall are important in determining how and when 

this wetting front progresses and when tread damage may occur. Early in the fall season, soils are not 

fully saturated, and so the soils can become compacted from vehicle travel, rather than rutted. Since 

native surface road and trail treads are commonly already compacted, these surfaces take up water 

more slowly, and can sustain travel following early season precipitation without tread damage. In fact, 

early season travel can be beneficial after a light rain on a previously dry fluffy tread because it helps 

to compact and strengthen the tread. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 117

Near the end of the winter season and into the spring, soils are typically moist or wet throughout, 

including road or trail treads and subgrades. These soils begin to dry at the surface as precipitation 

ends and as evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation. This interface between dry soil above and wet 

(or saturated) soil below is called a drying front. Under a drying front, soils can be dry at the surface, 

but can be wet and have low strength below the surface. When subgrades are wet, traffic can damage 

treads by “pumping”, whereby there is an increase in the pore water pressure and subsequent 

weakening of the soil strength. Damage to road and trail treads can also occur when the dryer surface 

is not thick enough or strong enough to bear the traffic and is broken through. 

The Feather River Ranger District is located on the west side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 

within an area of Mediterranean climate, characterized by a rainy, wet winter season and a dry 

summer season. Above about 7,000 feet, nearly all of the winter precipitation comes as snowfall. 

Below 7,000 feet, fall through spring precipitation is a combination of rain and snow. Rain/snow mix 

especially occurs below 4000 feet. 

Figure 7 includes monthly precipitation data collected by California Department of Water 

Resources between 1996 and 2008 recorded at the Brush Creek rain gauge (ttp://cdec.water.ca.gov). 

The Brush Creek rain gauge is located at Brush Creek Work Center on the Feather River Ranger 

District. The rain gauge is at an elevation of 3560 and is located on a ridge of the French Creek 

Watershed. The precipitation data was compared to a defined water year. California Department of 

Water Resources has defined 5 water year types: Critical, Dry, Below Normal, Above Normal, and 

Wet. The definition varies based on a defined basin. The Feather River Ranger District is located in 

the Sacramento River Valley Basin. The water year types are categorized by a calculated index 

originally specified in the 1995 SWRCB Water Quality Control Plan and is used to determine the 

Sacramento Valley water year type as implemented in SWRCB D-1641. The water year index is 

based on measured unimpaired runoff (in million acre-feet or maf). Unimpaired runoff represents the 

natural water production of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, export of water to 

or import of water from other basins. Sacramento River Runoff is the sum (in maf) of Sacramento 

River at Bend Bridge, Feather River inflow to Lake Oroville, Yuba River at Smartville, and American 

River inflow to Folsom Lake. For more information see the following website: 

http://cdec.water.ca.gov.

The three lines on Figure 7 represent: (1) the average monthly precipitation of all data collected at 

the station (the green line), (2) the average monthly precipitation of the dry years (pink line), which 

includes one Critical, 3 Dry, and 1 Below Normal Water Type years, and (3) the average monthly 

precipitation of wetter years (blue line), which includes 2 Above Normal and 5 Wet Water Type years. 

The data trend is precipitation events occur in October through June, with the majority of the 

precipitation occurring in December through March.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

118 – Plumas National Forest

Monthly Precipitation Data

1996-2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept

Total Precipitation (Inches)

Average

Average of Critical, Dry, and Below

Normal Water Years

Average of Above Normal And Wet

Water Years

Figure 7. Summary of monthly precipitation data collected by California Department of Water 

Resources between 1996 and 2008 recorded at the Brush Creek rain gauge

Trails within the French Creek Basin typically consist of clay loam and sandy clay loam soil 

textures. Trails within the Flea Mountain area typically consist of sandy loams, loams, sand, and in a

few locations sandy clay loams. During the wet season, native surface roads and trails in these areas 

are susceptible to rutting when the soil has reached saturation point. Rutting increases erosion in 

predominantly sandy soil types because the sand particles are not cohesive and can be easily carried 

where water has been concentrated. Numerous trails in these areas are located on steep slopes (greater 

than 20%). Almost every proposed trail in the French Creek Basin has one or more stream crossings.

Saturation of the soil is affected by soil porosity, vegetative canopy, and soil cover. In areas of 

thick vegetative canopy and effective soil cover, rain fall is intercepted and soil saturation occurs over 

a period of multiple rain events. Both the Flea Mountain area and the French Creek Basin are heavily 

forested and typically the saturation point of these soil types occurs in January as result of the amount 

and duration of precipitation events in December. Time period for the soil to dry out is also effected 

by soil type, vegetation canopy, and soil cover. For example, sandy soils dry quickly as a result of low 

porosity or water holding capacity. During an average water year, the soil in these areas has a drying 

out time in March and April and the soils do not reach saturation point again as a result of 

precipitation events in May through June. Therefore, the season of use restriction mitigation for the 

French Creek Basin and the Flea Mountain area would be January 1 to April 30 for all action 

alternatives. See Appendix F of the Hydrology and Soils Report for specific trail information. The 

season of use mitigation for each trail described in Appendix F of the Report may not be the same as 

the season of use described in Appendix A of this FEIS since additional seasonal restrictions from 

other Forest resources (e.g. wildlife) may also apply.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 119

Due to unpredictable changes in climate, the season of use could change with Forest Supervisor 

authority. During wet years, large precipitation events could occur in October or November and occur 

later than March (see blue line on Figure 7). During wet years, saturation points could occur sooner 

and/or for longer durations. During wet years, the Forest Supervisor has the authority to extend the 

season of use restriction time period. During dry years, there are typically large and frequent 

precipitation events in December, and a drying off time period in January and February, and wet 

period again in March (see pink line of Figure 7). The soils could be dry enough to travel on without 

causing trail tread damage. During dry years, the Forest Supervisor has the authority to suspend 

portions of the prescribed season of use restriction when appropriate weather and soil moisture 

conditions exist.

Alternative 2 proposes to add a 36-acre area near Sly Creek to the NFTS. This area would be 

open year-round to motorized vehicles with widths that do not exceed 50”. Sly Creek Reservoir and 

the South Fork Feather River, situated adjacent to and downstream from the proposed open area, do 

not serve as critical fish habitat. South Feather Water and Power Agency manages Sly Creek 

Reservoir as a source for municipal water supply. This area is rated as “High” for soil and water 

resource effects. The current access approach to the area is too steep, causing excessive rutting and 

erosion that will, in the near future, preclude this location’s use as an access approach to the play area. 

Additionally, an ephemeral channel is currently used as access to the play area from Sly Creek 

Campground. Traffic in this channel is causing discharge of traffic-related sediment to and beyond the 

downstream paved road drainage system. Mitigations are prescribed for this area (see Appenidx G of 

the Soil and Hydrology Report). Current adverse impacts from the area do not significantly affect Sly 

Creek Reservoir as a source for municipal water supply and prescribed mitigations would ameliorate 

these impacts. Watershed staff recommends that this area not be open to motorized traffic until these 

mitigations are in place. 

By prohibiting traffic on other unauthorized routes on the Forest, facilities added to the NFTS 

under Alternative 2 may experience increased traffic levels resulting in a slight increase in road and 

trail generated erosion. However, increased maintenance attention, along with mitigations installed to 

prevent adverse effects to water quality, for these added facilities would reduce erosion and 

sedimentation to a greater degree.

3.5.7.2.1.4 Alternative 2, Action Component 3: Changes to the existing NFTS

Direct and indirect effects for this component are not applicable to Alternative 2 because no changes 

to the existing NFTS are proposed.

3.5.7.2.2 Cumulative Effects

As stated above, the combination of the three action components analyzed for direct and indirect 

effects are added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions to analyze the cumulative effects 

of implementing each alternative as a whole.

As described above in the “Effects Analysis Methodology”, past actions are represented by the 

existing condition of PNF watersheds. The existing condition of PNF watersheds is represented by the 

watershed condition sensitivity rating and risk of cumulative watershed effects from the 1999 Final 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

120 – Plumas National Forest

EIS for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, with further indication of 

the condition provided by results from the 2008 HFQLG FRA Pilot Project Monitoring Report to 

Congress. The 2008 Monitoring Report to Congress indicates that watershed condition, when 

analyzed at the scale of the HFQLG FRA watersheds, has changed little since the 1999 HFQLG FEIS 

analysis. The most significant potential change to watershed condition observed in the report is 

reflected in increases in ERA values due to HFQLG FRA projects implemented since 1999. Since 

1999, none of the completed or planned HFQLG FRA projects have increased a watershed’s total 

ERA over the threshold of concern (TOC). For the watersheds presented in Table 29, the percent 

increase in ERA for each watershed averaged 1.2% with a median change of 0.4%. ERA changes are 

presented for each analysis subwatershed in the Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix E in the 

project record.

Reasonably foreseeable actions are presented in Appendix C. It is assumed that each of these 

actions would potentially occur regardless of which alternative for this project is selected. As 

described in the paragraph above, the largest cumulative effect of future actions to watershed 

condition will result from HFQLG FRA projects. 

Alternative 2 proposes to add 361 miles of existing, unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

Additionally, Alternative 2 would allow year-round motorized vehicle traffic within the 36-acre Sly 

Creek area. This addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as trails would not increase the 

percentage of land disturbed and would not increase adverse effects to soil and water resources over 

existing levels because these routes already exist on the landscape. Proposed mitigations for routes 

added to the NFTS would decrease existing adverse effects to soil and water resources. Alternative 2 

would result in prohibition of travel on 746 miles of unauthorized routes that are open to motorized 

traffic under the No-action alternative. The prohibition of cross-country travel would reduce future 

land disturbance on the Forest and, over the long-term timeframe for this analysis (25-30 years), 

would allow passive recovery of unauthorized routes that have already disturbed the landscape. At the 

analysis watershed scale, the cumulative effect to watershed condition of Alternative 2 would be 

beneficial as a result of passive recovery of 746 miles of unauthorized routes currently open to 

motorized traffic, mitigations performed on routes added to the NFTS, and protection of areas that are 

currently untracked. 

The long-term, net effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on each analysis 

watershed is indicated by the total mileage and density of existing roads and trails and proposed 

NFTS trails open to motorized traffic on public and private roads within the watersheds See the Soil 

and Water Resource Report, Appendix E in the project record. ERA values are reported in Appendix E 

only to describe existing condition. Unlike timber projects that can affect broad areas of a watershed, 

the relatively small area disturbed by motorized routes does not reflect the effect these routes can 

have on watershed condition. For this project, motorized road and trail density is used as the indicator 

of cumulative watershed effects because the effect of greatest concern to watershed condition is the 

general effect of motorized roads and trails concentrating natural runoff patterns and often channeling 

runoff to a point that leads to excessive erosion of the route and adjacent landscape. Narrow trails can 

disrupt natural drainage patterns and concentrate runoff to the same degree as roads. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 121

As described above in the methods section, the road/route density is compared with a cautionary 

value of 4.0 miles per square mile. This cautionary value does not represent an exact level at which a 

detrimental CWE would occur but serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increased risk of significant 

adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed. Additional analysis and discussion is 

required for watersheds that exceed the cautionary density level to determine whether a detrimental 

cumulative watershed effect would occur as a result of Alternative 2.

Reasonably foreseeable actions are presented in Appendix C. As described above, the largest 

cumulative effect of future actions to watershed condition would result from HFQLG FRA projects. 

As indicated in Table 28, HFQLG FRA projects typically result in no change or small decreases in 

motorized road density. Throughout implementation of the HFQLG FRA project, the construction of a 

new system road for a PNF timber project has been a rare occurrence. A small number of temporary 

roads are typically constructed for each project to access timber, but such temporary roads have been 

obliterated soon after haul is finished. Any construction of new system roads has been offset by 

obliteration of unnecessary system roads in the HFQLG FRA project areas (as indicated in Table 28). 

Analysis for HFQLG FRA projects adjacent to private timber lands has demonstrated that this trend 

of little or no permanent road construction also holds true for private lands within project analysis 

watersheds. Therefore, the reasonably foreseeable actions presented in Appendix C are not expected 

to appreciably increase or decrease the density of roads and trails open to motorized traffic on public 

and private lands within the analysis watersheds. Thus, the density of motorized roads and trails 

calculated for each project alternative is used to analyze the risk of cumulative watershed effects.

Under the existing condition (represented by Alternative 1), 19 of the 178 analysis watersheds 

(11%) have road/route densities that exceed the cautionary level of 4.0 mi/mi2 (Table 29). For these 19 

watersheds, the mean density is 4.71 mi/mi2 and the median is 4.55 mi/mi2

The density of roads and routes open to motorized traffic would decrease for all of these 

watersheds under Alternative 2. A net total of 124 miles of unauthorized routes within these 19 

watersheds would be made unavailable to motorized traffic under Alternative 2, with watershed 

110192 experiencing the largest decrease (over 22 miles). The average decrease in road/route density 

for these 19 watersheds would be 0.75 mi/mi

. Since these routes have 

predominantly existed on the landscape for many years, any resulting detrimental CWE would have 

already occurred. Two of these watersheds were determined to be at “High” risk of CWE in the 1999 

HFQLG EIS and the remaining 17 watersheds rated as “Moderate” risk. Since 1999, watershed 

condition has changed little in these 19 watersheds, as demonstrated by the 2008 HFQLG FRA 

monitoring report. 

2 with a median decrease of 0.71 mi/mi2

. As a result, the 

density for 9 of the 19 watersheds would be less than the cautionary level under Alternative 2. For the 

remaining 10 watersheds, the effect of Alternative 2 on watershed resources would also be beneficial, 

including improved surface water runoff timing and magnitude and reduced sediment delivery as a 

result of decreased road/route density. For watersheds in which the motorized route density is reduced 

below 4.0 mi/mi2

, Alternative 2 will not necessarily result in full recovery of a detrimental CWE that 

may have occurred but will represent a step forward in the continuing recovery of the watershed. A 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

122 – Plumas National Forest

similar furthering of recovery would be realized in the 10 watersheds in which Alternative 2 would 

reduce the motorized density but the density remains over the cautionary level.

For the three watersheds with the greatest increase in past ground disturbance from 1999 – 2008, 

watersheds 110041, 110021, and 110192 (respectively situated on the Feather River Ranger District in 

the Lower North Fork Yuba River HUC-5 drainage (both 110041 and 110021) and on the Beckwourth 

Ranger District in the Last Chance Creek HUC-5 drainage), Alternative 2 would produce significant 

reductions in road/route density, resulting in densities of 3.83, 4.30 and 1.81 mi/mi2

For the two watersheds that were determined to have a high risk of CWE in the 1999 HFQLG 

EIS, watersheds 110114 and 110159 (both situated on the Mount Hough Ranger District in the 

Spanish Creek and Seneca HUC-5 drainages, respectively), Alternative 2 would produce significant 

reductions in road/route density, resulting in densities of 4.49 and 3.40 mi/mi

, respectively. 

While Alternative 2 would add to the NFTS 3.9 miles, zero, and 0.6 mile of trails to the watersheds 

(respectively), these routes already exist in these watersheds and this alternative would also prohibit 

motorized traffic and allow for the passive restoration of 7.1, 2.6, and 23.1 miles of routes 

(respectively) that currently exist in these watersheds. 

2

The cumulative effect for each watershed as a result of Alternative 2 is predominantly beneficial 

(173 of 178 or 97% of the analysis watersheds), as indicated by a decrease in density of roads and 

routes open to motorized traffic (see the Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix E in the project 

record). For these watersheds, prohibition of motorized traffic on 746 miles of unauthorized routes 

would result in a decrease in road/route density. The density decrease in each watershed ranges from 

0.01 to 2.27 mi/mi

, respectively. While 

Alternative 2 would add to the NFTS 3.1 and 5.0 miles of trails to the watersheds (respectively), these 

routes already exist in these watersheds and this alternative would also prohibit motorized traffic and 

allow for the passive restoration of 11.2 and 11.1 miles of routes (respectively) that currently exist in 

these watersheds. 

2 with a mean of 0.33 and a median of 0.24 mi/mi2

The road/route density for the remaining 5 subwatersheds (3% of analysis watersheds) indicates 

no change in the risk of cumulative soil and water resource effects. These subwatersheds are not 

affected by the prohibition of motorized traffic on the 746 miles of unauthorized routes. However, the 

benefits of prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are currently untracked would also be 

realized within these subwatersheds, resulting in a long-term improvement of watershed condition 

and a long-term decrease in the risk of cumulative watershed effects.

. Proposed mitigations for routes 

added to the NFTS would decrease existing adverse effects to soil and water resources. Additionally, 

long-term watershed condition would improve and risk of cumulative watershed effects would 

decrease under Alternative 2 as a result of prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are 

currently untracked. Erosion and disturbance of the A-horizon portion of soil profiles in areas that are 

currently untracked would be prevented, protecting soil vegetative productivity. Modification of 

surface water runoff timing and magnitude due to vehicle track ruts on currently untracked areas 

would be prevented, particularly if such use occurred on steep slopes, protecting water resources 

downslope of those areas.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 123

Cumulative watershed effects for the watershed in the area of Paradise and Magalia would be 

beneficial for Alternative 2. As described above in the Analysis Methodology section, small portions 

of PNF land exist in this watershed but a HFQLG analysis watershed does not exist for that area. For 

Alternative 2, 1.9 miles of trail are proposed for addition to the NFTS in this watershed (trails 4M02, 

5M29 and 5M30). This addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as trails would not increase the 

percentage of land disturbed and would not increase adverse effects to soil and water resources over 

existing levels because these routes already exist on the landscape. Alternative 2 would result in 

prohibition of travel on 3.1 miles of routes that are currently open to motorized traffic. The 

prohibition of cross-country travel would reduce future land disturbance on the Forest and allow 

passive recovery of these unauthorized routes. Proposed mitigations for 5M29 would decrease 

existing adverse effects to soil and water resources. Trails 4M02 and 5M30 are rated “Extreme” for 

soil and water resource effects, meaning that effects are currently adverse and cannot be feasibly 

mitigated within the scope of this FEIS analysis.

Reasonably foreseeable actions that would affect soil and water resources at a cumulative 

watershed scale are chiefly HFQLG FRA vegetation management activities. As stated above, HFQLG 

FRA projects typically result in no change or small decreases in motorized road density. Several 

watershed restoration activities are listed in Appendix C that would further improve watershed 

condition. The severe wildfires of 2007 and 2008 (Moonlight Fire, Antelope Complex, Butte 

Lightning Complex, and Canyon complex) have resulted in several subwatersheds being at risk of 

accelerated erosion due to lack of ground cover. This effect is typically short-term in that brushy 

vegetation is expected to become established over the next 2-5 years to provide sufficient ground 

cover. The salvage logging projects listed in Appendix C would provide small increases in ground 

cover due to slash disposal treatments and no permanent road construction is proposed for these 

projects. Alternative 2 would further benefit watershed condition in burned watersheds as a result of 

passive recovery of 746 miles of unauthorized routes currently open to motorized traffic and 

protection of areas that are currently untracked. The most severe and large-scale of the PNF fires, the 

2007 Moonlight Fire, did not occur in any of the 19 subwatersheds with road/route densities 

exceeding the cautionary level. The Private THP projects listed in Appendix C are expected to result 

in no net increase in permanent motorized road density. The improvement in road/route density under 

Alternative 2, considered along with the watershed restoration activities associated with the 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would result in no increase in risk of detrimental cumulative 

watershed effects and would, by and large, decrease this risk.

While the cumulative effect of Alternative 2 is predicted to be beneficial at the watershed scale 

for all 179 watersheds, adverse effects are indicated at specific route locations per the Action 

Component 2 analysis above. Alternative 2 proposes to add to the NFTS 126 miles of routes that are 

rated as “High” or “Extreme” for soil and water effects, meaning that all of these routes are currently 

having adverse effects on soil and water resources. Of these 126 miles, 54 miles are rated “Extreme”, 

meaning that these adverse effects cannot be feasibly mitigated and would persist in the future. 

Mitigations are prescribed for the 72 miles of proposed trail that are rated as “High”.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 124

Table 29. Summary of Existing Condition Information for Watersheds Exceeding the Cautionary Level for Motorized Road / Route Density 

Watershed ID Number Watershed 

Area, (sq mi)

1999 Watershed 

Sensitivity Condition 

Rating (a)

1999 Risk of

Cumulative Effects (a)

Change in ERA, 

as % of 

watershed area, 

1999-2008 (b)

Total ERA, as % of 

watershed area 

(with TOC, as % of 

watershed area) (b)

Existing Density of 

Roads and Routes 

open to motorized 

traffic (mi/mi2

110067

), 

(Alt. 1)

14.16 72.0 M 0.4 4.5 (12) 6.48

110114 6.00 77.0 H 2.0 7.8 (12) 5.84

110034 11.04 60.0 M 0 N/A 5.61

110054 8.05 54.0 M N/A N/A 5.36

110051 16.55 72.0 M 0.4 3.6 (12) 4.91

110021 8.10 60.0 M 4.0 8.6 (13) 4.61

110042 13.12 72.0 M 1.4 7.0 (12) 4.59

110041 4.29 66.0 M 5.6 12.7 (13) 4.57

110069 1.86 50.0 M N/A N/A 4.56

110053 12.42 60.0 M N/A N/A 4.55

110124 6.29 60.0 M 0.1 4.2 (12) 4.54

110030 14.83 50.0 M 0.1 6.0 (12) 4.43

110038 17.41 60.5 M 0.8 5.4 (12) 4.40

110055 7.19 55.0 M N/A N/A 4.30

110159 6.93 77.0 H 0.7 5.5 (12) 4.29

110113 8.99 45.0 M 0.7 3.5 (12) 4.28

110023 17.49 60.0 M 2.5 6.6 (13) 4.13

110192 9.88 71.5 M 3.5 5.6 (12) 4.08

110033 10.29 55.0 M 0 N/A 3.96

a - from Appendix N, "Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act FEIS" (August 1999)

b - from "Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008, Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project"

N/A - Not applicable. No HFQLGFRA work planned or implemented in this watershed for 1999-2008
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 125

3.5.7.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 responds to non-motorized recreation interest in “Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(CIRAs)” proposed by the Wilderness Society and natural resource impacts by prohibiting crosscountry travel without adding any additional facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a 

baseline for comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS. None of 

the current unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Roads, Trails and Areas Added to the Existing National Forest System: No roads, trails or 

areas would be added to the NFTS.

3. Changes to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): None

3.5.7.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.5.7.3.1.1 Action Component 1: Prohibition of Cross-Country Vehicle Travel

The direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources of the prohibition on cross-country 

motorized travel would be similar to Alternative 2. For Alternative 3, 3,941 miles of roads and routes 

on Plumas NFS lands would be available to motorized traffic (Table 31), including 1,724 miles

situated in the hydrologically sensitive areas described in the Methods section. Motorized traffic 

would be prohibited on all 1,107 miles of inventoried existing, unauthorized routes that are currently 

open to motorized traffic, including 459 miles of existing routes situated in hydrologically sensitive 

areas. Direct and indirect effects to water resources due to prohibition of motorized travel on these 

routes include reduced peak flows and sediment loads.

When compared with Alternative 2, greater long-term (25-30 year) benefit to soil and water 

resources would occur under Alternative 3 because an additional 361 miles of unauthorized routes 

would be prohibited from motorized traffic. This would allow the passive re-vegetation of an 

additional 361 miles of unauthorized routes, resulting in these areas attaining much of their original 

hydrologic and geomorphic functions. The long-term establishment of vegetative growth on these 

routes will substantially decrease the amount of erosion and the amount of sediment delivered to area 

stream channels from 1,107 miles of unauthorized routes and would somewhat reduce area peak 

flows. 

Benefits to soil and water resources due to prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are 

currently untracked would be the same as Alternative 2. These benefits associated with prohibition of 

cross-country traffic on areas that are currently untracked would be identical for all action alternatives 

(Alternatives 2 through 5). Unauthorized use of existing routes by motorized traffic following 

prohibition could delay or prevent recovery.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 126

Table 30. Summary of Cumulative Soil and Water Resource Effects Analysis Indicator for Watersheds Exceeding Density Threshold

Watershed ID 

Number

Watershed 

Area, (sq mi)

Density of Roads 

and Routes open to 

motorized traffic 

(mi/mi2

Density of Roads 

and Routes open to 

motorized traffic 

), Alt. 1 (mi/mi2

Density of Roads 

and Routes open to 

motorized traffic 

), Alt. 2 (mi/mi2

Density of Roads 

and Routes open to 

motorized traffic 

), Alt. 3 (mi/mi2

Density of Roads 

and Routes open to 

motorized traffic 

), Alt. 4 (mi/mi2

110067

), Alt. 5

14.16 6.48 5.27 3.82 4.16 5.08

110114 6.00 5.84 4.49 3.96 3.96 4.06

110034 11.04 5.61 5.05 4.58 4.58 4.58

110054 8.05 5.36 4.51 3.45 3.61 3.54

110051 16.55 4.91 4.70 4.62 4.64 4.64

110021 8.10 4.61 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30

110042 13.12 4.59 4.16 2.92 3.49 3.69

110041 4.29 4.57 3.83 2.93 3.75 3.75

110069 1.86 4.56 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14

110053 12.42 4.55 3.84 3.31 3.31 3.31

110124 6.29 4.54 3.33 2.68 3.00 3.31

110030 14.83 4.43 4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39

110038 17.41 4.40 4.25 4.23 4.23 4.23

110055 7.19 4.30 4.09 3.59 3.83 3.99

110159 6.93 4.29 3.40 2.68 3.16 3.35

110113 8.99 4.28 3.55 2.85 3.05 3.47

110023 17.49 4.13 3.75 3.70 3.75 3.75

110192 9.88 4.08 1.81 1.75 1.90 1.90

110033 10.29 3.96 3.39 3.01 3.01 3.01
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 127

3.5.7.3.1.2 Action Component 2: Addition of Facilities (Routes and Areas) to the NFTS

Direct and indirect effects for this component are generally not applicable to Alternative 3 because no 

facilities are proposed to be added to the NFTS. Site-specific amelioration of water quality 

impactsdue to prescribed mitigations along routes proposed for addition to the NFTS under 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would not occur under Alternative 3.

3.5.7.3.1.3 Action Component 3: Changes to the existing NFS

Direct and indirect effects for this component are not applicable to Alternative 3 because no changes 

to the existing NFTS are proposed.

3.5.7.3.2 Cumulative Effects

General cumulative effects to soil and water resources under Alternative 3, and indeed for all action 

Alternatives (2 through 5) would be the same as cumulative effects for Alternative 2. The cumulative 

effect to watershed condition of Alternative 3 would be beneficial as a result of passive recovery of 

1,107 miles of unauthorized routes currently open to motorized traffic and protection of areas that are 

currently untracked. Detailed differences from the Alternative 2 cumulative watershed effects analysis 

are presented below.

When compared with Alternative 2, greater long-term benefit to soil and water resources would 

occur under Alternative 3 because motorized traffic would be prohibited on all 1,107 miles of 

inventoried existing, unauthorized routes that are currently open to motorized traffic resulting in an 

additional 361 miles of routes to be prohibited from motorized traffic.

The reasonably foreseeable actions presented in Appendix C are not expected to appreciably 

increase or decrease the density of roads and trails open to motorized traffic on public and private 

lands within the analysis watersheds. Therefore, the density of motorized roads and trails calculated 

for each project alternative is used to analyze the risk of cumulative watershed effects. Under the 

existing condition, 19 of the 178 analysis watersheds (11%) have road/route densities that exceed the 

cautionary level of 4.0 mi/mi2 (Table 30Table 31). For these 19 watersheds, the mean density is 4.71 

mi/mi2 and the median is 4.55 mi/mi2

. The density of roads and routes open to motorized traffic 

would decrease for all of these watersheds under Alternative 3. A net total of 215 miles of 

unauthorized routes within these 19 watersheds would be made unavailable to motorized traffic under 

Alternative 3, with watershed 110067 experiencing the largest decrease (over 37 miles). The average 

decrease in road/route density for these 19 watersheds would be 1.2 mi/mi2 with a median decrease of 

1.4 mi/mi2

. As a result, the density for 14 of the 19 watersheds would be less than the cautionary level 

under Alternative 3. For the remaining 5 watersheds, the effects of Alternative 3 on watershed 

resources would also be beneficial, including improved surface water runoff timing and magnitude 

and reduced sediment delivery as a result of decreased road/route density. The decrease in density 

realized for each of the 19 watersheds will not necessarily result in full recovery of a detrimental 

CWE that may have occurred but will represent a step forward in the continuing recovery of the 

watershed. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

128 –Plumas National Forest

For the three watersheds with the greatest increase in past ground disturbance from 1999–2008 

watersheds 110041, 110021, and 110192, Alternative 3 would produce significant reductions in 

road/route density, resulting in densities of 2.93, 4.30, and 1.75 mi/mi2

, respectively. For the two 

watersheds that were determined to have a high risk of CWE in the 1999 HFQLG EIS, watersheds 

110114 and 110159, Alternative 3 would produce significant reductions in road/route density, 

resulting in densities of 3.96 and 2.68 mi/mi2

Long-term watershed condition would improve and risk of cumulative watershed effects would 

decrease under Alternative 3. The net effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on 

each subwatershed, as indicated by the total mileage and density of proposed trails and roads open to 

traffic on public and private roads within the subwatershed (see the Soil and Water Resource Report, 

Appendix E in the project record), is generally beneficial. Over 99% of the analysis subwatersheds 

(177 out of 178) indicate a decrease in road/route density. The density decrease for each watershed 

ranges from 0.01 to 2.72 mi/mi

, respectively. 

2 with a mean of 0.48 and a median of 0.33 mi/mi2

As with Alternative 2, cumulative watershed effects for the watershed in the area of Paradise and 

Magalia would be beneficial. Alternative 3 would result in prohibition of travel on 5.0 miles of 

unauthorized routes that are currently open to motorized traffic. The prohibition of cross-country 

travel would reduce future land disturbance on the Forest and allow passive recovery of these routes.

. The road/route 

density for the remaining one subwatershed (less than 1% of the analysis watersheds) indicates no 

change in the risk of cumulative soil and water resource effects. However, the benefits of prohibition 

of cross-country traffic on areas that are currently untracked will be realized in all analysis 

subwatersheds. This long-term improvement of watershed condition and long-term decrease in the 

risk of cumulative watershed effects due to protection of untracked areas is identical to the effect for 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5.

Reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix C) that would affect soil and water resources at a 

cumulative, watershed scale are chiefly the HFQLG FRA vegetation management activities. The 

cumulative result of foreseeable actions and Alternative 3 are generally the same as stated above for 

Alternative 2. The improvements in road/route density for analysis watersheds under Alternative 3, 

considered along with the watershed restoration activities associated with the reasonably foreseeable 

actions, will result in no increase in risk of detrimental cumulative watershed effects and would, 

predominantly, decrease this risk.

3.5.7.4 Alternative 4

Alternative 4 responds to non-motorized recreation interest in “Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(CIRAs)” proposed by the Wilderness Society and natural resource impacts. This alternative adds no 

motorized routes to CIRAs. This alternative does not designate routes as trails where resource 

concerns require extensive or critical trail mitigation (those routes rated as “High” for soil and water 

resource effects). This alternative also does not propose trails that are rated “Extreme” for soil and 

water resource effects.

1. Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 129

2. Trails and Areas Added to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS):

For Alternative 4, a total of 140 miles of existing, unauthorized routes are proposed to be 

added to the NFTS as trails and open to motorcycles, ATVs, a combination of these two 

vehicle types, or all vehicles. The 36-acre Sly Creek area would not be open to motorized 

vehicles.

3. Changes to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): The 4.1-mile 

Slate Creek Road is proposed for mixed use (combining highway legal and non-highway 

legal vehicles on the same road). 

3.5.7.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.5.7.4.1.1 Action Component 1: Prohibition of Cross-Country Vehicle Travel

The direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources of the prohibition on cross-country 

motorized travel would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. For Alternative 4, 4,087 miles of roads and

routes on Plumas NFS lands would be available to motorized traffic (Table 31), including 1,772 miles 

situated in hydrologically sensitive areas. Motorized traffic would be prohibited on 967 miles of 

inventoried existing, unauthorized routes that are currently open to motorized traffic, including 411

miles of existing routes situated in hydrologically sensitive areas. Direct and indirect effects to water 

resources due to prohibition of motorized travel on these routes include reduced peak flows and 

sediment loads.

When compared with Alternatives 2 and 3, long-term (25-30 year) benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 4 would be greater than Alternative 2 because an additional 221 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be prohibited from motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 4 would be less than Alternative 3 because an additional 140 miles of 

routes would be available for motorized traffic. Alternative 4 would allow the passive re-vegetation of 

967 miles of routes, resulting in these areas attaining much of their original hydrologic and 

geomorphic functions. The long-term establishment of vegetative growth on these routes would 

substantially decrease the amount of erosion and the amount of sediment delivered to area stream 

channels from 967 miles of unauthorized routes and would somewhat reduce area peak flows. 

Benefits to soil and water resources due to prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are 

currently untracked would be identical for all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5). 

Unauthorized use of existing routes by motorized traffic following prohibition could delay or prevent 

recovery.

3.5.7.4.1.2 Action Component 2: Addition of Facilities (Routes and Areas) to the NFTS

Alternative 4 proposes to add 140 miles of existing, unauthorized routes to the NFTS. In general, as 

with Alternative 2, any direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources of motorized travel on 

these previously unauthorized routes have already occurred.

For Alternative 4, E08 evaluation data indicates that 28 miles (20% of the 140 miles proposed for 

addition to the NFTS) contain at least one segment that rated as “Fail” for effectiveness in protecting 

water quality as a result of initial field survey data, indicating a potential for adverse soil and water 

effects. However, subsequent site visits determined that effects are currently less than adverse. For 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

130 –Plumas National Forest

Alternative 4, 47 route/stream crossings were observed to either be currently diverting stream flow 

down the route surface or having the potential to divert stream flow if the route/stream crossing 

plugged. All of these crossings can be fixed with maintenance activities available within the scope of 

this project. Twenty-six miles are rated as “Low” and 114 miles as “Moderate” for soil and water 

resource effects, but all routes which rated “High” or “Extreme” have been excluded from Alternative 

4, meaning that soil and water effects are not currently adverse for any of the routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS. “Moderate” routes have the potential to present adverse soil and water effects 

in the future but maintenance activities are prescribed to prevent these potential effects. Short-term 

water quality impacts associated with this maintenance would be prevented by applying BMPs during 

construction. Site specific survey, effects and maintenance information for each route is included in 

Appendix A of the FEIS and Appendices F, G, and H in the Soil and Water Resource Report, in the 

project record

By prohibiting traffic on other unauthorized routes on the Forest, facilities added to the NFTS 

under Alternative 4 may experience increased traffic levels resulting in a slight increase in road 

generated erosion. However, increased maintenance attention for these added facilities would reduce 

erosion to a greater degree.

3.5.7.4.1.3 Action Component 3: Changes to the Existing NFTS

Direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources due to allowing all motorized vehicle classes on 

4.1 miles of existing NFTS roads currently open only to highway-legal vehicles are expected to be 

negligible. Allowing narrower, non-street legal vehicles to travel existing NFS roads would not lead 

to a change in the width of those roads.

3.5.7.4.2 Cumulative Effects

General cumulative effects to soil and water resources under Alternative 4, and indeed for all action 

alternatives (2 through 5), would be the same as cumulative effects for Alternative 2. The cumulative 

effect to watershed condition of Alternative 4 would be beneficial as a result of passive recovery of 

967 miles of unauthorized routes currently open to motorized traffic, maintenance performed on 

routes added to the NFTS, and protection of areas that are currently untracked. Detailed differences 

from the Alternative 2 cumulative watershed effects analysis are presented below.

The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as trails would not increase the percentage of 

land disturbed and would not increase adverse effects to soil and water resources over existing levels 

because these routes already exist on the landscape. Long-term (25-30 year) benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 4 would be greater than Alternative 2 because an additional 221 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be prohibited from motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 4 would be less than Alternative 3 because an additional 140 miles of 

routes would be available for motorized traffic.

The reasonably foreseeable actions presented in Appendix C are not expected to appreciably 

increase or decrease the density of roads and trails open to motorized traffic on public and private 

lands within the analysis watersheds. Therefore, the density of motorized roads and trails calculated 

for each project alternative is used to analyze the risk of cumulative watershed effects. Under the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 131

existing condition, 19 of the 178 analysis watersheds (11%) have road/route densities that exceed the 

cautionary level of 4.0 mi/mi2 (Table 30). For these 19 watersheds, the mean density is 4.71 mi/mi2

and the median is 4.55 mi/mi2

. The density of roads and routes open to motorized traffic would 

decrease for all of these watersheds under Alternative 4. A net total of 186 miles of unauthorized 

routes within these 19 watersheds would be made unavailable to motorized traffic under Alternative 

4, with watershed 110192 experiencing the largest decrease (over 32 miles). The average decrease in 

road/route density for these 19 watersheds would be 1.1 mi/mi2 with a median decrease of 1.1 mi/mi2

For the three watersheds with the greatest increase in past ground disturbance from 1999–2008, 

watersheds 110041, 110021, and 110192, Alternative 4 would produce significant reductions in 

road/route density, resulting in densities of 3.75, 4.30 and 1.90 mi/mi

. 

As a result, the density for 13 of the 19 watersheds would be less than the analysis cautionary level 

under Alternative 4. For the remaining 6 watersheds, the effects of Alternative 4 on watershed 

resources would also be beneficial, including improved surface water runoff timing and magnitude 

and reduced sediment delivery as a result of decreased road/route density. The decrease in density 

realized for each of the 19 watersheds will not necessarily result in full recovery of a detrimental 

CWE that may have occurred but will represent a step forward in the continuing recovery of the 

watershed.

2

, respectively. For the two 

watersheds that were determined to have a high risk of CWE in the 1999 HFQLG EIS, watersheds 

110114 and 110159, Alternative 4 would produce significant reductions in road/route density, 

resulting in densities of 3.96 and 3.16 mi/mi2

Long-term watershed condition would improve and risk of cumulative watershed effects would 

decrease under Alternative 4. The net effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on 

each subwatershed, as indicated by the total mileage and density of proposed trails and roads open to 

traffic on public and private roads within the subwatershed (see the Soil and Water Resource Report, 

Appendix E in the project record), is generally beneficial. More than 98% of the analysis 

subwatersheds (175 out of 178) indicate a decrease in road/route density. The density decrease for 

each watershed ranges from 0.01 to 2.32 mi/mi

, respectively. 

2 with a mean of 0.42 and a median of 0.30 mi/mi2

As with Alternative 2, cumulative watershed effects for the watershed in the area of Paradise and 

Magalia would be beneficial. For Alternative 4, no trails are proposed for addition to the NFTS in this 

watershed. Alternative 4 would result in prohibition of travel on 5.0 miles of routes that are currently 

open to motorized traffic. The prohibition of cross-country travel would reduce future land 

disturbance on the Forest and allow passive recovery of these unauthorized routes. 

.

The road/route density for the remaining three subwatersheds (less than 2% of the analysis 

subwatersheds) indicates no change in the risk of cumulative soil and water resource effects.

However, the benefits of prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are currently untracked 

would be realized in all analysis subwatersheds. This long-term improvement of watershed condition 

and long-term decrease in the risk of cumulative watershed effects due to protection of untracked 

areas is identical for all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5).

Reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix C) that would affect soil and water resources at a 

cumulative, watershed scale are chiefly the HFQLG FRA vegetation management activities. The 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

132 –Plumas National Forest

cumulative result of foreseeable actions and Alternative 4 are generally the same as stated above for 

Alternative 2. The improvements in road/route density for analysis watersheds under Alternative 4, 

considered along with the watershed restoration activities associated with the reasonably foreseeable 

actions, will result in no increase in risk of detrimental cumulative watershed effects and will, 

predominantly, decrease this risk.

Unlike Alternative 2, Alternative 4 does not propose to add any routes that are rated as “High” or 

“Extreme” for soil and water effects (routes that are currently having adverse effects on soil and water 

resources). 

3.5.7.5 Alternative 5

Alternative 5 responds to the issue of access, motorized recreation opportunity, and natural resource 

protection. During scoping the Plumas National Forest received suggestions for additional routes and 

alternative routes that would better provide access and motorized recreation opportunity. This 

alternative includes approximately 10 miles of trails proposed by the public that were not in the 

proposed action. This alternative also removes all proposed trails from the proposed action that have 

an “Extreme” rating for soil and water resource effects.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails and 

areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization would be prohibited.

2. Trails and Areas Added to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS):

For Alternative 5, a total of 234 miles of existing, unauthorized routes are proposed to be 

added to the NFTS as trails open to motorcycles, ATVs, a combination of these two vehicle 

types, or all vehicles. Trails that require extensive or critical mitigations to protect water 

quality (trails rated as “High” for soil and water effects) would be added to the NFTS with 

this EIS but not placed on the motor vehicle use map until the mitigation has been completed. 

The 36-acre Sly Creek area would not be open to motor vehicles.

3. Changes to the Existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): The 4.1-mile 

Slate Creek Road is proposed for mixed use (combining highway legal and non-highway 

legal vehicles on the same road). 

3.5.7.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.5.7.5.1.1 Action Component 1: Prohibition of Cross-Country Vehicle Travel

The direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources from the prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel would be similar to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. For Alternative 5, 4,173 miles of roads 

and routes on Plumas NF lands would be available to motorized traffic (Table 31), including 1,803

miles situated in the hydrologically sensitive areas described in the Methods section. Motorized 

traffic would be prohibited on 873 miles of inventoried existing, unauthorized routes that are 

currently open to motorized traffic, including 379 miles of existing routes situated in hydrologically 

sensitive areas. Direct and indirect effects to water resources due to prohibition of motorized travel on 

these routes include reduced peak flows and sediment loads. 

When compared with Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, long-term (25-30 year) benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 5 would be greater than Alternative 2 because an additional 127 miles of 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 133

unauthorized routes would be unavailable for motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 5 would be less than Alternative 3 because an additional 234 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be available for motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water 

resources under Alternative 5 would be less than Alternative 4 because an additional 94 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be available for motorized traffic. Alternative 5 would allow the passive 

re-vegetation of 873 miles of unauthorized routes, resulting in these areas attaining much of their 

original hydrologic and geomorphic functions. The long-term establishment of vegetative growth on 

these routes would substantially decrease the amount of erosion and the amount of sediment delivered 

to area stream channels from 873 miles of unauthorized routes and would somewhat reduce area peak 

flows.

Benefits to soil and water resources due to prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are

currently untracked would be identical for all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5). 

Unauthorized use of existing routes by motorized traffic following prohibition could delay or prevent 

recovery.

3.5.7.5.1.2 Action Component 2: Addition of Facilities (Routes and Areas) to the NFTS

Alternative 5 proposes to add 234 miles of existing, unauthorized routes to the NFTS. In general, as 

with Alternative 2 and 4, any direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources from motorized 

travel on these previously unauthorized routes have already occurred.

For Alternative 5, E08 evaluation data indicates that 86 miles (37% of the 234 miles proposed for 

addition to the NFTS) contain at least one segment that rates as “Fail” for effectiveness in protecting 

water quality as a result of initial field survey data, indicating a potential for adverse soil and water 

effects. Typically, these segments “fail” because of delivery of route-generated sediment to stream 

channels or because the route has captured a stream channel. Subsequent site visits indicated that 

potential effects are currently less than adverse and mitigations are feasible for 31 miles that contain 

these “fail” segments. The remaining 55 miles were rated as “High” for soil and water effects (see 

paragraph below). For Alternative 5, 69 route/stream crossings were observed to either be currently 

diverting stream flow down the route surface or having the potential to divert stream flow if the 

route/stream crossing plugged. All of these crossings can be mitigated. Short-term water quality 

impacts associated with maintenance or installation of mitigations would be prevented by applying 

BMPs during construction. Trails that rated as “Extreme” for soil and water resource effects are not 

proposed for addition to the NFTS under Alternative 5. 

“Moderate” or “High” ratings for soil and water resource effects were rated for 200 miles of 

proposed trails, meaning that soil and water effects are currently adverse or have the potential to be 

adverse in the future. Of these 200 miles, 55 miles of routes proposed under Alternative 5 are rated as 

“High” for soil and water effects, meaning that effects are currently adverse and mitigations are 

necessary to reduce current soil and water resource effects to less than adverse. Alternative 5 proposes 

to designate these routes as part of the NFTS but these routes would not be placed on the motor 

vehicle use map until the critical, prescribed mitigations are in place. Motorized traffic would not be 

legal on these routes until proper installation of the mitigations is completed. If the mitigations are not 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

134 –Plumas National Forest

installed for a number of years, these routes would begin to re-vegetate and regain their hydrologic 

and geomorphic functions. If the mitigations do not occur within 5-10 years, it is unlikely that the 

resource analyses provided in this EIS would still be valid and additional analysis would likely be 

needed to add the routes to the NFTS. Site specific survey, effects and maintenance or mitigation 

information for each route is included in Appendix A of the FEIS and Appendices F, G, and H in the 

Soil and Water Resource Report, in the project record.

By prohibiting traffic on other unauthorized routes on the Forest, facilities added to the NFTS 

under Alternative 5 may experience increased traffic levels resulting in a slight increase in road 

generated erosion. However, increased maintenance attention, along with mitigations installed to 

prevent adverse effects to water quality, for these added facilities would reduce erosion to a greater 

degree.

3.5.7.5.1.3 Action Component 3: Changes to the Existing NFTS

Direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources due to allowing all motorized vehicle classes on 

4.1 miles of existing NFS roads currently open only to highway-legal vehicles are expected to be 

negligible. Allowing narrower, non-street legal vehicles to travel existing NFS roads would not lead 

to a change in the width of those roads.

3.5.7.5.2 Cumulative Effects

General cumulative effects to soil and water resources under Alternative 5, and indeed for all action

Alternatives (2 through 5), would be the same as cumulative effects for Alternative 2. The cumulative 

effect to watershed condition of Alternative 5 would be beneficial as a result of passive recovery of 

873 miles of unauthorized routes currently open to motorized traffic, mitigations performed on routes 

added to the NFTS, and protection of areas that are currently untracked. Detailed differences from the 

Alternative 2 cumulative watershed effects analysis are presented below.

The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as trails would not increase the percentage of 

land disturbed and would not increase adverse effects to soil and water resources over existing levels 

because these routes already exist on the landscape. Proposed mitigations for routes added to the 

NFTS would decrease existing adverse effects to soil and water resources. Long-term (25-30 year) 

benefits to soil and water resources would occur under Alternative 5 because motorized traffic would 

be prohibited on 873 miles of inventoried existing, unauthorized routes that are currently open to 

motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water resources under Alternative 5 would be greater

than Alternative 2 because an additional 127 miles of unauthorized routes would be unavailable to 

motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water resources under Alternative 5 would be less 

than Alternative 3 because an additional 234 miles of unauthorized routes would be available for 

motorized traffic. Long-term benefits to soil and water resources under Alternative 5 would be less 

than Alternative 4 because an additional 94 miles of unauthorized routes would be available for 

motorized traffic.

The reasonably foreseeable actions presented in Appendix C are not expected to appreciably 

increase or decrease the density of roads and trails open to motorized traffic on public and private 

lands within the analysis watersheds. Therefore, the density of motorized roads and trails calculated 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Managment

Plumas National Forest - 135

for each project alternative is used to analyze the risk of cumulative watershed effects. Under the 

existing condition, 19 of the 178 analysis watersheds (11%) have road/route densities that exceed the 

cautionary level of 4.0 mi/mi2 (Table 30). For these 19 watersheds, the mean density is 4.71 mi/mi2

and the median is 4.55 mi/mi2. The density of roads and routes open to motorized traffic would 

decrease for all of these watersheds under Alternative 5. A net total of 162 miles of unauthorized 

routes within these 19 watersheds would be made unavailable to motorized traffic under Alternative 

5, with watershed 110192 experiencing the largest decrease (over 21 miles). The average decrease in 

road/route density for these 19 watersheds would be 0.95 mi/mi2 with a median decrease of 0.93 

mi/mi2

For the three watersheds with the greatest increase in past ground disturbance from 1999–2008, 

watersheds 110041, 110021, and 110192, Alternative 5 would produce significant reductions in 

road/route density, resulting in densities of 3.75, 4.30, and 1.90 mi/mi

. As a result, the density for 12 of the 19 watersheds would be less than the analysis cautionary 

level under Alternative 5. For the remaining 7 watersheds, the effects of Alternative 5 on watershed 

resources would also be beneficial, including improved surface water runoff timing and magnitude 

and reduced sediment delivery as a result of decreased road/route density. The decrease in density 

realized for each of the 19 watersheds will not necessarily result in full recovery of a detrimental 

CWE that may have occurred but will represent a step forward in the continuing recovery of the 

watershed.

2

, respectively. For the two 

watersheds that were determined to have a high risk of CWE in the 1999 HFQLG EIS, watersheds 

110114 and 110159, Alternative 5 would produce significant reductions in road/route density, 

resulting in densities of 4.06 and 3.35 mi/mi2

Long-term watershed condition would improve and risk of cumulative watershed effects would 

decrease under Alternative 5. The net effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on 

each subwatershed, as indicated by the total mileage and density of proposed trails and roads open to 

traffic on public and private roads within the subwatershed (see the Soil and Water Resource Report, 

Appendix E in the project record), is generally beneficial. More than 97% of the analysis 

subwatersheds (174 out of 178) indicate a decrease in road/route density. The density decrease for 

each watershed ranges from 0.01 to 2.18 mi/mi

, respectively. 

2 with a mean of 0.38 and a median of 0.27 mi/mi2

As with Alternative 2, cumulative watershed effects for the watershed in the area of Paradise and 

Magalia would be beneficial. For Alternative 5, no existing non-system routes are proposed for 

addition to the NFTS in this watershed Alternative 5 would result in prohibition of travel on 5.0 miles 

of routes that are currently open to motorized traffic. The prohibition of cross-country travel would 

reduce future land disturbance on the Forest and allow passive recovery of these unauthorized routes. 

. 

The road/route density for the remaining four subwatersheds (less than 3% of the analysis 

subwatersheds) indicates no change in the risk of cumulative soil and water resource effects. 

However, the benefits of prohibition of cross-country traffic on areas that are currently untracked 

would be realized in all analysis subwatersheds. This long-term improvement of watershed condition 

and long-term decrease in the risk of cumulative watershed effects due to protection of untracked 

areas is identical for all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

136 –Plumas National Forest

Reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix C) that would affect soil and water resources at a 

cumulative, watershed scale are chiefly the HFQLG FRA vegetation management activities. The 

cumulative result of these foreseeable actions and Alternative 5 are generally the same as stated above 

for Alternative 2. The improvement in road/route density under Alternative 5, considered along with 

the watershed restoration activities associated with the reasonably foreseeable actions, would result in 

no increase in risk of detrimental cumulative watershed effects and would, predominantly, decrease 

this risk.

The cumulative effect of Alternative 5 is predicted to be beneficial at the watershed scale for all 

178 watersheds (as indicated by decreases in road/route density and/or prohibition of cross-country 

travel on untracked areas). Unlike Alternative 2, adverse effects are not indicated at a smaller site 

scale along any routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. Alternative 5 does not propose to add any 

routes that are rated as “Extreme” for soil and water effects (routes that are currently having adverse 

effects on soil and water resources that cannot be feasibly mitigated). Alternative 5 proposes to add to 

the NFTS 55 miles of routes that are rated as “High”. Mitigations are prescribed for these routes to 

reduce the effects to less than adverse and the trails would remain prohibited from motorized traffic 

until the mitigations are satisfactorily installed. 

3.5.8 Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Effects to soil and water resources are summarized by ranking each indicator for each alternative.

Table 31 provides the numeric value of the indicator and the ranking among alternatives in 

parentheses (higher rankings indicate more benefits and/or less adverse effects to soil and water 

resources for that alternative). The rankings are averaged for each alternative.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 137

Table 31. Summary of Soil and Water Resource effects, with subsequent ranking in parentheses. 

Indicators – Soil and Water Resources

Alt 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4 Alt. 5

Total miles of proposed trails and roads open to 

motorized traffic on Plumas National Forest System 

lands

5,023

(1)

4,301

(2)

3,941

(5)

4,087

(4)

4,173

(3)

Total miles of proposed trails and roads open to 

motorized traffic on Plumas National Forest System 

lands that are situated in hydrologically sensitive 

areas

2,183

(1)

1,857

(2)

1,724

(5)

1,772

(4)

1,803

(3)

Total miles of proposed trails and roads open to 

motorized traffic on Plumas National Forest System 

lands by Maximum Potential Erosion Hazard Rating 

(EHR)

Very High (VH), High (H), Moderate (M), Low (L)

VH: 284

H: 2,954

M: 1,595

L: 49

(1)

VH: 245

H: 2,504

M: 1,391

L: 46

(2)

VH: 212

H: 2,292

M: 1,287

L: 45

(5)

VH: 217

H: 2,387

M: 1,330

L: 45

(4)

VH: 223

H: 2,441

M: 1,354

L: 45

(3)

Total miles of routes proposed for addition to NFTS 

that E08 effectiveness evaluation data indicate 

“fail” segment(s) for protection of water quality

N/A

(1)

156

(2)

N/A

(5)

28

(4)

86

(3)

Total miles of routes proposed for addition to NFTS 

that E08 effectiveness evaluation data indicates 

“fail” segment(s) and adverse effects that can’t be 

mitigated

N/A

(1)

54

(2)

N/A

(5)

0

(5)

0

(5)

Numbers of locations where routes proposed for 

addition to NFTS divert or have potential to divert 

streamflow (before/after maintenance or mitigation)

N/A

(1)

122 / 28

(2)

N/A

(5)

47 / 0

(5)

69 / 0

(5)

Average Density (mi/mi

2 2.44

0.13

6.48

(1)

) of proposed trails and 

roads open to motorized traffic on public and 

private lands within Plumas National Forest 

watersheds (Mean, minimum, and maximum)

2.14

0.13

5.27

(2)

1.99

0.04

4.62

(5)

2.06

0.04

4.64

(4)

2.09

0.13

5.08

(3)

Ranking for Water and Soil 1 2 5 4 3

N/A – not applicable
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 138

3.5.9 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

A list of Standards and Guidelines and best management practices (BMP) that apply to this project are

included in the Soil and Water Resource Report, Appendix B in the project record. All Standards and 

Guidelines and BMPs apply to Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Mitigation measures were proposed to have 

compliance with the Forest Plan and Clean Water Act. Alternative 1 would not be in compliance with 

the Forest Plan and Clean Water Act. Alternative 1 is the No-action alternative and allows for the 

Forest to be open to cross-country travel. If No-action is performed then the existing routes that are 

currently in the watershed and not a part of the NFTS would not be mitigated. Under Alternative 2, 

existing, site-specific adverse water quality effects along 54 miles of proposed trail cannot be 

mitigated within the scope of this project. Alternative 3 is only using roads and trails that are already 

a part of the NFTS. At the time these routes were constructed they were in compliance with the 

planning direction. As reconstruction occurs on the NFTS, these routes will through time be 

reconstructed in compliance with the Forest Plan. Alternatives 4 and 5 are fully compliant with Forest 

Plan and other applicable direction. The application of BMPs and MMMs, including riparian buffers, 

would reduce the risks to beneficial uses of water from project activities. 

It is assumed that protection of headwaters and tributaries to larger watersheds, along with 

implementation of effective non-point source conservation measures (BMPs), would provide 

protection of the entire watershed. If sedimentation is controlled through implementation of BMPs, 

the potential for project related sediment delivery to the immediate channel and channels downstream 

would be small. 

Impacts on water quality in the analysis area could potentially occur under the following 

circumstances: 

1. Failure to implement Best Management Practices, Riparian and Wetland Standards and 

Guidelines, and other required mitigation.

2. Extreme water yields resulting from abnormally high intensity, magnitude, and duration 

storm events.

This project responds to the objective to minimize damage to soil and watershed under Subpart B 

of the Travel Management Rule as follows.

Direct and indirect effects to soil and water resources under the four action alternatives were 

assessed by field surveying the full length of each route that is proposed for addition to the NFTS 

under any of the alternatives. Many of these routes were visited a second time to further assess 

potential effects and to investigate the need and viability of mitigations or maintenance activities. 

Specific maintenance activities are prescribed for routes in which direct or indirect effects for soil and 

water resources are currently less than adverse but may potentially be adverse in the future. 

Mitigations, if feasible within the scope of this FEIS, are prescribed for routes where current adverse 

effects were observed. For example, 69 stream crossing locations along trails proposed under 

Alternative 5 were observed to have potential for capture or diversion of stream flow down the trail. 

After implementation of maintenance or mitigations prescribed in this FEIS, none of these crossings 

would hold that potential (see Table 31). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 139

No current adverse effects for soil and water resources were observed for trails proposed under 

Alternative 4. For Alternative 5, current adverse effects have been observed at proposed trails totaling 

55 miles. Mitigations are feasible for all of these effects and those trails will not be legal for traffic 

until the mitigations are in place. For Alternative 2, current adverse effects have been observed at 

proposed trails totaling 126 miles. Mitigations are feasible for these effects on trails totaling 72 miles. 

Mitigations to reduce soil and water resource effects to less than adverse are not available within the 

scope of this FEIS for the remaining trails (totaling 54 miles) proposed under Alternative 2, typically 

due to physical or topographic constraints. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

140 – Plumas National Forest

3.6 Aquatic Biota

3.6.1 Introduction

Management of aquatic dependent species and habitat and maintenance and diversity of animal 

communities are important parts of the mission of the Forest Service (Forest and Rangeland Resource 

Planning Act of 1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands must be planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of 

viability of Forest Service sensitive species. In addition, management activities are designed to 

maintain or improve habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS) to the degree consistent with 

multiple-use objectives established in the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 

Management decisions related to motorized travel can affect aquatic species by increasing humancaused mortality, causing changes in behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 

2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). It is Forest Service policy to 

minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of 

wildlife habitat while providing for motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, 

management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to aquatic biota 

and their habitat.

The Plumas National Forest (PNF) aquatic species and their habitat considered include Region 5 

(R5) “sensitive” herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) and fish, and the federal threatened 

California red-legged frog. Amphibian species and their habitats addressed in this section are 

California red-legged frog (CRLF), foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF), and the mountain-yellow 

legged frog (MYLF). The northwestern pond turtle (NWPT) is an aquatic reptile. Fish species 

addressed include the hardhead minnow.

Road and trail associated factors will be discussed here for herpetofauna and fisheries across the 

PNF. Macroinvertebrates are addressed as MIS in the Terrestrial Biota section. Generally, site-specific 

studies on the species interaction with road and trail-associated factors are lacking in the literature. 

Where site-specific information or literature on road and trail associated factors to aquatic species is 

available, general information on potential impacts will be presented in this section. In addition, 

detailed information on affects of roads to downstream water quality is presented in the Soil and 

Watershed Resources section.

3.6.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction

Direction relevant to the alternatives as they concern aquatic biota includes:

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a threatened or endangered species (TE), or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 141

Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning TE under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to 

analyze impacts to TE to ensure management activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a TE, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is 

determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and is 

summarized or referenced in this Chapter. The BA/BE is incorporated by reference here (Hopkins, 

2010).

The Forest began early involvement with the USFWS in February of 2008, and completed formal 

consultation (Cons #84120-2009-F-0923-1) on November 3, 2009. Discussions have included the use 

of the USFWS Regional Programmatic Agreement (October 2006) that includes the Motorized Travel 

Management Project Design Criteria for ‘No effect’ or ‘May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ 

determination for the California red-legged frog (CRLF) .Mitigations? include incorporating the six 

design criteria specific to the CRLF into Alternative 4. Alternative 4 meets all the criteria to lead to a 

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for the CRLF. In February of 2010, the 

Forest made the decision to modify Alternative 5 to meet the design criteria in the PA for the CRLF. 

Alternative 5 in this FEIS meets all the criteria (Table 35) to lead to a “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” determination for the CRLF; thus no further consultation is required.

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/FSH 2670). Forest Service sensitive (FSS) 

species are plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability 

is a concern. The Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare 

plants and animals do not become threatened or endangered (TE) and ensure their continued viability 

on National Forests. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure 

management activities do not create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This 

assessment is documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this 

Chapter.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004 SNFPA) identified the following Standards and Guidelines 

applicable to motorized travel management and aquatic resources, which will be considered during 

this analysis process:

• Riparian Habitat (Management Standard and Guideline #92): see discussion under Soil and 

Water Resources.

• Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for 

local aquatic and riparian dependent species assemblages (Management Standard and 

Guideline #96).

• Ground disturbing activities will be no more than 25% of RCAs and 15% of Critical Aquatic 

Refuges (CARs) (Management Standard and Guideline #98)

• As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following the Regional Stream 

Condition Inventory (SCI) protocol prior to implementing ground disturbing activities within 

suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill and 

mountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog (Management Standard and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

142 – Plumas National Forest

Guideline #114). Five SCI reaches are proposed in Chapter 2 for monitoring effects of OHV 

activities.

• Bog and Fen Habitat (Management Standard and Guideline #118): Prohibit or mitigate 

ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water 

flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and 

plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and 

develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, 

pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. 

• The Aquatic Management Strategy, established in the 2001 SNFPA ROD and retained in the 

2004 SNFPA ROD, uses a set of land allocations, specifically RCAs and CARs, that 

delineate aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats, which are to be managed consistent with

riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) and associated Standards and Guidelines (Reference 

the Riparian Conservation Objective analysis in Appendix A of Soil and Water Resources 

Report).

Travel Management Directives and Regulations (Federal Register):

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Forest Service, 36 CFR Parts 212.55 (b1), RIN 0596–

AC11, Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, AGENCY: 

Forest Service, USDA, Action: Final rule: (b) Applicable specific criteria for proposed trails 

and area added to the NFTS. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in 

designating National Forest System trails and areas on NFS lands, the responsible official 

shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant 

disruption to wildlife habitats. 

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Forest Service, RIN 0596–AC39, Travel 

Management Directives; Forest Service Manual 2350, 7700, and 7710 and Forest Service 

Handbook 7709.55. Final Directives: comments: FSM 7703 in the proposed directives 

incorporate the phrase “minimize impacts on” from E.O. 11644 in reference to the factors to 

consider in designating trails and areas for motor vehicle use. Response. The phrase “the 

responsible official shall consider effects on the following with the objective of minimizing,” 

is contained in the travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.55 (b) and was not proposed for 

revision. 

National Aquatic Organism Policy (AOP):

NFMA Implementing Regulations (36 CFR 219.19)

• “No management practices causing...blockages of water courses or deposits of sediment 

shall be permitted...”

Clean Water Act Silviculture road exemption (40 CFR 232.3)

• “The design, construction and maintenance of the road crossing shall not disrupt the 

migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water body.”

California red-legged frog design criteria from the Regional Programmatic Agreement with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (October, 2006).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 143

1. Routes or areas do not have the potential to capture surface run off and then deliver sediment 

into a stream associated with California red-legged frog.

2. In suitable California red-legged frog habitat, routes avoid Riparian Reserve and Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCAs) except where necessary to cross streams. Crossing approaches 

get the riders in and out of the stream channel and riparian area in the shortest distance 

possible while meeting the gradient and approach length standards.

3. Routes or areas do not cross any stream or waterbody within 500 feet of known occupied 

sites of California red-legged frog; and route or area is not within a distance of 500 feet from 

wetlands (i.e. springs, wet meadows, ponds, marshes). This design criteria was also used in 

the effects analysis of the foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle and mountain 

yellow-legged frog. 

4. In habitat occupied by California red-legged frog, routes or areas do not have the potential to 

capture or divert stream flow. The approaches to stream crossings are downslope toward the 

stream on both sides.

5. Areas are located outside of Riparian Reserve, Riparian Conservation Areas, meadows, and 

wetlands within California red-legged frog habitat.

6. No route or areas are within CARs for California red-legged frog.

Design and minimization measures have been developed to help protect CRLF, mountain yellowlegged frog and potential habitat, as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS (Mitigations for Aquatic 

Species and Habitat A detailed description is included in the Biological Assessment and Evaluation 

(Hopkins, 2010). 

3.6.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

Impacts relevant to aquatic biota include Vehicle use on and off established routes has affected or has 

the potential to affect aquatic species, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, by 

increasing human-caused mortality, causing changes in behavior due to disturbance, and modifying 

habitat.

3.6.3.1 Assumptions Specific to the Aquatic Biota Analysis

In addition to the common assumptions mentioned in the introduction to Aquatic Biota (Chapter 3), 

the following assumptions apply to the aquatic biota: 

• Potential habitat for CRLF is west of the crest of the Sierra Nevadas on the Feather River 

Ranger District, below 4,500 feet. After intensive surveys across the Plumas National Forest, 

the Forest Service biologist’s professional judgment is that this species occurs only on the 

Feather River Ranger District and below 4,500 feet. All known occurrences of CRLF are

well below 4,500 feet.

• Potential habitat for FYLF and NWPT is below 4,500 feet.

• Potential habitat for MYLF is above 3,500 feet.

• All vehicle types result in the same amount of disturbance effect on aquatic dependent 

species (unless there is local information enabling a separate analysis by vehicle type). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

144 – Plumas National Forest

• Aquatic species spend all or significant portions of their life cycles either in or moving 

through riparian habitats. 

• Habitat is already impacted in the short term. In the long term, habitat will remain the same 

on added trails, but will decrease to at least some degree on non-added trails with the 

prohibition of cross-country travel and subsequent passive restoration (see Soil and Water 

Resources section for further assumptions).

• Occupancy is assumed in all non-surveyed potentially suitable habitat (Appendix 1 of 

Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BABE 

• Proposed designated trails determined to be “extreme” for resource concerns cannot be 

mitigated.

• Ratings determined for soil and water resources affect water quality and the assumption is 

there are similar effects to TES herpetofauna and thus the same ratings apply. 

3.6.3.2 Data Sources

1. GIS layers of the following information: trails; habitats; and ‘designated’ or important aquatic 

areas (e.g., Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat, Corporate Forest Stream Layer, 

Riparian Conservation Areas, Zones of Influence, and Critical Aquatic Refuges). 

2. Site-specific surveys/assessment of any localized sensitive aquatic species habitats with trails 

proposed to be added to the NFTS (e.g., wet meadows, stream crossings, riparian corridors).

3. Amphibian survey boundaries from CRLF site assessments and USFWS - CRLF Protocol 

surveys completed. 

4. Maps of the three Ranger Districts in the project file at the Plumas NF Supervisor’s office 

(Feather River, Mt. Hough, and Beckwourth Ranger Districts) that display the areas surveyed 

with Feller’s Freel survey protocol, USFWS CRLF site assessments and survey protocol, and 

the Jack’s Car with completed site assessments.

5. Map of Alternative 5 routes, stream crossings, Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) and Zone 

of Influence (ZOI) buffers, and CRLF occurrences.

6. Map of potentially suitable habitat with 0 to 2% and 2 to 4% gradients locations in RCAs 

with 1⁄2 mile buffer, perennial and intermittent streams with 300-foot and 500-foot buffers.

7. Table of CRLF occurrences (Appendix IV of BABE) on the Plumas NF.

8. Soil and Water Resources Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 

2010) for FEIS.

9. California Natural Diversity Database ( http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb). 

3.6.3.3 Aquatic Biota Indicators

3.6.3.3.1 Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, California Red-Legged Frog, Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog and 

Northwestern Pond Turtle

Each indicator is designed to be calculated using the sources of information above, using Geographic 

Information System (GIS) queries. They are focused on assessing the effects of adding facilities to the 

NFTS. The effects of prohibition of cross-country travel and adding proposed designated trails to the 

NFTS are assessed quantitatively and qualitatively as described below. Baseline conditions include all 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 145

existing National Forest System (NFS) roads, trails and areas on the PNF. The Effects Analysis 

includes baseline (130 miles of designated trails) plus all unauthorized routes (Alternative 1; 1,107 

miles), all proposed system trails (Alternative 2; 361 miles, Alternative 4; 140 miles, and Alternative 

5; 234 miles), one 36 acre open area, and 4.1 miles of ML 3 road designated for mixed use. 

Forest-wide Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), and zone of influence (ZOI; as described 

below) to amphibians were determined by buffering all perennial and intermittent streams and waterbodies by 300 and 500 feet, and then breaking these RCAs and ZOIs by elevation for species. In 

addition to the RCAs as described above, a larger buffer of 500 foot Zone of Influence (ZOI) is 

identified as the buffer width required to meet the Regional Route Designation Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) (USFWS, 2006). 

For California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow-legged frogs and northwestern pond turtles, 

RCAs and ZOIs from 4,500 feet and below are identified as potentially suitable habitat. For the 

California red-legged frog specifically, a second filter was applied to further refine suitable CRLF 

habitat on the Forest. Once the first filter was applied (e.g. 4,500 feet elevation, 300-foot RCA, and a 

300-to-500-foot ZOI), a second filter was applied that used slope at 0 to 4% to reveal low gradient 

streams (0 to 4% gradient) that would represent slow moving streams or streams that may contain 

pools similar to those that are defined under Primary Constituent Element 1 used by the USFWS PA?. 

This second filter further refined suitable CRLF habitat and eliminated more of the potentially 

suitable habitat found when the first filter was applied which contained mostly high gradient (>4%), 

fast moving water that is not known to be occupied by CRLF on the PNF (G. Garcia, personal 

observation).

For mountain yellow-legged frogs (var. Sierrei); RCAs and ZOIs, 3,500 foot and above elevation 

are identified as potential suitable habitat. Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) across the Forest were 

analyzed via Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS analysis included evaluation of the 300 and 

300-to-500-foot buffers intersected with the five alternatives and their respective trail locations. In 

addition, a 300-to-500-foot buffer was placed around known occurrences of TES amphibians, springs, 

wet meadows, ponds, and marshes, and was intersected with the proposed OHV routes to evaluate 

effects. The frequency of perennial stream crossings within one mile1

3.6.3.3.2 Route and Trail Density within Riparian Conservation Areas, “Larger” (300-500’) Zone of Influence, 

and Critical Aquatic Refuges

of each mountain yellowlegged frog (MYLF) occurrence was also analyzed.

Native surface route and trail densities within RCAs, ZOIs, and CARs were evaluated to compare the 

overall effects of all motorized trails and unauthorized routes for the alternatives and in addition, 

within each 7th order watershed across the PNF. According to the Soil and Water Resources Report, 

native surface routes and trails have the greatest potential for off-site sediment delivery into streams 

and lakes. Therefore, this effects analysis includes the density of all native surface motorized routes 

and trails. Density provides a relative index to measure the potential indirect effects to aquatic species 

 1 MYLF Telemetry study by MGW Biological (2007) determined MYLF moved linearly along streams as far as 

approximately one mile. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

146 – Plumas National Forest

including TES amphibians, and northwestern pond turtles. Thresholds for density have not been 

established, however, density provides a relative way to compare the effects of the alternatives.

The indicators for a species habitat that are affected by motorized routes (including a route plus a 

biologically meaningful ‘zone of influence’ (e.g., 300-foot RCA, 300-to-500-foot ZOI) include:

• Miles of existing, unauthorized routes, and proposed designated trails within or adjacent to 

TES aquatic biota habitat. Miles of proposed motorized trails to be added to the NFTS 

(proposed trails) at the Forestwide scale within the habitat for each species.

• Miles of proposed trails within herpetofauna habitat at 300 feet of perennial streams, 

intermittent streams, ponds and lakes above 3,500 feet elevation.

• Miles of proposed trails within herpetofauna habitat at 300 to 500 feet of perennial streams, 

intermittent streams, ponds and lakes above 3,500 feet elevation.

• Miles of proposed trails within herpetofauna habitat at 300 feet of perennial streams, 

intermittent streams, ponds and lakes below 4,500 feet elevation.

• Miles of proposed trails within herpetofauna habitat at 300 to 500 feet of perennial streams, 

intermittent streams, ponds and lakes below 4,500 feet elevation. 

• Number of stream crossings per HUC 7 (7th order) watershed within suitable species habitat.

• Miles of proposed trails within 300 to 500 feet of TES herpetofauna. 

• Number of perennial stream crossings within one mile of known MYLF occurrences. 

3.6.3.3.3 Number of Stream Crossings within RCAs

The 7th order watersheds across the PNF were evaluated for the crossing density of native surface 

motorized routes and trails within RCAs to compare direct, indirect and cumulative effects of 

proposed motorized trails (Alternatives 2, 4 and 5) and unauthorized routes (Alternative 1), and the 

existing system trails (cumulative effects) for the project alternatives. Route crossing density provides 

a way to measure the potential direct and indirect effects on herpetofauna and hardhead minnows. 

Direct effects include potential TES aquatic species mortality as a result of use of motorized 

crossings. Indirect effects include changes to channel and streambank characteristics and changes in 

vegetation structure. Sediment delivery from motorized routes and trails is also a potential indirect 

effect of stream crossings. 

3.6.3.3.4 Hardhead Minnow

3.6.3.3.4.1 Site-specific Physical Impacts and Disturbance to Hardhead Occupied Streams

Proposed designated trails were evaluated to determine site-specific impacts to hardhead occupied

streams for each of the alternatives; by analyzing the number of proposed designated trail miles 

within RCAs of occupied hardhead streams/lakes as well as the number of stream crossings within 

occupied RCAs. Other indicators were evaluated forest-wide for all aquatic species.

3.6.3.3.4.2 Route Miles within Riparian Conservation Areas

Miles of proposed native surface trails within RCAs of known hardhead streams/lakes were evaluated 

to compare the overall effects for each alternative. The number of proposed designated trail miles 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 147

within RCAs of occupied hardhead streams and lakes provides a relative index to measure the 

potential indirect effects to hardhead habitat from increased sedimentation from trails. 

3.6.3.3.4.3 Number of Stream Crossings within Riparian Conservation Areas

The number of proposed stream crossings within RCAs of known hardhead streams/lakes was 

evaluated to compare the direct and indirect effects for each alternative. The number of proposed 

stream crossings provides a relative index to measure the potential direct and indirect effects to 

hardhead and habitat. Direct effects include potential hardhead mortality as a result of use of 

motorized crossings of occupied streams. Indirect effects include changes to channel and stream bank 

characteristics and changes in vegetation structure. 

3.6.3.4 Aquatic Biota Methodology by Action:

Geographic Scope of the Aquatic Wildlife Resource Analysis. All “general” locations of the 

“action” alternatives have MYLF, FYLF and NWPT herpetofauna surveys completed to protocol 

(Fellers and Freel). These surveys have been completed previously for Herger-Feinstein Quincy 

Library Group (HFQLG) vegetation management projects or specifically for this EIS. Due to time 

and budgets constraints the decision was made to concentrate MYLF surveys where the highest 

probability of detections exists, where proposed routes crossed or were within 500 feet of perennial 

and intermittent streams. The Forest Fisheries Crew completed surveys across the Forest in the 

summer of 2008. This was a drought year and very smoky due to intensive wildfires across the Forest. 

Therefore, occupancy for MYLF was assumed, due to lack of confidence in surveys due to very poor 

environmental conditions (drought and smoke). Proposed designated trails on ridges and in unsuitable 

habitat for amphibians were not surveyed. The focus of these amphibian surveys was to determine 

presence/absence of TES amphibians, to determine suitability of habitat, and assess the condition of 

the routes to this habitat. The CRLF site assessment surveys were completed to US Fish and Wildlife 

Protocol within the Jack’s CAR. CRLF occupancy is assumed on all unsurveyed suitable habitat after 

application of the two habitat filters at 4,500-foot elevation and below. In addition, hydrological 

surveys on all new proposed NFS trails (Alternative 2 and 5) have been completed by hydrologists 

and technicians. These two alternatives include all unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added 

to the system as motorized trails under action alternatives 2, 4, and 5. The focus of these surveys is to 

determine the risk for the potential effects to aquatic biota, soil and water resources due to each 

individual route. The goal of these surveys, and subsequent field visits and discussions, was to make 

one of four ratings for aquatic wildlife species2

 2 The assumption is that the ratings for soils and water resources reflect the effects to water quality and thus equal effects to TES 

herpetofauna. 

and soil and water impacts for each route. These 

ratings are the same for all species (TES herpetofauna) with the exception of the increased distance 

northwestern pond turtles travel away from streams (up to 500 feet) for egg laying. The ratings are 

based on OHV stream crossings, and the routes rated moderate to high would be mitigated 

accordingly. The ratings are also based on the analysis made by the hydrologists, site conditions, and 

the potential for sedimentation into the streams. In addition, the ratings are based on known and 

potential populations of TES herpetofauna and suitability of habitat. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

148 – Plumas National Forest

• Low: The route was considered, a field visit was made and the aquatic wildlife and soil and 

water resource effects would not be adverse (assuming routine maintenance of the trail).

• Moderate: The route was considered, a field visit was made and aquatic wildlife and soil 

and water resource effects are currently less than adverse. Site-specific measures are 

prescribed to prevent future potential adverse effects to the aquatic wildlife, soil and water 

resource. Site-specific measures may include addition or modification of route drainage 

features (out-sloping, rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts); addition or 

modification of existing route stream crossing structures; relocation of short segments, a 

small distance from the existing route; and designation of acceptable seasons of use. 

• High: The route was considered, a field visit was made and aquatic biota, soil and water 

resource effects are currently adverse. Site-specific measures for these routes are comprised 

of the same list of measures presented above for the Moderate rating. However, measures for 

routes rated “High” are necessary to minimize current aquatic wildlife, soil and water 

resource effects to less than adverse. The biologists and watershed staff recommend that 

these routes may be added to the NFTS after implementation of conservation measures.

Extreme: The route was considered, a field visit was made and a determination was made 

that the aquatic wildlife and soil and water resource effects cannot be mitigated without 

additional environmental analysis. The route is not recommended by the biologists and 

watershed staff for inclusion on the NFTS. The reason for this recommendation is that 

measures to reduce aquatic wildlife, soil and water resource effects to less than adverse 

would not be economically feasible, meet safety standards, or would not be effective due to 

physical constraints (such as the route’s close proximity to streams, frequent stream 

crossings, steep slopes, or highly erosive soils).

1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. 

Considerations: General discussion of direct/indirect effects if no action is taken and cross-country 

travel continues (with continued concentrated use of existing unauthorized routes and continued route 

proliferation in the long term). This includes likely degradation of riparian vegetation, increased bank 

erosion, nutrient loading, sedimentation, hydrocarbon pollution, which in turn increases metabolic 

rate, respiration crushing, and oxygen demand of fish and amphibians (Jennings 1996). Literature 

states sediment in spawning gravel increased by 2.6 – 4.3 times in watersheds with more than 4.1 

miles of road per square mile (Cedarholm et al. 1981). When the index of biotic integrity (IBI) was 

analyzed on 100 Sierra Nevada watersheds, IBI scores were negatively correlated with the 

percentages of area containing roads associated with streams (Moyle and Randall 1996). The IBI 

scores consisted of measures with six metrics e.g., native Ranid frogs, native fishes, native fish 

assemblages, anadromous fishes, trout and stream fish abundance.

General discussion for all the action alternatives on the benefits of prohibiting cross-country 

travel and future route proliferation, include assumptions for passive recovery (increase in habitat) in 

the effects assessment.

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes and/or areas) 

to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 149

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundaryvaries by species and is dependent on species biology. 

Indicator(s): 

• Miles and Acres of potential TES amphibian habitat affected by routes within Riparian 

Conservation Areas and Zone of Influence of perennial streams, intermittent streams, ponds 

and lakes. 

• Miles and Acres of potential threatened amphibian species affected within 500 feet (ZOI) of 

perennial streams, intermittent streams at 0-4% gradient on the Feather River Ranger District 

(West of the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains).

• Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS within Critical 

Aquatic Refuges (CARs) established for TES Amphibians.

• Number of stream crossings on unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails (Alts 2, 4 

and 5) by alternative.

• Unauthorized route (Alt. 1) and proposed trail miles (Alts. 2, 5 and 5) within 500 feet of 

known or historically occupied TES herpetofauna habitat. 

• Miles of proposed trails (Alt. 2, 4 and 5) and open unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) within 300’ of 

known occupied hardhead minnow habitat.

• Number of stream crossings created by available routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails (Alts. 2, 

4 and 5) by alternative. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of trails in relation to habitat and important/sensitive aquatic areas.

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of trails in relation to habitat affects aquatic species 

through mortality, disturbance, and habitat modification (Moyle and Randall 1996, Trombulek and 

Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000).

3. Cumulative Effects

Considerations: Cumulative effects are discussed in reference to the two ‘benchmark’ alternatives 

(Alternative 1 “no-action” and Alternative 3 “cross-country travel prohibited”). Cumulative effects 

discussion for all alternatives combines all direct/indirect effects of the alternatives with the existing 

system trails. Reference Table 17, 24, and 31 for analysis of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in the BA/BE.

For aquatic dependent species, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are 

analyzed. Direct and Indirect effects will be assessed in both the short term (within 1 year) and the 

long term (approximately 20 years). Cumulative effects are assessed primarily in the long term 

(approximately 20 years) and incorporate direct and indirect effects, past/present (the current 

situation) and reasonably foreseeable future trails (quantitatively as much as possible), as well as a 

qualitative discussion of other past/present and reasonably foreseeable future actions potentially 

affecting these species (e.g., timber sales, grazing, other recreational uses, etc.). The spatial boundary 

of these analyses is all the proposed and existing system trails by alternative and the TES 

herpetofauna and fish habitat potentially affected within the Plumas National Forest. Analysis for 

each action alternative addresses the effects of each of the four action alternatives.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

150 – Plumas National Forest

Short-term timeframe: cumulative effects analysis primarily will be analyzed in the long-term time 

frame.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Forestwide or PNF.

Indicator(s):

Indicator(s): 

• Miles and Acres of potential TES amphibian habitat affected by routes within Riparian 

Conservation Areas and Zone of Influence of perennial streams, intermittent streams, ponds 

and lakes. 

• Miles and Acres of potential threatened amphibian species affected within 500 feet (ZOI) of 

perennial streams, intermittent streams at 0-4% gradient on the Feather River Ranger District 

(West of the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains) 

• Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS within Critical 

Aquatic Refuges (CARs) established for TES Amphibians.

• Number of stream crossings on unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4

and 5) by alternative.

• Unauthorized route (Alt. 1) and proposed trail miles (Alts. 2, 4 and 5) within 500 feet of 

known or historically occupied by TES herpetofauna.

• Miles of proposed trails (Alt. 2, 4 and 5) and open unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) within 300’ of 

known occupied Hardhead Minnow habitat. 

• Number of stream crossings created by open routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4 

and 5) by alternative.

Methodology: GIS analysis of past/current, added, and future trails in relation to habitat and 

important/sensitive aquatic areas and in context of other past/current and future management actions 

affecting aquatic habitat.

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of trails in relation to habitat may affect aquatic 

species through mortality, disturbance, and habitat modification (Moyle and Randall 1996, Trombulek 

and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000).

3.6.4 Affected Environment

The PNF provides habitat for three species of TES amphibians and one sensitive reptile (PNF Forest 

Plan, 1988). There is one aquatic wildlife species currently listed as Threatened under the ESA and 

three species listed as Forest Service sensitive (Table 32). These species and their habitats on the PNF 

are described in detail in the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment (BE/BA) for this EIS, 

which can be found in the project record. In addition, there are two Aquatic Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) on the PNF. These species and their habitats are described in detail in the MIS section.

Existing information and knowledge about the distribution of the terrestrial and aquatic species 

on the PNF were used to develop the list of species and to develop species groups. Federally listed 

species, Forest Service sensitive species and MIS were selected and placed into species groups based 

on the potential for these species or their habitats to be affected by motor vehicle use on the PNF. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 151

Local knowledge and sources included corporate databases including distribution of special status 

species, vegetation maps, etc., which were used to develop species or habitat groups.

Table 32 provides a list of all the special status species described by status, habitat indicator, and 

distribution on the PNF. Riparian Conservation Areas maintain riparian-dependent aquatic and 

terrestrial processes around running and still waters, and could function as corridors for movement of 

upland species. Riparian Conservation Areas are built around stream buffers that vary in width with 

the nature of the stream. Perennial streams and lakes have 300-foot buffer or top of inner gorge, 

whichever is greater, on each side of the stream. Seasonally flowing streams (intermittent and 

ephemeral streams) have a 150-foot buffer on each side of the stream, measured for the bank full edge 

of the stream. In addition, special aquatic features or perennial streams with riparian conditions 

extending more than 150 feet from edge of streambank or seasonally flowing streams with riparian 

conditions extending more than 50 feet from edge of streambank have a 300-foot buffer from the 

edge of the feature or riparian vegetation, whichever width is greater. These Riparian Conservation 

Areas are the existing refugia for at-risk species, or are areas with high water quality. 

Table 32. List of Plumas National Forest special status aquatic species by habitat indicator and 

distribution.

Species Federally 

Listed 

Threatened

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Habitat Indicator Distribution on PNF

Pacific tree 

frog

X Wet meadow and 

freshwater emergent 

wetlands

Forest-wide

California 

red-legged 

frog

X Warm water ponds and 

stream with slow 

moving water and 

pools with depths 

exceeding 0.7 meters 

(2.3 ft.), and with 

overhanging vegetation 

such as willows, as 

well as emergent and 

submergent vegetation.

Suitable habitat on 

Westside on PNF 

below 4,500 feet and 

stream gradient 

between 0-4%;. two 

known populations on 

PNF. 

Foothill 

yellow-legged 

frog

X Shallow, slow flowing 

water of rocky streams 

and rivers in a variety 

of habitats including 

riparian, mixed conifer, 

and wet meadow types 

below 6,000 feet 

elevation on the west 

slope of the Sierra 

Nevada.

Below 4,500 feet 

elevation on the west 

slope and transition 

zone of the PNF.

Hardhead

minnow

X Great Valley and 

Foothill belts, and in 

larger west-slope 

streams into the yellow 

pine belt.

Known within isolated 

stretches of the North 

Fork and Middle Fork 

Feather River.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

152 – Plumas National Forest

Species Federally 

Listed 

Threatened

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Habitat Indicator Distribution on PNF

Mountain 

yellow-legged 

frog

X Low gradient (up to 

4%) perennial streams 

and lakes above 3,500 

feet elevation.

Locations above 3,500 

feet on the PNF on the 

Feather River, 

Beckwourth and Mt. 

Hough Districts.

Northern 

leopard frog

X Springs, slow flowing 

streams, marshes, 

bogs, ponds, canals, 

and reservoirs, usually 

in permanent and 

semi-permanent water 

in many habitat types 

and aquatic vegetation.

No known detections 

on the PNF. There will

be no affect to this 

species by Alternative 

1-5 and will not be 

addressed further in 

this analysis.

Northwestern 

pond turtle

X Ponds, marshes, 

rivers, and streams 

with rocky or muddy 

bottom and aquatic 

vegetation/nest sites 

consist of sandy to very 

hard soil types, and 

can be as much as 325 

feet from water (Zeiner 

et al. 1988).

Located on all Ranger 

Districts below 4,500’ 

elevation.

Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates3

X Riverine and lacustrine 

habitats.

Forest-wide.

A total of 7 species are included in the aquatic species group assessment. These include 4 

amphibian species, 1 aquatic invertebrate group, 1 fish species and 1 reptile species. These species 

were divided into wildlife groups4

Table 33

(some species occurred in more than one group) as described in

. Species not included in this assessment are species whose habitat does not occur on the 

PNF (anadromous fish and northern leopard frog). 

Table 33. Wildlife group and species represented within groups

Wildlife Group Species

Riparian and wetland species [including lacustrine 

(lakes) and riverine habitat (rivers, streams)].

Bald eagle, great gray owl, greater sandhill crane, willow 

flycatcher, hardhead, California red-legged frog, foothill 

yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, 

northwestern pond turtle, Sierra Nevada red fox, 

western red bat, yellow warbler, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences - General Effects

3.6.5.1 Aquatic Riparian

Trail construction and use also affects adjacent vegetation. Reductions in vegetation along trails 

resulting trail-associated recreation use may create edge effects that alter community structure due to 

 3 Benthic Macro-invertebrates are analyzed in the Management Indicator Species section of the FEIS. 4 Additional Groups are described in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Reports in the Project File
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 153

soil compaction and increased solar radiation and wind. Increases in soil compaction combined with 

increases in solar radiation have the potential to increase soil temperatures and decrease soil moisture, 

reducing habitat suitability for aquatic, aquatic-dependent, and riparian-dependent species.

Potential trail associated impacts to aquatic and riparian associated species include:

• Mortality or injury resulting from a motor vehicle running over or colliding with an animal.

• Loss or degradation of habitat resulting from fragmentation due to the establishment of 

roads, trails, or networks, and associated human activities. (Includes changes in sediment 

delivery, changes in water temperature, changes in channel morphology, and changes in 

hydrologic and vegetative condition of aquatic and riparian habitats, including streams, 

ponds, lakes, meadows, springs, and fens, and the associated riparian vegetation).

• Collection of live animals for use as pets (such as amphibians and reptiles) as facilitated by 

the physical characteristics of roads or trails or by road or trail access.

• A physical human-induced change in the environment that provides access for competitors 

or predators that would not have existed otherwise.

• Displacement of individual animals from a specific location that is being used for 

reproduction and rearing of young.

3.6.5.2 Fisheries

Increases in stream sediments have been correlated with decreased fry emergence, decreased juvenile 

densities, loss of winter carrying capacity, and increased predation of fish. The effects of roads and 

trails also include barriers to migration, changes in water temperature, and changes to streamflow 

regime. Culverts that are placed in improper locations at stream crossings may reduce or eliminate 

stream passage, and road crossings may be migration barriers to fish. Roads constructed adjacent to 

streams may also cause adverse effects to stream condition. Loss of riparian vegetation affects stream 

temperature and cover, which may have both negative and positive impacts on fish. Irregularly or 

unpredictable streamflows have the potential to impact fish densities by affecting reproductive 

success and over wintering survival. High streamflow events following spawning can dislodge 

amphibian and fish egg masses or displace tadpoles, metamorphs, and young fry, and therefore lead to 

increased mortality to amphibian and fish populations.

Several studies have correlated road density or indices of roads to fish density or measures of fish 

diversity (Gucinski, et al. 2001). Impacts to fisheries include sedimentation of fines, changes in 

streamflow, changes in water temperature through loss of shade or changes in groundwater, migration 

barriers, introduction of exotic fish and invasive bull frogs, changes in channel geomorphology, and 

increased fishing pressure.

3.6.5.3 Aquatic Species and Habitat

Various studies have demonstrated that sediment delivery to stream channels in a forested 

environment is correlated to road surface type, physical characteristics of the adjacent areas (e.g., 

litter depth, coarse wood), soils (erodibility), the steepness of slope below the road, and vehicle usage 

(Chin and others 2004, Clinton and Vose 2003). Other factors that contribute to in-channel sediment 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

154 – Plumas National Forest

delivery include the number of stream crossings on a channel, the condition of the stream approach, 

and the road length draining into the stream channel crossing. The relationships of roads and trails 

and effects to species are shown in Table 34.

Table 34. Road and trail impact factors of aquatic species and their habitat.

Road and Trail –

Associated Factors

Activity 

Type

Definition of Associated Factors

Collisions Harvest Mortality or injury resulting from a motor 

vehicle running over or colliding with an 

animal

Habitat loss and 

fragmentation

Habitat 

modification

Loss and resulting fragmentation of

habitat due to the establishment of roads, 

trails, or networks, and associated human 

activities

Edge effects Habitat 

modification

Changes to habitat microclimate 

associated with the edge induced by 

roads or trails

Collection Harvest Collection of live animals for use as pets 

(such as amphibians and reptiles) as 

facilitated by the physical characteristics 

of roads or trails or by road or trail access

Route for 

competitors and 

predators

Habitat 

modification

A physical human-induced change in the 

environment that provides access for 

competitors or predators that would not 

have existed otherwise

Disturbance at a 

specific site

Disturbance Displacement of individual animals from a 

specific location that is being used for 

reproduction and rearing of young

Physiological 

response

Disturbance Increase in heart rate or stress hormones 

when near a road or trail or network of 

roads or trails

3.6.5.4 Herpetofauna

Potential road and trail associated risk factors to suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs 

(CRLF), foothill yellow-legged frogs (FYLF), mountain yellow-legged frogs (MYLF), and 

northwestern pond turtles (NWPT) (referred to as Herpetofauna), may cause modification or loss of 

habitat or habitat components, primarily aquatic and adjacent riparian environments used for 

reproduction, cover, foraging, and aestivation. Egg survival may be impacted by roads and trails 

through increases in fine sediments within aquatic habitats and crush eggs in upland habitats 

(NWPT). Stream crossings and roads and trails that are within close proximity to streams and ponds 

have the potential to impact riparian vegetation, emergent vegetation, nutrient loading, and channel 

morphology and hydrology that are important habitat components for frog species and NWPT.

The degree to which trails and roads affect frogs and NWPTs and their habitat depends on many 

factors such as road density, road type, and traffic intensity. No studies have identified the impacts of 

wheeled vehicle use of roads or trails on foothill yellow-legged frogs or NWPTs. Most studies on 

road and trail associated factors address other amphibians (e.g., Fahrig et al. 1995, Mazerolle 2003). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 155

Several studies have shown that amphibian densities are inversely related to road density and traffic 

intensity (see Fahrig et al. 1995, Vos and Chardon 1998).

Direct impacts to frog populations and NWPTs from roads potentially include road mortality, 

direct loss of habitat, or creation of barriers. Mass mortalities of other species of frogs have been 

documented during dispersal where roads intersect natal/breeding habitat and non-breeding foraging 

habitat (Hine et al. 1981, Fahrig et al. 1995; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Mortality from vehicles 

can reduce population size and reduce movement between resources and conspecific populations 

(Carr and Fahrig 2001). Road mortality is a potential risk factor for herpetofauna, because roads are 

common over the areas encompassing their historic range on the PNF, many of the roads presently 

have at least moderate traffic levels; and some observations suggest upslope seasonal movements by 

frogs likely intersect roads (Mark, T. personal communication). 

Roads can also impact populations of frogs by affecting their riparian or terrestrial habitat. 

Trombulak and Frissell (2000) identified eight physical characteristics of the environment that may be 

altered by roads: soil density, temperature, soil water content, light, dust, surface-water flow, pattern 

of runoff, and sedimentation. The presence of roads is highly correlated with changes in the 

hydrologic and geomorphic processes that affect aquatic and riparian systems (Trombulak and Frissell 

2000). Roads can influence both peak flows (floods) and debris flows (rapid movements of soil, 

sediment, and large wood stream channels) two processes, which have major influences on riparian 

vegetation (Jones et al. 2000) as well as aquatic and riparian patch dynamics critical to stream 

ecosystems (Pringle et al. 1988). California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow-legged frogs, mountainyellow legged frogs, and Northwestern pond turtle breed in streams, which may be affected by 

fluctuations in the frequency or magnitude of peak and debris flows of adjacent streams. Fluctuations 

causing reductions or excesses in available water could severely affect recruitment. Hydrologic 

effects are likely to persist for as long as the road remains a physical feature altering flow routing 

often long after abandonment and revegetation of the road surface (Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

Increased sedimentation from roads also impacts riparian habitat used by frogs. The knowledge of 

the impact of increased sediment load on amphibians is limited (Gillespie 2002). However, the 

negative impacts of increased sediments on aquatic species, including fish, macroinvertebrates, and 

periphyton, are well known (Power 1990, Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, Waters 1995). The 

transfer of sediment to streams and other water bodies at road crossings is also a consequence of 

roads and trails (Richardson et al. 1975). The surfaces of unpaved roads can route fine sediments to 

streams, lakes, and wetlands, increasing turbidity of the water (Reid and Dunne 1984). This disrupts 

stream ecosystems by inhibiting aquatic plant, macro-invertebrate, and fish productivity. High 

concentrations of suspended sediment may directly kill aquatic organisms and impair aquatic 

productivity (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). The effects are heightened if the sediments contain toxic 

materials (Maxell and Hokit 1999). Increased sedimentation may also reduce availability of important 

food resources for tadpoles such as algae (Power 1990). Fine sediment deposits also tend to fill pools 

and smooth gravel beds, degrading habitats (Forman and Alexander 1998) and possibly the 

availability of oviposition sites or larval refugia (Welsh and Ollivier 1998). In addition, the 

consequences of past sedimentation are long term and cumulative, and cannot be mitigated effectively 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

156 – Plumas National Forest

(Hagans et al. 1986). The only data addressing sedimentation effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs 

are from Oregon, where sedimentation emerged as one of the variables affecting foothill yellowlegged frog occupancy (Borisenko and Hayes 1999 in Mark, T. 2008).

The spread of chemicals is another way in which roads may impact frog and turtles. At least five 

different general classes of chemicals are transferred into the environment from maintenance and use 

of roads: heavy metals, salt, organic molecules, ozone, and nutrients contribute (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000). The change of the chemical environment by roads may affect living organisms in 

several ways. For example, chemicals found in road de-icers may kill (Doughtery and Smith 2006) or 

displace frog life stages, or they may be accumulated in plants as toxins which, in turn, may depress 

larval amphibian growth. Another example is the historic use of lead as a fuel additive that may have 

affected foothill yellow-legged frogs because lead has been shown to have sublethal effects on growth 

and behavior of northern leopard frog larvae (Chen et al. 2006). No data exist that specifically 

addresses the effects of road associated chemicals on CRLF (Mark, T. 2008), MYLF, or NWPT.

3.6.6 California Red-Legged Frog 

3.6.6.1 Affected Environment

The Sierra Nevada bioregion has numerous major rivers, hundreds of lakes, and thousands of miles of 

streams that form 31 watersheds (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2006). Sixty percent of California's 

water originates from the Sierra Nevada (Sierra Nevada Research Center). Throughout the Sierra 

Nevada, over the last 150 years anthropogenic disturbances such as dam construction have altered 

water temperatures, water volume, stream-flow patterns, and quantities of organic matter and 

nutrients of many streams (Kattelmann and Shilling 2004). In addition, the introduction of predatory 

invasive non-native bullfrogs into waterbodies and non-native fish into streams and lakes that were 

historically fishless has altered many aquatic systems. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP 

1996) noted that across the Sierra Nevada bioregion, aquatic/riparian systems are the most altered and 

impaired habitats “Riparian areas have been damaged extensively by placer mining (northern and 

west-central Sierra) and grazing (Sierra-wide), and locally by dams, ditches, flumes, pipelines, roads, 

timber harvest, residential development, and recreational activities” (SNEP 1996). Similarly, 

herpetofauna populations have severely declined throughout the Sierra Nevada at all elevations. 

Aquatic features found on the Plumas National Forest (Table 35) include both stream and lake 

systems. Within the administrative boundary, there are over 1,000 miles of streams, 64 lakes, 

reservoirs, and ponds (with an approximate aggregate surface area of 14,200 acres), and 

approximately 45,000 acres of riparian areas. As is the case across the Sierra Nevada, aquatic features 

and riparian areas within the Plumas National Forest have been affected to varying degrees by 

mining, dams and water impoundments, ditches, flumes, roads, timber harvest, grazing, mining, and 

recreation, including off-highway vehicle use. Native herpetofauna populations on the forest have 

been affected by introductions of non-native species such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieu), bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), and signal crayfish (Pacifasticus leniusculus).

The California red-legged frog (CRLF) is federally listed as Threatened by the USFWS on the 

PNF. Currently, there are two known breeding populations of CRLF on the PNF, one at Hughes Place 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 157

in the French Creek watershed, and one at Little Oregon Creek in the Dobbins watershed. There are 

no trails proposed within the Dobbins watershed and therefore no direct or indirect effects to the 

CRLF or its habitat would occur. Habitat site assessments (USFWS) are completed within the French 

Creek watershed. All known and potential CRLF habitat below 4,500 feet and within 0-4% gradient 

and affected by the proposed designated trails will either be surveyed to USFWS protocol (pers. 

comm., USFWS, 2008), or assumed occupied. 

The life history requirements are found and described in detail in the Biological Assessment 

(Project Record). The life history for CRLF dispersal habitats and distances is found in the Federal 

Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212), Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) [Pages 66906-66913], Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AJ 16.

The historic range of the CRLF was limited to the coastal ranges, central valley, and the western 

slopes of the Sierra Nevada in California (Jennings 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994). This proposed 

project is within this historic range. The current range of the CRLF extends into Butte County, but 

does not include Plumas County (USFWS 2000a, USDA-SNFPA, 2001). All federal land was initially 

excluded for critical habitat designation because it was determined that the Standards and Guidelines 

from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment protected CRLF habitat (Federal Register 50 CFR17, 

pg. 19527). However, the Plumas National Forest now contains critical habitat as designated in the 

Final Rule for CRLF Critical Habitat (Federal Register 50 CFR 17, Volume 75, No. 51, dated March 

17, 2010. The final designated critical habitat for the CRLF includes adding two critical habitat units, 

BUT-1 and YUB-1 (as indicated in project files and maps) on the Plumas National Forest.

Starting in 1995 to present, the Plumas NF has conducted amphibian surveys using “A 

Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians (Fellers and Freel 1995)”. The Plumas 

conducted formal amphibian surveys in 1996 (Fellers 1997) and red-legged frogs were not located. 

Surveys conducted from 1997-1999 used the USFWS’s protocol, as described in U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs 

(USFWS 1997), which requires two daytime and two night-time visits, as well as the Fellers protocol. 

These surveys occurred in areas identified as having the highest potentially suitable habitat attributes. 

Formal amphibian surveys were conducted for a land exchange in 1997, and a major breeding 

population of California red-legged frogs was located in the French Creek watershed (Butte County) 

at Hughes Pond. This was the first known breeding population in the Northern Sierra Nevada. This 

finding then launched formal amphibian surveys in partnership with the California Academy of 

Science across the Plumas NF (Vindum and Koo 1999) in 1998 and 1999. These 1998 and 1999 

surveys by the Academy resulted in no confirmed California red-legged frog sightings outside of 

Hughes Pond.

Approximately 70 percent of the Plumas NF has been surveyed for forest projects such as 

HFQLGFRA, Land Exchanges, Research Interest (Cal. Academy of Sciences, Jens Vindim), and 

other vegetation management projects. The emphasis for Herptofauna surveys on the Plumas were for 

“key” projects: Inventories have occurred for Hydropower relicensing (~50-60 miles of streams and 

lakes), cooperative agreements with California Academy of Sciences (~85 miles) and a museum 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

158 – Plumas National Forest

record search across the country for herptofauna records, inventories for vegetation management and 

stream restoration projects, range allotments (~50% of the PNF), and inventories for HFQLGFRA 

monitoring (~48% of the PNF landbase). Approximately 259-300 miles of stream and lake habitat has 

been surveyed for herpetofauna on the Plumas NF, resulting in only two confirmed reproducing 

populations of CRLFs in the French Creek watershed (i.e. Hughes Pond) and the Dobbins Creek 

watershed (i.e. Little Oregon Creek). The Little Oregon Creek population was found in 2000 within 

the Dobbins Creek watershed (Yuba County) on the Feather River District of the Plumas NF. 

Suspected and unconfirmed occurrences have been reported in Pinkard Creek, Woodleaf, Howland 

Flat area, Slate Creek, and East Branch Slate Creek, all of which are located on the Feather River 

Ranger District. An analysis of confirmed and unconfirmed occurrences of the CRLF is documented 

in Appendix IV of the BA. The abundance and distribution of this species is not fully known, but 

there appears to be little suitable breeding habitat across the Forest. The two known breeding 

populations on the PNF are located in man-made ponds. The Hughes population exists in a pond 

adjacent to a historic resort, while the Little Oregon Creek population is located in “mining 

depressions” or “dredger ponds” that fill with water due to springs. 

The Plumas NF has surveyed most of the potentially suitable habitat at 4,500 feet and below with 

a 0-4% gradient on the Beckwourth and Mount Hough Ranger Districts with various protocols 

(Fellers and Freel, 1994, USFWS CRLF Protocol, 1996) and have never located any life stages of the 

CRLF on these Districts. The total landbase of the Plumas National Forest is approximately 1,203,696 

acres of which 589,811 acres have been surveyed (49%) for HFQLG projects alone. This included use 

of the USFWS CRLF Protocol on all habitats identified as suitable once site assessments were 

completed. The Forests’ biologists have continued to complete CRLF site assessments and followed 

up with CRLF protocol surveys to meet the requirements of the HFQLGFRA ROD of 1999. 

Professional biological judgment by the Forest Biologist is that the CRLF does not occur east of the 

ridge from the Feather River Ranger District onto the Mount Hough and Beckwourth Ranger 

Districts. The key area of concern where this species may be present is in the foothills and west slopes 

of the Plumas National Forest on the Feather River Ranger District. Although this document contains 

information of surveys completed and potential effects to the CRLF by the proposed alternatives on 

the potential for occurrence of this species on the two Districts “east” of the western ridge on the 

Forest (Mount Hough Ranger District and the Beckwourth Ranger District), it is believed that this 

species does not occur on the Mt. Hough or the Beckwourth Ranger Districts. The analysis for CRLF 

on the Plumas National Forest is west of the crest on the Feather River Ranger District. There are no 

OHV trails proposed within the Dobbins Creek watershed (Little Oregon Creek) and analysis of the 

proposed actions is not required . Habitat site assessments (USFWS) were completed within the 

French Creek watershed and throughout the Jack’s CAR in the summer of 2008 (reference Appendix 

1 of the BA). The results of these site assessments found that of the habitat assessed, all habitats fell 

within the low to moderate range of suitability, and that no habitat assessed was within the range of 

high habitat suitability. All known and potential CRLF habitat was not surveyed to full USFWS 

protocol (pers. comm., USFWS, 2008), with only habitat site assessment portion of the protocol 

completed, and therefore occupancy was assumed.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 159

Hughes Pond Telemetry Study - A four year-telemetry study (Wildlife Research Associates, 

2008) has been completed on the Hughes Pond population. The following paragraphs in quotations 

are from the final telemetry study report (Tatarian, 2008): “While much is known about the life 

history of California red-legged frog, little is known about the phenology, demographics and habitat 

use of R. draytonii populations in the Sierra Nevada. To determine the management needs of this 

species we determined the population number and phenology, and tracked the movement patterns of a 

population in the ephemeral Hughes Pond, Butte County, within the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This 

fourth year report presents the results of our research of R. draytonii at Hughes Pond, for all years of 

this research project, between 2004-and 2007”. “The Hughes four-year telemetry study was focused 

on the habitat use, movement patterns and dispersal patterns of the Hughes Pond population within a 

conifer-hardwood ecosystem. In the years when the pond dried, all radio-tagged frogs moved 

downstream and downslope to a seep area. In years the pond was perennial, no frogs moved away 

from the pond. Frogs initiated movements when the pond was dry and after the first 0.5 cm of rain in 

the fall. Individuals typically moved aquatically 105 linear meters from the source pond. One male 

moved aquatically 208 meters in 2007. No additional movements were made downstream except by 

this same male. Adults tracked to the seep stayed in a localized area. Within the pond, frog occupied 

sites were canopied covered either by Carex sp. or Salix sp. No new CRF adults were detected at the 

pond and no migration movements were detected during radio-tracking”.

“To date, research reveals a high site fidelity to the pond and seep area. Breeding data from 2008 

revealed that frogs laid their egg masses (n=7) on the branches of Salix sp. Only one egg mass was 

laid at the base of a Carex sp. We focused on implementing protection measures, in conjunction with 

the U.S. Forest Service Plumas National Forest biologists, for the egg masses and tadpoles. In 2008, 

we conducted a second year of sampling for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis due to an emerging 

infectious disease of amphibians. As in 2007, we found several individuals tested positive for the 

fungus, while the others tested completely negative.”

“Data from this research differs from studies of Rana draytonii in more mesic habitats along parts 

of the California coast; results of these studies suggest that management for the species in similar 

habitats within the Sierra Nevada should include a buffer zone with several key components, 

including: (1) a connection between breeding habitat and non-breeding aquatic habitat, with a 

sufficient buffer to maintain the slope stability and riparian habitat, and (2) sufficient object cover in 

both breeding and aquatic habitat.”

Seasonal Patterns of Movements - The frogs remained at the pond during the winter, spring, and 

summer seasons until the pond dried. When the water evaporated, between July and September the 

frogs moved away from the pond, approximately 105 meters south and downslope of the pond into 

the seep. When the pond became dry in 2005 and 2007, frog movements away from the pond 

occurred during the first 0.5 cm of rain of the fall months (between September and November). As 

observed in other populations of CRF, movements from the pond occurred during periods of rain 

(Tatarian 2004, Bulger, et al. 2003). For the four years combined, we observed 6 individuals with 

radio-tags making 8 aquatic movements and we presumed all of the frogs moved between the pond 

and the seep when the pond dried down. No forays through upland habitat greater than 20 meters 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

160 – Plumas National Forest

were observed during the study; however, movements were detected into upland habitat that was 

within the influence of the pond (e.g., under vegetation associated with the pond, such as 

blackberries).

“Frogs moved either to the seep area, or further downstream to areas with consistent water or 

moisture content. Movement from the seep back to Hughes Pond occurred after the water depth in the 

pond had increased to 2 feet. This movement pattern is similar to the findings of Bulger et al. (2003) 

in which it was found that non-migrating individuals moved the greatest distances (130 m) during 

summer and fall rains, with terrestrial movement distances decreasing during the breeding season, and 

90% of radio-tagged frogs being reported within 6 m of water. Fellers and Kleeman (2007) also 

reported individuals moving from breeding ponds in Marin after the ponds began to dry.”

Distances, Duration and Habitat Use During Aquatic Movements - “Radio-tracked frogs were 

found to have moved an average aquatic distance of 122.7 m (range 105 – 208 m). Frogs moved to 

different locations within the seep area and were often buried under the mud in water that was 

approximately 10 cm deep. When they moved around the seep area, up to 10 meters upstream, they 

were detected underneath willow roots and branches. When the pond attained sufficient water and soil 

moisture, approximately 60 cm in depth, the frogs returned to the pond.”

“The male was tracked to an undercut ledge underneath a grass tussock approximately 1 meter 

from the edge of the creek. A large 75-cm diameter log was located within 60 cm of the refuge site. 

Within 2 days of detection, the male then moved a further 31 meters downstream to an area that 

contained three large logs that had fallen over the creek.”

“Very few individuals made terrestrial forays at Hughes Pond. Although one female moved to the 

vegetation 1.5 meters above the water surface in 2007, no other movements were detected until the 

frogs moved to the seep area in August or September.”

Habitat Use - “R. draytonii at Hughes Pond were tracked to areas beneath Carex sp., blackberry 

bushes and grasses, as well as under 1-2 inches of muddy water in the seep, and were difficult to find 

without the use of telemetry. Frogs were also tracked into the Eleocharis at the water’s edge. Frogs 

occupied areas under logs and at the bases of Carex when the pond began to draw down. Daytime 

shelters in harsh environments are important because they provide anurans and other amphibians with 

opportunities for thermal regulation, and protection from desiccation and predators (Spieler and 

Linsenmair 1998). Frogs that select terrestrial shelters may minimize evaporative water loss by doing 

so.

3.6.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives5

As described above in general effects, the following is a list of potential direct and indirect effects to 

frogs and turtles by the action alternatives:

• Direct Effect: Mortality or injury resulting from a motor vehicle running over or colliding 

with an animal.

 5 There are no OHV trails proposed within the Dobbins Creek watershed (Little Oregon Creek), and therefore 

no direct or indirect effects to the CRLF or its habitat is expected at this known occupied site. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 161

• Direct Effect: Collection of live animals for use as pets (such as amphibians and reptiles) as 

facilitated by the physical characteristics of roads or trails or by road or trail access.

• Direct Effect: A physical human-induced change in the environment that provides access for 

competitors or predators that would not have existed otherwise.

• Direct Effect: Displacement of individual animals from a specific location that is being used 

for reproduction and rearing of young.

• Indirect Effect: Loss or degradation resulting fragmentation of habitat due to the 

establishment of roads, trails, or networks, and associated human activities. (Includes 

changes in sediment delivery, changes in water temperature, changes in channel morphology, 

and changes in hydrologic and vegetative condition of aquatic and riparian habitats, 

including streams, ponds, lakes, meadows, springs, and fens, and the associated riparian 

vegetation).

Region 5 - USFWS Programmatic Agreement - Project Design Criteria 

The following analysis was completed to address how the proposed action followed or did not follow 

the project design criteria developed from the programmatic agreement between the U. S. Forest 

Service, Region 5 Pacific Southwest and the USFWS for threatened and endangered species: “Route 

Designation: Project Design Criteria for “No Effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” 

determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1 (October 2006). These criteria were 

quantified and evaluated for the level of effects in Table 35. A detailed analysis of Alternative 5 can 

be found in the biological assessment and evaluation (project record). The Forest has designed 

Alternative 5 to meet the programmatic agreement with a may affect not likely to adversely affect 

determination for the CRLF. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 162

Table 35. California Red Legged Frog Design Criteria

California Red Legged Frog 

Design Criteria Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

#1. Routes or areas do not have 

potential to deliver sediment into 

stream associated with CRLF.

Meets 

Criteria Y/N N N Y Y Y

Miles of 

routes

14 mi (10 ac) (P) RCA

19 mi (14 ac) (I) RCA

12 mi (9 ac) (P) ZOI

18 mi (13 ac) (I) ZOI

4 mi (3 ac)(P)RCA,

5 mi (4 ac) (I) RCA,

4 mi (3 ac)(P)ZOI

6 mi (5 ac) (I) ZOI

0 mi (0 ac)(P)RCA

0 mi (0 ac) (I) RCA

0 mi (0 ac) (P) ZOI

0 mi (0 ac) (I) ZOI

0 mi (0 ac)(P) RCA

0 mi (0ac) (I) RCA

0 mi (0 ac)(P)ZOI

.3 mi (.2 ac) (I) ZOI

0 mi(0 ac)(P)RCA

.6 mi (.4 ac) (I) RCA

.3 mi(P) (.2 ac)(P) ZOI

1.2 mi (.9 ac) (I) ZOI

Effects 

H/M/L6 H M None L L

#2. In suitable CRLF habitat avoid 

Riparian Reserve, and RCAs, 

except to cross. Crossing 

approachs get rider in/out in 

shortest distance.

Meets 

Criteria Y/N N N Y Y Y

No. of 

Crossings 53 (P), 85 (I) 19 (P), 21 (I) 0 0 (P), 0 (I) 0(P), 4 (I)

Effects H/M/L H M None L L

#3. Routes or areas do not cross 

any stream or waterbody w/in 500' 

of known occupied sites of CRLF; & 

route or area not w/in 500' from 

wetland. 

Meets 

Criteria Y/N N N Y Y Y

No. of 

Crossings/mi. 

route

0 crossings/ .5 mi. 

route (.4 ac)

0 crossings/ .3 

mi. route (.2 ac)

0 0 0

Effects H/M/L H H None None None

 6 L: Low resource effects with routine maintenance of the trail, M: Moderate resource effects that require site-specific maintenance to reduce current or potential 

future effects. H: High resource effects that require site-specific mitigation to reduce effects. E: Extreme resource effects that cannot be mitigated without additional 

environmental analysis. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 163

California Red-legged Frog 

Design Criteria Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

#4. In occupied CRLF habitat, 

routes or areas do not have the 

potential to capture or divert 

streamflow. Approaches are 

downsloped toward the stream in 

both sides.

Meets 

Criteria Y/N N N Y Y Y

Miles of 

routes .5 mile .3 mile 0 0 0

Effects H/M/L 

Wetland N(H) H None None None

#5. Areas are located outside of 

Riparian Reserves, RCAs, 

meadows, and wetlands within 

CRLF habitat.

Meets 

Criteria Y/N Y Y Y Y Y

No./acres of 

"Areas" 0 0 0 0 0

Effects H/M/L None None None None None

#6. No route or areas are within 

Critical Aquatic Refuges for CRLF. 

Meets 

Criteria Y/N N N Y Y Y

Miles of 

routes1 87.0 miles 36.0 miles 0 0 0

Effects H/M/L H M None None2 None

1 No OHV area proposed in Alts. 4 & 5. 

P=perennial, I=intermittent, RCA=Riparian 

Conservation Area, ZOI=Zone of Influence

2 9 to 11 miles of routes are located in Rock and Bucks CARs on Mt. Hough RD, East of Crest outside of range for CRLF (below 

4,500')

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 all meet USFWS Criteria for CRLF, detailed analysis in the Biological Analysis. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 164

3.6.6.2.1 Route and Trail Miles and potentially affected acres within Riparian Conservation Areas and Zone of 

Influence

Alternative 1

With implementation of Alternative 1 there is a very high number of miles unauthorized existing 

routes being used under cross-country travel on the PNF and thus a greater negative effect; 14 miles 

(10 acres of potential habitat)7

Table 36

of routes fall within 300-foot RCA of perennial streams and 19 miles 

(14.0 acres of potential habitat) of routes fall within the 300-foot RCA buffer of intermittent streams 

( ). Twelve miles of routes (9 acres of potential habitat) are within the 300-to-500-foot ZOI 

buffer of perennial streams and 18 miles (13 acres of potential habitat) of routes are within the 300-to500-foot ZOI buffer of intermittent streams at 4,500 foot elevation and below on the Plumas National 

Forest (Table 37). With the implementation of Alternative 1, there is potential for high direct and 

indirect effects to the CRLF and potential CRLF habitat. These figures dramatically drop in proposed 

designated trail miles with all other action alternatives. 

Alternative 2

A moderate to low number of trail miles and potentially affected acres are proposed for Alternative 2, 

with 4 miles (3 acres of potential habitat) within the 300 foot RCA of perennial streams and 5 miles (4 

acres of potential habitat) within the 300 foot RCA of intermittent streams (Table 36). Four miles (3 

acres of potential habitat) of routes fall within the 300-to-500-foot ZOI of perennial streams, and 6 

miles (5 acres of potential habitat) within the 300-to-500-foot ZOI of intermittent streams (Table 37). 

With the implementation of Alternative 2, there is potential for moderate to low direct and indirect 

effects to the California red-legged frog and potential CRLF habitat.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes to add no new trails to the system, and therefore, no negative direct and 

indirect effects would occur to the California red-legged frog and potential CRLF habitat. Alternative 

three does eliminate cross country travel, reducing the use of 1,107 miles of user created trails, and 

therefore will have a positive effect on CRLF and their habitat.

Alternatives 4 and 5

As summarized in Table 35, no trail miles are proposed with Alternatives 4 and 5 within the RCA of 

perennial streams and zero to .06 miles (0-0.4 acres of potential habitat) respectively, within the RCA 

of intermittent streams (Table 36). Zero to .3 miles (0-0.2 acres of potential habitat) respectively 

within the 300-to-500-foot ZOI of perennial streams and .3 to 1.2 miles (.2 to .9 acres of potential 

habitat) respectively within the ZOI of intermittent streams (Table 37). Forestwide, this is 13 to 21% 

of the number of miles currently existing as unauthorized routes under cross-country travel 

(Alternative 1) and affecting approximately 79 to 87% less potential habitat. With the implementation 

of Alternative 4 and 5, there is potential for low direct and indirect effects to the California red-legged 

frog and potential CRLF habitat (Table 36, Table 37, Table 38, and Table 39) only include the miles of 

routes that occur on the Feather River Ranger District below 4,500 feet.

 7 The proportion of a species habitat that is affected by motorized routes (including the routes plus a biologically meaningful ‘zone of influence’ (e.g., 300’ RCA, 500’ 

ZOI).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 165

Table 36. Miles and Acres of potential California Red Legged Frog habitat affected within 300 feet 

(RCA) of perennial streams, intermittent streams, ponds and lakes on the Feather River Ranger District 

(West of the Crest)

Habitat Acres on 

Forest 

(<4500’) 

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS and 

acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

Perennial 

Streams

152,929 14.1 10.2 4.3 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intermittent 

Streams

81,891 19.5 14.0 5.4 4.0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.4

Ponds 

Lakes 

15,029 .1 .07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: SNF S&G#94: Ground disturbing activity will be no more than 25% of RCA; all of the figures above total no more than 1% 

of the perennial and intermittent RCAs in Alternative 1. Alternative 5 is much less . Riparian Management Objectives have been 

met by the proposed alternative (reference Appendix A of Soil and Water Report).

Table 37. Miles and Acres of potential California Red Legged Frog habitat affected within 300-500 feet 

(ZOI) of perennial streams, intermittent streams, ponds and lakes on the Feather River Ranger District 

(West of the Crest)

Habitat Acres on 

FRRD

(<4500’) 

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS and 

acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

Perennial 

Streams

152,929 11.9 9.0 4.3 3.0 0 0 0 0 .3 .2

Intermittent 

Streams

81,891 18.3 13.0 6.2 5.0 0 0 .3 .2 1.2 .9

Ponds 

Lakes 

15,029 0.1 .07 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0

Potentially suitable breeding habitat is further defined as streams with a 0 to 4% gradient at 4,500 

feet and below (Table 38). Based on GIS analysis, there were little to no routes that crossed through 

this potentially suitable habitat. GIS queries also found that in Alternative 1, four miles (3 acres of 

potential habitat) is affected by unauthorized routes within 500 feet of streams 0 to 4% gradient on the 

Feather River Ranger District. In Alternative 2; 1⁄2 mile (.3 acre of potential habitat) is affected by 

proposed routes within 500 feet of streams 0 to 4% gradient. Zero miles of proposed routes and no 

potential habitat are affected within 500 feet of streams 0 to 4% gradient with Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. 

In addition, less than .01% of the CARs at 4,500 feet and below are affected by routes that fall within 

500 feet of perennial streams. A map of this exercise can be found in project files. For additional 

justification of identification of suitable habitat, reference Appendix II of the Aquatic Biological 

Assessment and Evaluation.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

166 – Plumas National Forest

Table 38. Miles and Acres of potential California Red Legged Frog habitat affected within 500 feet (ZOI) 

of perennial streams, intermittent streams at 0-4% gradient on the Feather River Ranger District (West 

of the Crest)

Habitat Acres on 

FRRD

(<4,500’)

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS and 

acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

0-2% 2-4% 0-2% 2-4% 0-2% 2-4% 0-2% 2-4% 0-2% 2-4%

P&I Miles 234,820 1.1 2.6 0.1 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

P&I Acres Acres 0.8 1.9 .07 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road miles are used as a relative index to measure the potential indirect effects to aquatic species 

including the California red-legged frog. As discussed above in the general effects section that to 

continuation of cross country travel throughout the Forest, may have a direct effect on the CRLF by 

potentially crushing the frog, tadpole, or eggs by a vehicle. Indirectly, the loss of riparian cover, soil 

compaction, increased access by predators due to lack of cover and habitat degradation are direct and 

indirect effects of the implementation of Alternative 1. There is minimal impact to lakes and ponds by 

the No-action and all four action alternatives within the PNF and therefore there will be no further 

discussion regarding lakes and ponds.

3.6.6.2.2 Route and Trail Miles within Critical Aquatic Refuges

There are four Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) that were developed for known and suspected 

populations of California red-legged frogs: Woodleaf, Pinkard, Oregon, and Jacks. In addition, there 

are two CARs (Rock and Bucks) on the Mt. Hough Ranger District with National Forest System 

lands below 4,500 feet, however these CARs falls outside of the range of the California red-legged 

frog (CRLF) and therefore will not be analyzed in detail. Two populations of CRLF are known within 

the Oregon and Jack’s CARs. There are no routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS in any 

alternative in the Oregon CAR and thus no direct or indirect effect to the CRLF would occur, and no 

additional analysis is required within this CAR. 

The Jack’s CAR is of concern due to a known breeding population and the number of trails 

proposed by the action alternatives within this CAR. Alternative 1 has the potential for the greatest 

impact to the CRLF with 47 miles of existing trails and unauthorized routes in the Jack’s CAR with a 

known breeding population of CRLF (Table 39) with the potential for a very high direct and indirect 

effect to CRLF and its potential habitat. The high density of unauthorized routes under Alternative 1 

within the Jack’s CAR shows the potential impact of OHVs on a Forest open to cross-country travel. 

Currently, there is 0.5 mile of proposed route within 500 feet of a CRLF occupied site (Table 35 and

Table 41) in the Jack’s CAR. There are no proposed designated trails in Alternatives 4 and 5 in the 

Jack’s CAR with a known population of CRLF. Twenty-two miles and 20 miles of proposed trails to 

be added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2 with a potential moderate to high direct and indirect effect to 

the CRLF population. There are zero miles of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS in Alternative 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 167

3, with no direct and indirect effect to CRLF and its population. With low quality suitable CRLF 

habitat scattered throughout the French Creek watershed there is a low potential of an OHV crushing 

a CRLF adult or metamorph and directly affecting the species.

Only 0.6 mile of unauthorized routes are included in Alternative 1 in the Woodleaf CAR with 

minimal impact, and no miles of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS by the action Alternatives (2 

thru 5). There would be no direct or indirect effect to CRLF within the Woodleaf CAR. 

The Pinkard CAR was developed for a suspected CRLF detection made in 1994; however, since 

then surveys have only found FYLF and one MYLF have been detected within this CAR, and no 

additional CRLF detections have been made. Four miles of unauthorized routes are proposed in 

Alternative 1 and 0.5 mile is proposed in Alternative 2 with zero miles proposed in Alternative 3 thru 

5. The one 36-acre use area proposed in Alternative 2, on the Plumas NF at Sly Creek Reservoir. This 

use area occurs within the Pinkard CAR, however this use area does not contain suitable CRLF 

habitat. The 36-acre use area is essentially the old borrow pit that was used to build the Sly Creek 

Reservoir Dam. This 36-acre area is considered barren (no vegetation) under CHWR habitat maps 

and contains no habitat attributes that maybe used by CRLF, therefore this area would not impact 

CRLF or its habitat. Overall there is no impact to the CAR for CRLF with Alternatives 3 to 5, and a 

moderate direct and indirect effect to the Jack’s CAR with the implementation of Alternative 2, and a 

high direct and indirect effect to the Jack’s CAR with the implementation of Alternative 1.

Table 39. Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails within Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) 

established for California red-legged frogs, Plumas National Forest.

CARs Total 

Forest 

Service 

Acres 

within the 

CAR

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Pinkard 4,907 4.3 0.5 0 0 0

Woodleaf 5,978 0.6 0 0 0 0

Oregon 5,106 0 0 0 0 0

Jacks 19,215 46.8 21.6 0 0 0

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 meet all six of the design criteria for CRLF found in the Programmatic 

Agreement between Region 5 and the USFWS that was developed to minimize effects to a no effect 

or a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination (Table 35). All routes that did not meet 

the USFWS programmatic agreement’s six criteria were excluded from Alternatives 4 and 5. In 

Alternative 2 conservation measures (as discussed in Chapter 2) were developed to minimize impacts 

to CRLF and their habitat. Proposed measures include stream crossings, hardening of the crossing 

approaches, interpretive signs and pamphlets, closure signs, seasonal closures, complete closures, and 

implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). All action alternatives meet the Sierra 

Nevada Standards and Guidelines Forest Plan Amendment (USDA, 2004). One of these Guidelines is 

to conduct a peer review for projects that propose ground-disturbing activities in more than 15% of a 

CAR. All action alternatives affect less than 1% of a CAR.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

168 – Plumas National Forest

3.6.6.2.3 Number of Stream Crossings within RCAs

Alternative 1 poses a high risk to the CRLF from native surface motorized crossing densities8

Table 40

with 

138 perennial and intermittent stream crossings ( ) on the existing unauthorized routes within

Feather River Ranger District. Alternative 1 has the greatest chance of having a direct effect by 

potentially crushing a CRLF, tadpole or egg masses, in addition to an indirect effect to their dispersal 

and potential breeding habitat by some sedimentation created by OHV crossings. Alternative 2 has a 

potential for moderate direct and indirect effects on CRLF and its potential habitat with 41 perennial 

and intermittent stream crossings proposed. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have no direct or indirect 

effects on CRLF and its potential habitat, due to zero stream crossings from proposed trails to be 

added to the NFTS on perennial and intermittent streams. Alternative 5 would have very low direct or 

indirect effect on CRLF and its potential habitat with 4 intermittent stream crossings proposed across 

the Forest. 

Table 40. Number of stream crossings on unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails to be added to 

the NFTS (Alts 2-5) by alternative on the Feather River Ranger District below 4,500’ elevation.

Stream Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Perennial 53 19 0 0 0

Intermittent 85 21 0 0 4

Total Crossings 138 40 0 0 4

3.6.6.2.4 Miles of Routes within 500 feet of known CRLF occupied sites

A 500-foot buffer was placed around every occurrence of TES herpetofauna on the Forest and Table 

41 displays the miles of route or trail that are within 500 feet of a known CRLF occurrence. Again 

Alternative 1 has a high potential for direct or indirect effects to CRLF and its habitat with 0.5 mile 

(0.4 acres) of unauthorized routes within 500 feet of the CRLF occurrence within the Jack’s CAR . 

This route travels directly adjacent to known CRLF breeding habitat. Alternative 2 has the potential 

for a moderate direct or indirect effect to CRLF and its habitat with 0.3 miles (0.2 acres) of 

unauthorized routes within 500 feet of the CRLF occurrence within the Jack’s CAR. Alternatives 3, 4 

and 5 have no trails proposed within 500 feet of known CRLF and their habitat.

 8 Mt. Hough RD and Beckwourth RD are excluded, outside the range of CRLF.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 169

Table 41. Unauthorized route (Alt. 1) and proposed trail miles to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) within 

500 feet of a known California Red Legged Frog occupied site. 

Species Number of 

Known/Confirmed 

Occurrences

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac.

California Redlegged Frog2 0.5 .4 0.3 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6.6.2.5 California red-legged frog Critical Habitat

Alternatives 1 and 2 have a range of .5 to .3 miles (.4-.2 acres of proposed trail miles within the 

CRLF Critical habitat with a low potential effect to CRLF and their potential habitat. There would be 

no effect to the two Critical Habitat Units (BUT-1, YUB-1) on the Plumas NF by the proposed action, 

with zero proposed routes within the boundaries of these two final Critical Habitat Units.

3.6.6.3 Cumulative Effects

3.6.6.3.1 Short vs. Long-term Effects

Alternative 1

In the short term (1 year), as described above, Alternative 1 would continue to have the potential for 

the greatest direct and indirect effect to CRLF and its habitat. In the long term (20 years), Alternative 

1 would continue to degrade occupied and suitable CRLF habitat with a range of 43 to 70 miles of 

unauthorized routes, affecting approximately 31 to 50 acres of potential habitat within the RCA and 

ZOI of the CRLF. Under continued cross-country travel, it is likely that the existing 1,107 miles of 

unauthorized trails within CRLF habitat would continue to receive motorized use, in addition to the 

130 miles of NFTS routes. Therefore, these unauthorized routes would continue to be used and there 

would be no ability for the compacted, degraded soil and vegetative conditions to recover. Alternative 

1 would have a high potential for a cumulative effect to individual CRLF, their populations, and 

potential CRLF habitat.

Alternative 2

In the short term (as described in direct and indirect section), Alternative 2 would have a reduced 

potential for a direct effect to individual CRLFs by prohibiting cross country travel, including 

reducing the density of routes being used by motor vehicles within the RCA and ZOI’s by 70%, 

therefore reducing the potential of crushing a CRLF . Indirectly, there would be a minimal change in 

the short term for recovery of unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS. In the long-term 

(20 years), the 742 miles of unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS would have time to 

recover naturally, and reduce short term cumulative effects. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes no new OHV trails to be added to the NFTS, with no direct or indirect 

negative effects. Alternative 3 prohibits cross-country travel on the Forest, including the existing 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

170 – Plumas National Forest

unauthorized routes, and, therefore, would have a positive direct and indirect effect on CRLF and 

their habitat. There would be a positive effect to individual CRLFs and their habitat. Again, indirectly, 

there would be a minimal change in the short term (1 year) for passive recovery of the 1,107 miles of 

unauthorized routes, yet within the long term (20 years), these unauthorized routes would have time 

to recover naturally, and reduce cumulative effects.

Alternatives 4 and 5

In the short term (1 year; as described in direct and indirect section), Alternatives 4 and 5 would have 

a reduced potential for a direct effect to individual CRLFs by prohibiting cross-country travel, 

including reducing the density of routes being used by motor vehicles within the RCA and ZOIs by 

approximately 75 to 93%, therefore reducing adverse effects to the CRLF.. Indirectly, there would be 

a minimal change in the short term (1 year) for recovery of the approximately 37 to 40 miles of the 

unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS within the RCA and ZOI associated with CRLF. 

Again, in the long term (20 years), these 845 to 958 miles of unauthorized routes that are not added to 

the NFTS would have time to recover naturally, and reduce cumulative effects. 

3.6.6.3.2 Cumulative Actions Applicable to all Alternatives

The Plumas National Forest currently has 130 miles of motorized OHV trails within the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS). Cumulatively, there are 14 miles of NFTS OHV trails of which 

11 miles (8 acres of potential CRLF habitat) are within the RCA (300-foot buffer) and ZOIs (300-to500-foot buffer) of perennial and intermittent streams. Again, this adds cumulatively to direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects to the CRLF by the action alternatives. A detailed analysis of the 

cumulative effect of Forest road densities can be found in the Soil and Water Resources section of 

chapter 3 and in the Soil and Water Specialist Report.

Past and current cumulative effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats include current and historic 

livestock grazing; reduced suitability of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; mining activities; and 

recreational activities including hunting, camping, and general recreation activities including all 

forms of motorized use, including 4-wheel-drive vehicles, OHVs, and motorcycles.

The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments including both cattle and sheep. 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of grazing impacts on rangelands. There 

are only three grazing allotments on the west side of the PNF; only one is active. Suitable CRLF 

habitat occurs within these allotments, and grazing activities can lead to habitat degradation and have 

the potential to contribute to cumulative effects to suitable CRLF habitat. 

The California red-legged frog was once numerous and widely distributed in California. Initial 

declines of the California red-legged frog are attributed to over harvesting (Jennings and Hayes 

1985), and then later to the introduction of the bullfrog, which have outcompeted and predated on the 

CRLF. A variety of other past cumulative impacts to California red-legged frogs have affected the 

distribution and abundance of the California red-legged frog on the PNF, including historic mining 

and grazing; urban development and mining on private land; road building, water diversions; 

recreation and non-native species introduction. All these activities have the potential to alter 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 171

California red-legged frog habitat through disturbance to vegetation, soils, hydrology, and the 

potential for introduction of invasive species. Activities (timber harvest, urban development, water 

diversions) on private land will continue to affect the species.

Although mining activities have the potential to adversely affect this species, suitable habitat has 

been created for this species (i.e. Little Oregon Creek mining tailings). Table 42 lists all the present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including fuels, vegetation, recreation, range allotment 

plans, non-motorized trail development, and special use permit re-issuance. In addition Table 42

summarizes cumulative impacts and the potential impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat. Some, but 

not all, of these activities will contribute to impacts to riverine or lacustrine habitats within the PNF 

boundary. Mining and dredging activities have occurred and continue to occur on the Forest. Mining 

and dredging activities result in sedimentation that affect CRLF habitat and decreases water quality. 

Between 1990 and 2007, approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, some of which have 

affected riverine and lacustrine habitat through increased levels of sedimentation. 

Currently, there is a high demand for recreational use on the PNF due to its close proximity to 

urban centers (e.g. Oroville, Chico, and Reno). The PNF provides a wide variety of recreational 

experiences including developed and dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

winter sports activities (downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling), summer OHV use, and 

a variety of other non-motorized use (equestrian use and mountain biking). Recreational use on the 

PNF has significantly increased compared to the past 20 to 30 years. Because of the proximity to 

urban areas and population growth, increased recreational use on the PNF is expected to continue to 

increase in the future including camping, hiking, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting, and OHV use. 

Generally, the increase in recreational use on the PNF has the potential to cause an increase in 

negative interactions between humans and riverine and lacustrine habitats since most of the 

recreational facilities are located adjacent to lakes, streams and rivers. Future increase in recreational 

use on the PNF is expected, and therefore, increased disturbance to riverine and lacustrine habitat 

would be expected, particularly during the summer months.

Table 42. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat from Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects9

Project type Number of 

Projects

Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Implement interim 

OHV forest orders 

to prohibit vehicle 

travel off existing 

inventoried roads, 

areas, and trails for 

an interim period 

until site specific 

analysis can occur 

utilizing 

appropriate levels 

of NEPA.

Forest wide: 

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

Project CE 31.b(1) 

No additional direct and indirect 

effects, overall reduced potential 

for direct and indirect effects 

such as crushing or disturbance 

to aquatic species, decrease in 

sedimentation and vegetative 

disturbance at crossings and 

downstream. 

Reduced inpacts from effect 

from open forest to cross 

country travel. No additional 

trails will be added to the 

Forest, and overall reduced 

cumulative effect compaired to 

the existing condition with a 

“open” forest. Overall benefit 

to herpetofauna habitat by 

eliminating effects to habitat 

quality.

 9 Reference Appendix C of FEIS for project descriptions
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

172 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Number of 

Projects

Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Designation of 

backcountry 

Discovery 

Motorized Trail 

(BCDT) to tie 

Plumas NF 

together with 

statewide 

motorized trail

Forest wide: 

Backcountry 

Discovery Trail

 Minimal impacts depending on 

location, some additional direct 

and indirect effects with the 

potential for direct and indirect 

effects such as crushing or 

disturbance to aquatic species, 

increased sedimentation and 

vegetative disturbance. 

Ongoing OHV activity and 

associated disturbances both 

physical to environment, and 

disturbance by noise and 

human activities.

Motorcycle 

Recreational 

Events- Two 

recreation events 

are planned using 

existing Forest 

Service system 

roads for a dual 

sport motorcycle 

(street legal) tours. 

One is on the 

Lassen and Plumas 

(two day event), 

and the other is on 

all three districts of 

the Plumas (3 day 

event).

Forest wide: Robert 

Van Court Ironman 

Dual Sport 

Motorcycle Rec 

Event

Potential direct and indirect 

effects are short term and 

minmal due to the use of existing 

road system. Short term OHV 

activity and associated 

disturbances both physical to 

environment, and disturbance by 

noise and human activities.

Minimal cumulative effect to 

species due to 3 day event. 

Mining/Suction 

Dredging

4 (Copper Penny, 

Dredger’s delight, 

Phat Chance, 

Winkeye

Direct and Indirect effects due to 

impacts from increased sediment 

delivery, decrease in water 

quality.

Mining/suction dredging add to 

cumulative impacts by 

decreasing habitat quality, 

mainly in riverine systems. 

Potential long term cumulative 

effects due to potential 

persistant sedimentation into 

riverine habitats due to mining 

operations. 

Hazard tree 

removal

Ongoing ForestwideMinimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance during harvest. 

Reduction of LWD within riverine 

habitats.

Cumulative impact of loss of 

LWD into riverine and 

lacustrine habitats, but 

decrease in fuels and reduced 

risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

Aquatic Organism 

Passage projects

Ongoing , 

proposals, 

throughout Forest 

including ARR 

projects

Direct effects of crushing of an 

aquatic organism by equipment. 

Indirect effects is a short-term 

sediment disturbance during 

project construction.

Increase herpetofauna 

passage and improved aquatic 

connectivity. Short-term 

cumulative impacts from 

sediment and habitat 

disturbance are minor. 

Watershed 

Restoration 

Ongoing , 

proposals, 

throughout Forest 

Direct effects of crushing of an 

aquatic organism by equipment. 

Indirect effects is a short-term 

sediment disturbance during 

project construction. 

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Improved habitat conditions 

from restoration project. 

Range Allotment 

permit renewal

1 (Strawberry 

Valley Allotment)

Stream bank trampling from 

livestock resulting in increases in 

sediment and decrease in water 

surface shade from browsing 

riparian shrubs.

Cumulative impacts from 

sediment and water surface 

shade are expected to be 

within forest plan standards 

(<20%).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 173

Project type Number of 

Projects

Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Backcountry 

Discovery Trail

Forest-wide Harassment, herpetofauna 

collection, human disturbance, 

site degradation.

Short and long-term 

cumulative impacts on 

individuals and their habitat. 

Integrated Noxious 

Weed Control 

Program

Forest-wide Toxicity and potentially reduced 

water quality. Individual frogs and 

turtles could be killed. Potential 

loss of individuals during Rx 

burn. 

Short-term direct and indirect 

effects to individual 

herpetofauna, long-term 

enhancement of habitat by 

maintenance of native plant 

species. 

Fuels Reduction, 

Multi-product 

Biomass, and 

stand enhancement 

Projects. 

Basin Group 

Selection, Slapjack, 

On Top DFPZ, 

Group Selection, 

Watdog, Concow 

Fuel Reduction, St. 

Louis Fuels 

Reduction, French 

MP Thin 

Mastication, 

Hughes Conifer 

Thinning Project, 

Burnt 

Bridge/Cottage 

Creek Blackoak 

Enhancement

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions. 

Concow 

Reforestation

Concow Fire Area, 

Northeast of Chico, 

and west of the 

NFFR.

Soil stabilization and reduced 

downstream sedimentation.

Short term sedimentation, long 

term conifer production and 

growth on 270 acres.

Water Quality 

Improvement 

Projects- Meadow 

improvement, road 

improvements.

South Fork Feather 

River & Lower 

Middle Fork

Short term sedimentation and 

reduced water quality during 

project implementation.

Long-term improved water 

quality, water storage capacity, 

and herpetofauna habitat.

Private Timber 

Harvest Plans 

(308,120 acres) to 

implement 

vegetation mgt 

projects. (Multiproduct, thinning, 

salvage, stand 

conversion, and 

slash removal. 

Forest wide Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short term micro-climate change, 

long term reduction of fuels.

Short term sedimentation, long 

term protection from wildfire 

through fuel reduction.

Hawkeye Tunnel 

Mining Plan of 

Operation

Underground 

mining operation, 

gravel washing and 

incidental 

occupancy for 

purpose of minerals 

extraction.Hawkeye 

Tunnel 

Impacts from increased sediment 

delivery, decrease in water 

quality.

Potential for ongoing leaching 

of mining deposits into stream 

system and sedimentation 

from tailings post operation. In 

addition, potential for 

degradation of local site.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

174 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Number of 

Projects

Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Challenge Work 

Center Invasive 

Species 

Management 

Project – control of 

non-invasive plant 

species utilizing 

IPM practices. 

One project at the 

challenge work 

center.

Toxicity and potentially reduced 

water quality. Individual frogs 

could be killed. Potential loss of 

individuals during Rx burn.

Short-term direct and indirect 

effects to individual 

herpetofauna, long-term 

enhancement of habitat by 

maintenance of native plant 

species.

Trail Maintenance ARRA Trails on 

FRRD 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine habitats.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. Long 

term improvement to water 

quality.

Salvage, site prep, 

and Reforestation 

projects

Canyon Complex 

Salvage, site prep,

reforestation 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels.

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions.

Campground 

rehabilitation at 

five campgrounds 

on the Feather 

River Ranger 

District.

Five projects: 

Golden Trout 

Crossing, Little 

Grass Valley, 

Milsap Bar, Rogers 

Cowcamp (note: in 

Jack’s CAR on 

existing footprint of 

campground. 

The projects consists of 

maintenance, rehabilitation, 

modernization and resource 

protection within the footprint of 

an existing developed 

campground. Low potential for 

crushing and sedimentation 

effects to herpetofauna by 

equipment. In addition to provide 

privacy; interplanting of conifers 

which provide screening within 

the campground. No expected 

direct or indirect effects to 

herpetofauna.

Short term sedimentation into 

stream. All BMPs will be met to 

minimize effects to stream 

system.

French MP Thin 

Mastication

Feather River 

Ranger District

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short term micro-climate change, 

long term reduction of fuels.

Short term sedimentation, long 

term protection from wildfire 

through fuel reduction.

3.6.6.3.3 Road Densities and Cumulative Effects Analysis

Watershed data was reviewed for cumulative effects for the CRLF, and the findings are there is not an 

appreciable cumulative effect to CRLF and their habitat. Again, a detailed analysis of the cumulative 

effect of Forest road densities can be found in the Soil and Water Resources section of chapter 3 and 

in the Soil and Water Specialist Report. The findings are the reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described in Table 42 above and Appendix C of the FEIS “are not expected to appreciably increase or 

decrease the density of roads and trails open to motorized traffic on public and private lands within 

the analysis watersheds” (USDA, 2010). “Therefore, the density of motorized roads and trails 

calculated for each project alternative is used to analyze the risk of cumulative watershed effects. 

Under the existing condition, 19 of the 178 analysis watersheds (11%) have road / route densities that 

exceed the cautionary level of 4.0 mi/mi2” (Table 2 of soil and water report, USDA 2010). The 

density of roads and routes open to motorized traffic would decrease for all of these watersheds under 

all action alternatives (other than Alternative 1); unauthorized routes would decline throughout the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 175

watersheds and would be made unavailable to motorized traffic. As a result, the road density for most 

watersheds would be less than the analysis cautionary level. For specific quantities; reference 

appendix E of Soil and Water Report. The overall effect to the watershed resources would also be 

beneficial, including improved surface water runoff timing and magnitude and reduced sediment 

delivery as a result of decreased road / route density. With the exception of alternative 1; under all the 

action alternatives the long-term watershed condition would improve and risk of cumulative 

watershed effects would decrease. “The net effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

on each subwatershed, as indicated by the total mileage and density of proposed routes and roads 

open to traffic on public and private roads within the subwatershed (see Appendix E), is generally 

beneficial” (USDA, 2010). “This long-term improvement of watershed condition and long-term 

decrease in the risk of cumulative watershed effects due to protection of untracked areas is identical 

for all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 to 5)” (Soil and Water Report, USDA 2010).

3.6.6.4 Summary of Effects

With analysis of route and trail miles within RCAs, ZOIs, and CARs, stream crossings, route and trail 

miles within 500’ of CRLF occurrences; Alternative 1 has the highest potential for direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to CRLF, Alternative 2 has a moderate to high potential for direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to CRLFs and potential CRLF habitat, and Alternative 4 and 5 have a moderate to 

low potential for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to CRLFs and potential CRLF habitat. 

Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect effects to CRLF and potential CRLF habitat. Again, 

effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats include current and historic livestock grazing; reduced 

suitability of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; mining activities; and recreational activities 

including hunting, camping, and general recreation activities including all forms of motorized use, 

including 4-wheeled drive vehicles, OHVs, and motorcycles.

3.6.6.5 Determinations

Alternatives 1 and 2 may affect, and are likely to adversely affect individual California red-legged 

frogs and their habitat (reference Table 35). These alternatives do not meet the six criteria in the 

programmatic agreement with USFWS (2006) to reach a “no effect” or a “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” determination. This determination is based on the following:

• A range of 9 to 33 miles of existing unauthorized routes affecting approximately 7 to 24 

acres of potential perennial and intermittent habitat within Riparian Conservation Areas, and 

a range of 11 to 30 miles of existing unauthorized routes affecting approximately 8 to 22 

acres of perennial and intermittent habitat within the Zone of Influence (suitable CRLF 

habitat).

• 0.5 mile of route within 500 feet of the Hughes Pond CRLF population. 

• A range of 22 to 47 miles of route within Jacks Critical Aquatic Refuge that supports Hughes 

Pond CRLF population. These proposed trails to be added to the NFTS have the potential to 

capture surface run-off and deliver sediment into streams; there are proposed trails to be 

added to the NFTS within Riparian Conservation Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

176 – Plumas National Forest

within 500 feet of suitable habitat; there are routes within suitable habitat that have the 

potential to capture and divert stream flow. 

• The one 36-acre OHV use area is proposed adjacent to the dam at Sly Creek Reservoir and is 

within the RCA, however this use area is not suitable habitat for the CRLF; and there are 

existing designated trails that will contribute cumulatively within the Jack’s CAR which was 

developed for the CRLF.

• The Forest Fisheries Biologist and Forest Hydro-Engineer reviewed all perennial stream 

OHV route crossings in the Jack’s CAR to evaluate and prescribed the type of crossing that 

could be constructed. Out of twelve crossings only seven crossings were identified as needed 

and feasible. A complete description of these crossing can be in the Biological Assessment 

and Evaluation in the project record.

A detailed analysis of the effects of Alternative 5 can be found in the Biological Assessment and 

Evaluation (project record). 

The “May affect, likely to adversely affect” determination was made due to the fact that the 

Alternatives 1 and 2 do not meet the October 2006 Programmatic Agreement between Region 5, 

Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, 

the following findings also led to the adverse determination.

• Dispersal habitat may be impacted since the Alternatives 1 and 2 contains proposed trail that 

lie within the 300-foot Riparian Conservation Area containing potential CRLF habitat.

• Dispersal habitat may be impacted since Alternatives 1 and 2 proposed trail that lie within 

the 500-foot zone of influence (ZOI) containing potential CRLF habitat.

• Suitable habitat may be impacted since Alternatives 1 and 2 contain proposed trails to be 

added to the NFTS within the Jacks Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR). However, the potential 

for harm to CRLF in unsurveyed suitable habitat within the Jacks CAR is expected to be 

minimal since USFWS site assessments found only low to moderate suitable habitat for the 

CRLF.

• Trails are proposed in CARs in Alternatives 1 and 2, and a moderate potential for direct and 

indirect effects to CRLF and potential habitat in the Jack’s CAR.

• CRLF in assumed occupied habitat (unsurveyed suitable habitat) may be impacted since 

Alternatives 1 and 2 contain perennial stream crossings. 

Alternative 3 would not affect the California red-legged frog or their habitat. This determination 

is based on the following:

• No additional trails would be added to the NFS motorized trail system. Alternative 3 would 

have no direct or indirect effect to the CRLF and potential CRLF habitat with no trails 

proposed to be added to the travel management system.

• In addition there would be an actual decrease in OHV activity on the Feather River Ranger 

District by the implementation of this alternative by the prohibition of cross-country travel.

• No impacts are anticipated to the two currently known occupied CRLF sites on the Forest.

Alternatives 4 and 5 may affect and are not likely to adversely affect individual California redlegged frogs or their habitat. This determination is based on the following: 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 177

• Alternatives 4 and 5 meet the six design criteria under the programmatic agreement between 

Region 5 of the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• There are no proposed designated trails or existing system trails within 500 feet of a known 

CRLF occurrence. 

• There is a prohibition of cross-country travel, including 75-93% of existing unauthorized 

motorized trails not being added to the NFTS within potential CRLF habitat.

3.6.7 Foothill yellow-legged frogs and Northwestern Pond Turtle

3.6.7.1 Affected Environment 

3.6.7.1.1 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

The foothill yellow-legged frog historically occurred in foothill and mountain streams to 6,000 feet 

(SNFPA 2001). On the Plumas National Forest, only mountain yellow-legged frogs have been found 

above 4,500. Adults use both instream and riparian environments, though use of riparian areas and 

adjacent uplands is poorly understood. This species is found in or near rocky perennial streams and 

rivers in a variety of habitats, including riparian, mixed conifer and wet meadow types. It inhabits 

areas with moving water but tends to avoid areas with steep gradients (Zweifel 1955). These frogs 

prefer partial shade, shallow riffles, and cobble-sized or greater substrate (Hayes and Jennings 1988). 

On the PNF, this species is found in a few of the larger riverine systems, such as lower portions of the 

South Fork, Middle Fork and North Fork Feather River (NFFR), and Spanish Creek, but has also 

been found in smaller tributary streams of these larger systems, such as Bean Creek in the Meadow 

Valley Area. 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs occur in many of the main drainages and tributaries on the PNF up 

to approximately 4,500 foot elevation. 

Key management activities, which the Forest Service can influence, are: dams and diversions, 

mining, livestock grazing, recreation, vegetation management and mechanical fuel treatment, roads, 

and locally applied chemical toxins (pesticides and herbicides); fire can directly affect amphibians 

(SNFPA 2001). 

3.6.7.1.1.1 Current Status (FYLF)

The FYLF is a Forest Sensitive Species and exists throughout the major drainages on the PNF in the 

Westside and Transition Zones.

3.6.7.1.2 Northwestern Pond Turtle

On the PNF, occupied Northwestern pond turtle habitat exists primarily on the west side (Feather 

River Ranger District) and central (Mt. Hough Ranger District) areas of the Forest, although a 

sighting was recorded in Sierra Valley. The PNF database contains 61 records for pond turtles. NWPT 

are primarily within aquatic habitat in spring and summer, except when they disperse to nest in the 

spring. In rivers, the NWPT needs slow flowing areas with deep underwater refugia and emergent 

basking sites. Sometime between April and August, females climb onto land to dig a nest, along 

stream or pond margins or upland, where they lay a clutch of 2 to 11 eggs. Some female lay two 

clutches in a year while others lay eggs every other year. Their young hatch in the late spring through 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

178 – Plumas National Forest

late summer and are very susceptible to disturbance during this time. Again, in the fall and winter 

NWPT may disperse upland to pass the summer in a torpid or dormant state. Migration, hibernation, 

and nesting occur on land up to 330 feet from riparian area.

3.6.7.1.2.1 Current Status (NWPT)

The Northwestern pond turtle is a Forest Sensitive Species and exists throughout the major drainages 

on the PNF in the Westside and Transition Zones.

3.6.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects-All Alternatives

Habitat for the Foothill yellow-legged frog is similar to lotic (stream) habitat as defined above for the 

CRLF, effects analysis is very similar as stated above for these two species. Rarely are FYLF found in 

lentic (pond and lake) habitats.

3.6.7.2.1 Route and Trail Miles within Riparian Conservation Areas and Zone of Influence 

Potentially suitable habitat for the FYLF and the NWPT is at 4,500 feet elevation on perennial and 

intermittent water bodies across the Forest. There is a greater number of acres of potential habitat; and 

a greater number of known occurrences of both species than the CRLF and therefore more individuals 

and populations with potential direct and indirect effects.

Table 43. Miles of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) 

within foothill yellow-legged frogs and northwestern pond turtle habitat at 300 feet (RCA) of perennial 

streams, intermittent streams, ponds and lakes below 4,500 feet elevation

Habitat Acres on 

Forest 

(<4500’) 

Acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

Perennial 

Streams

346,459 42.6 31 9.9 8 0 0 2.2 1 3.4 2.1

Intermittent 

Streams

136,938 70.0 51.0 20.2 14.0 0 0 7.5 5.2 12.3 8.6

Ponds 

Lakes 

18,130 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0 0 0.1 .07 0.1 .07
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 179

Table 44. Miles of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) 

within foothill yellow-legged frogs and northwestern pond turtle habitat at 300-500 feet (ZOI) of 

perennial streams, intermittent streams, ponds and lakes below 4,500 feet elevation

Habitat Acres on 

Forest 

(<4500’) 

Acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

Perennial 

Streams

346,459 28.4 21.0 8.6 6.0 0 0 2.0 1.0 3.6 2.0

Intermittent 

Streams

136,938 55.0 40.0 19.5 15.0 0 0 7.5 5.0 11.7 9.0

Ponds 

Lakes 

 18,130 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Alternative 1

With implementation of Alternative 1 there is a very high number of miles existing trails and 

unauthorized existing routes on the PNF and thus a greater negative effect; 43.0 miles (31 acres of 

potential habitat)10

Table 43

of routes fall within 300-foot RCA of perennial streams and 70 miles (51.0 acres 

of potential habitat) of routes fall within the 300-foot RCA buffer of intermittent streams ( ). 

Twenty eight miles of routes (21 acres of potential habitat) are within the 300-to-500-foot ZOI buffer 

of perennial streams and 55 miles (40 acres of potential habitat) of routes are within the 300-to-500-

foot ZOI buffer of intermittent streams (Table 44) at 4,500 feet elevation and below on the Plumas 

National Forest. With the implementation of Alternative 1; there is potential for very high direct and 

indirect effects to the FYLF and NWPT and potential FYLF and NWPT habitat. These figures 

dramatically drop in proposed designated trail miles with all other action alternatives. 

Alternative 2

A moderate number of trail miles are proposed for Alternative 2, with 9 miles (6 acres of potential 

habitat) within the 300-foot RCA of perennial streams and 20 miles (15 acres of potential habitat) 

within the 300-foot RCA of intermittent streams (Table 43) and 10 miles (8 acres of potential habitat) 

within the 300-500’ ZOI of perennial streams, and 20 miles (14 acres of potential habitat) within the 

300-to-500-foot ZOI of intermittent streams (Table 44). Forest wide; this is approximately 30% of 

miles currently existing as unauthorized routes with an “open” Forest (Alternative 1) and affecting 

approximately 70% less potential habitat. With the implementation of Alternative 2; there is potential 

for moderate direct and indirect effects to the FYLF and NWPT and potential habitat.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes to add no new trails to the system, and therefore, no negative direct and 

indirect effects would occur to the FYLF or NWPT and potential habitat. Alternative 3 does eliminate 

cross country travel, reducing the use of 1,107 miles of user created trails, and therefore will have a 

positive effect on FYLF and NWPT and their habitat. 

 10 The proportion of a species habitat that is affected by motorized routes (including the routes plus a biologically meaningful ‘zone 

of influence’ (e.g., 300‘ RCA, 500’ ZOI).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

180 – Plumas National Forest

Alternatives 4 and 5

A low number of trail miles are proposed with Alternatives 4 and 5 with 2 to 4 miles (1-2 acres of 

potential habitat) respectively, within the RCA of perennial streams and 8 to 12 miles (5 to 9 acres of 

potential habitat) respectively, within the RCA of intermittent streams (Table 43 and Table 44). There 

would be 2 to 4 miles (1 to 2 acres of potential habitat) respectively within the 300-to-500-foot ZOI 

of perennial streams and 8 to 12 miles (5 to 9 acres of potential habitat) respectively within the ZOI of 

intermittent streams (Table 43 and Table 44). This is 7 to 25% of the number of miles currently 

existing as unauthorized routes with an “open” forest (Alternative 1) and affecting approximately 75 

to 93% less potential habitat. With the implementation of Alternative 4 and 5 there is potential for low 

to moderate direct and indirect effects to the FYLF and NWPT and potential habitat. Potentially 

suitable habitat is defined as streams with a 0-4% gradient at 4,500 feet and below. In addition, less 

than .01% of the CARs at 4,500 feet and below are affected by routes that fall within 500 feet of 

perennial streams. A map of this exercise can be found in project files. For additional justification of 

identification of suitable habitat, reference Appendix II of the Aquatic Biological Assessment and 

Evaluation.

Road Effects

Discussion about the effects of roads to CRLF also applies to both the FYLF and NWPT. Refer to the 

CRLF discussion about road miles used as a index to measure the potential indirect effects to aquatic 

species.

3.6.7.2.2 Route and Trail Miles within Critical Aquatic Refuges

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the FYLF and NWPTs due to the greatest number of miles 

open for motor vehicles. Critical Aquatic Refuges with known or suspected FYLF and NWPTs 

occurrence are, Woodleaf, Pinkard, Oregon, Jacks, Willow, Rock, and Pinegrove (Table 45). Refer to 

the CRLF analysis of impacts to CAR’s for Woodleaf, Oregon, and Pinchard. Alternative 1 has a high 

potential for direct and indirect effects to the FYLF and NWPTs with 47 miles of unauthorized routes 

in the Jack’s CAR with a known breeding population of NWPTs. 

The following analysis (Table 45) emphasized the three CARs with the greatest impacts by the 

five alternatives analyzed. The largest known populations of NWPTs occur in the Jack’s CAR in two 

ponds. In the Jack’s CAR there are 47 miles of unauthorized routes available for use in Alternative 1. 

There is a range of 22 proposed trails to be added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2 with a potential 

moderate to high direct and indirect effect. There are zero miles of proposed designated OHV trails in 

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 with no direct and indirect effect to FYLF and the NWPT and their 

populations.

The Rock CAR has FYLF at lower elevations (with mountain yellow-legged frogs in the upper 

elevations) and known and suspected NWPT throughout in suitable habitat. There are 26 miles of 

unauthorized routes available for use in Alternative 1 with a potential for a high direct and indirect 

effect to both the FYLF and NWPT, there are approximately 12 miles of proposed trails to be added 

to the NFTS in Alternative 2 with a high to moderate potential for a direct and indirect effect to the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 181

FYLF and NWPT. There are 8 to 10 miles of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS in Alternative 4 

and 5 for a moderate potential for a direct and indirect effect to the FYLF and NWPT. 

The Pinegrove CAR has FYLF at lower elevations (with MYLF in the upper elevation) and 

suspected NWPT throughout in suitable habitat. There are .6 miles of unauthorized routes available 

for use in Alternative 1 with the low direct and indirect effect to the FYLF and NWPT. There are zero 

miles of proposed designated trails in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 for no direct and indirect effect to the 

FYLF and NWPT.

The Bucks CAR has FYLF at lower elevations (with MYLF in the upper elevation) and suspected 

NWPT throughout in suitable habitat. There are 6 miles of unauthorized routes available for use in 

Alternative 1 with the potential for a moderate direct and indirect effect to the FYLF and NWPT. 

There are approximately 2.0 miles of proposed designated trails in Alternative 2 with the potential for 

a moderate to low direct and indirect effect to the FYLF and NWPT. There are 1.2 miles of proposed 

designated trails in Alternative 4 and 5 with the potential for a low direct and indirect effect to the 

FYLF and NWPT. There are zero miles of proposed designated trails in Alternative 3 with a potential 

for no direct and indirect effect to the FYLF and NWPT.

Overall; Alternative 1 shows the resulting high density of unauthorized OHV routes and the 

potential impact of no control of the use of OHVs and open cross-country travel. With the known 

population and suitable habitat scattered throughout the watershed there is a high likelihood of an 

OHV crushing a FYLF and NWPTs (near the streams) adult or young, directly affecting the species. 

NWPTs are known to travel up to 150 meters from perennial waterbodies. Alternative 1 poses a high 

risk to the FYLF and NWPTs due to the greatest number of miles proposed for designation. 

Alternative 2 has the potential for a moderate to high direct and indirect effect to FYLF and NWPT 

within “key” CARs on the Plumas National Forest. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would not have a direct or 

indirect effect on FYLF and NWPT in relation to miles of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS 

within CARs. There is minimal impact to the Critical Aquatic Refuges for FYLF and NWPT with 

Alternatives 4 and 5 within the CARs. A detailed analysis of the Critical Aquatic Refuges can be 

found in the Biological Assessment and Evaluation in the project record.

Table 45. Miles of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) 

within Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs), Plumas National Forest ( FYLF and NWPT) below 4,500’ 

elevation 

CARs Total 

Acres 

within 

the CAR

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Pinegrove 20,018 0.6 0 0 0 0

Pinkard 4,907 4.3 0 0 0 0

Woodleaf 5,978 0.6 0 0 0 0

Oregon 5,107 0 0 0 0 0

Jacks 19,216 46.8 21.6 0 0 0

Rock 35,164 25.9 11.6 0 8.2 10.3

Bucks 52,775 5.8 2.4 0 1.2 1.2

Lakes Basin 23,252 2.5 0 0 0 0
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

182 – Plumas National Forest

3.6.7.2.3 Number of Stream Crossing within RCAs by District and Elevation

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the FYLF and the NWPT from native surface motorized 

crossing densities, with 96 perennial and 289 intermittent stream crossings (Table 46). Alternative 1 

has the potential for very high direct and indirect effects to FYLF and its habitat. Alternative 1 has the 

greatest chance of having a direct effect by potentially crushing a FYLF, tadpole or egg masses and 

NWPT eggs and young. Alternative 2 has a potential for a moderate to high impact on FYLF and 

NWPT and habitat with 26 perennial and 75 intermittent stream crossings proposed across the Forest. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 have the potential for a moderate to low impact on FYLF and NWPT and habitat 

with 3 and 5 perennial and 29 and 47 intermittent stream crossings, respectively, proposed across the 

Forest.

Table 46. Number of stream crossings on unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails to be added to 

the NFTS (Alts 2-5) by alternative below 4500’ elevation on the Plumas National Forest by District.

Number of Crossings by Stream Type on Beckwourth, Feather River and Mt. Hough RD’s below 

4,500’ elevation

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Stream 

Type

Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh

Perennial 

xings

2 53 41 0 19 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5

Intermittent 

xings

13 85 191 2 21 52 2 0 0 2 0 27 2 4 41

Total 

Crossings

15 138 232 2 40 59 2 0 0 0 0 30 2 4 46

3.6.7.2.4 Miles of Routes within 500 feet of known FYLF and NWPT occurrences

A 500-foot buffer was placed around every occurrence of TES herpetofauna on the Forest. Table 47

displays the miles of route or trail that are within or adjacent to occurrences.

3.6.7.2.4.1 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

There are 157 known occurrences (single and multiple frog sightings per occurrence). Alternative 1 

has the greatest potential for a moderate direct or indirect effect to FYLF and its habitat with 2.2 

miles of unauthorized routes within the 500-foot buffer of known occurrences. Alternatives 2 thru 5 

have the potential for a low direct or indirect effect to FYLF and its habitat within a range of 0 to 0.5 

mile proposed trails within 500 feet of known occurrences of FYLF.

3.6.7.2.4.2 Northwest Pond Turtle

There are 61 known occurrences (single and multiple pond turtle sightings per occurrence). Again, in 

relation to known and confirmed NWPT; Alternative 1 thru 5 have a potential for a low direct or 

indirect effects to NWPT and its habitat with 0-0.7 miles of unauthorized routes within the 500-foot 

buffer.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 183

Table 47. Unauthorized route (Alt. 1) and proposed trail miles to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) within 

500 feet of a known of FYLF and NWPT occurrences. 

Species Number of 

Known/Confirmed 

Occurrences

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac.

Northwestern 

Pond Turtle

61 0.7 .5 0.2 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Foothill Yellowlegged Frog157 2.2 1.6 .1 .07 0 0 .3 .2 .3 .2

3.6.7.3 Cumulative Effects

3.6.7.3.1 Short vs. Long-term Effects

In the short term (1 year; as described in the direct and indirect section), Alternative 1 would continue 

to have the potential for the greatest direct and indirect effect to FYLF and NWPT and their habitats. 

In the long term (20 years), Alternative 1 would continue to degrade occupied and suitable FYLF and 

NWPT habitat from 4,500 and below with a range of 43 to70 miles of unauthorized routes, affecting 

approximately 31 to 50 acres of potential perennial and intermittent stream habitat (Table 43) within 

the RCA and a range of 28 to 55 miles of unauthorized routes, affecting approximately 21 to 40 acres 

of potential perennial and intermittent stream habitat (Table 44) within the ZOI (300-to-500-foot 

buffer. Under continued cross-country travel, it is likely that the existing 1,107 miles of unauthorized 

trails within FYLF and NWPT habitat would continue to receive motorized use, in addition to the 130 

miles of NFTS routes. Therefore, these unauthorized routes would continue to be used and there 

would be no ability for the compacted, degraded soil and vegetative conditions to recover. 

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have a high potential for a direct and indirect effect to individual FYLF and 

NWPT and their populations. 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5

In general with Alternatives 2, 4 and 5; there would be an immediate reduced direct effect by the 

closure of any routes within 500 feet of FYLF and NWPT occurrence, reducing the chance for 

crushing any life stage of the FYLF and NWPT. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

184 – Plumas National Forest

Alternative 2

In the short term (1 year; as described in the direct and indirect section), Alternative 2 would have a 

reduced potential for a direct effect to individual FYLFs and NWPTs by reducing the OHV trail 

density within the RCA and ZOIs by 60%, therefore reducing the potential of crushing a FYLF and 

NWPT by this same percentage. Indirectly, there would be a minimal change in the short term for 

recovery of unauthorized routes. In the long term (20 years), the closure of 742 miles of unauthorized 

routes would have time to recover naturally and reduce the cumulative effects. 

Alternatives 4 and 5

In the short term (1 year; as described in the direct and indirect section), Alternatives 4 and 5 would 

have a reduced potential for a direct effect to individual FYLFs and NWPTs by reducing the OHV 

trail density within the RCA and ZOIs by approximately 78% to 89% within the RCA and ZOI, 

therefore reducing the potential of crushing a FYLF and NWPT. Indirectly, there would be a minimal 

change in the short term (1 year) for recovery of the 66 to 64 miles (respectively) of the closed 

unauthorized routes within perennial RCA and ZOI and 111 to 101 miles (respectively) of the closed 

unauthorized routes within the intermittent RCA and ZOI of the FYLF and NWPT. In the long term 

(20 years), these 871 to 965 miles of unauthorized routes throughout the Forest, would have time to 

recover naturally and reduce the cumulative effects.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposed to close the Forest to cross-country travel and add no new designated 

motorized trails to the current designated trail system; therefore, there would be a 100% reduction of 

unauthorized routes. Alternative 3 proposes no new designated trails, with no direct or indirect 

negative effects. OHV designated trails to the current designated trail system Alternative 3 proposed 

to close the Forest and therefore a 100% reduction of unauthorized routes and a positive direct and 

indirect effect on FYLF and NWPT and their habitat. Indirectly, there would be a minimal change in 

the short term (1 year) for recovery of the 1,107 miles of unauthorized routes, yet within the long 

term (20 years) these closed unauthorized routes would have time to recover naturally and recovery 

could be enhanced by manual treatment.

3.6.7.3.2 Cumulative Actions applicable to all Alternatives

The Plumas National Forest currently has 130 miles of designated motorized OHV trails. 

Cumulatively there are 14 miles of designated OHV trails within the RCA and ZOIs of potential 

habitat for the FYLF and NWPT. This adds cumulatively to direct, indirect and cumulative effects to 

the FYLF and NWPT by the action alternatives. A detailed analysis of the cumulative effect of Forest 

road densities can be found in the Soil and Water Resources section of chapter 3 and in the Soil and 

Water Specialist Report.

General discussions for the past and current cumulative effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats 

are described above in the CRLF section. Specific actions that affect the FYLF and NWPT are 

described in Table 42 and Table 55, which list all the reasonably foreseeable future actions, including 

fuels, vegetation, recreation, range allotment plans, non-motorized trail development, and special use 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 185

permit re-issuance. The cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects and a 

description of the potential impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat are described for each action

(Table 48).

In addition to the following table, Reference Table 42 for projects at 4,500 feet and below on the 

Feather River Ranger District. These projects in addition to the following have been analyzed for 

cumulative effects to FYLF and NWPT.

Table 48. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat from Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects11

Project type Location Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Mining/Suction 

Dredging

Copper Penny, 

Dutch Hill Placer, 

Dutch Hill Tunnel, 

Pioneer Drift and 

Caribou Amend, 

Dredger’s Delight, 

High Grade Placer 

claims, El Rico 

Mining Co.

Direct and Indirect effects due to 

impacts from increased sediment 

delivery, decrease in water quality.

Mining/suction dredging add to 

cumulative impacts by 

decreasing habitat quality, 

mainly in riverine systems.

Potential long term cumulative 

effects due to potential 

persistant sedimentation into 

riverine habitats due to mining 

operations.

Hazard tree 

removal

Ongoing ForestwideMinimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance during harvest. 

Reduction of LWD within riverine 

habitats.

Cumulative impact of loss of 

LWD into riverine and 

lacustrine habitats, but 

decrease in fuels and reduced 

risk of catastrophic wildfire.

Aquatic species 

passage 

construction 

project

Ongoing , 

proposals, 

throughout Forest 

including ARRA 

Stimulus and KV, 

Legacy

Direct effects of crushing of an 

aquatic organism by equipment. 

Indirect effects is a short-term 

sediment disturbance during 

project construction.

Increased herpetofauna 

passage and improved aquatic 

connectivity. Short-term 

cumulative impacts from 

sediment are minor. 

Watershed 

Restoration 

Ongoing, 

proposals, 

throughout Forest 

Direct effects of crushing of an 

aquatic organism by equipment. 

Indirect effects is a short-term 

sediment disturbance during 

project construction. Improved 

habitat conditions from restoration 

project.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Range Allotment 

permit renewal and 

NRCS Equip 

Projects

(Strawberry Valley 

Allotment), Grizzly 

Valley, Grizzly 

Valley Community, 

and Humbug 

Allotments

Stream bank trampling from 

livestock resulting in increases in 

sediment and decrease in water 

surface shade from browsing 

riparian shrubs.

Cumulative impacts from 

sediment and water surface 

shade are expected to be 

within Forest Plan standards 

(<20%).

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

Forest wide Closed forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance to

habitat downstream of routes 

within RCA and at stream 

crossings. 

Overall benefit to herpetofauna 

habitat by eliminating effects to 

habitat quality.

Integrated Noxious 

Weed Control 

Program

Forest wide Toxicity and potentially reduced 

water quality. Individual frogs 

could be killed. Potential loss of 

individuals during Rx burn. 

Short-term direct and indirect 

effects to individual CRLF, 

long-term enhancement of 

habitat by maintenance of 

native plant species. 

 11 Reference Appendix C of FEIS for project descriptions
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

186 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Location Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Implement interim 

OHV forest orders 

to prohibit vehicle 

travel off existing 

inventoried roads, 

areas, and trails for 

an interim period 

until site specific 

analysis can occur 

utilizing 

appropriate levels 

of NEPA.

Forest wide: 

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

Project CE 31.b(1) 

No additional direct and indirect 

effects, overall reduced potential 

for direct and indirect effects such 

as crushing or disturbance to 

aquatic species, decrease in 

sedimentation and vegetative 

disturbance at crossings and 

downstream.

Reduced inpacts from effect 

from open forest to cross 

country travel. Reduced 

inpacts from effect from open 

forest to cross country travel. 

No additional trails will be 

added to the Forest, and 

overall reduced cumulative 

effect compaired to the 

existing condition with a “open” 

forest. Overall benefit to 

herpetofauna habitat by 

eliminating effects to habitat 

quality.

Designation of 

backcountry 

Discovery 

Motorized Trail 

(BCDT) to tie 

Plumas NF 

together with 

statewide 

motorized trail

Forest wide: 

Backcountry 

Discovery Trail

Minimal impacts depending on 

location, some additional direct 

and indirect effects with the 

potential for direct and indirect 

effects such as crushing or 

disturbance to aquatic species, 

increased sedimentation and 

vegetative disturbance. 

Harrassment, collection, human 

disturbance, site degradation.

Ongoing OHV activity and 

associated disturbances both 

physical to environment, and 

disturbance by noise and 

human activities. Short and 

long-term cumulative impacts 

on individuals and their habitat.

Motorcycle 

Recreational 

Events- described 

in Table 42. 

Forest wide: 

Robert Van Court 

Ironman Dual 

Sport Motorcycle 

Rec Event

Potential direct and indirect effects 

are short term and minmal due to 

the use of existing road system. 

Short term OHV activity and 

associated disturbances both 

physical to environment, and 

disturbance by noise and human 

activities.

Minimal cumulative effect to 

species due to 3 day event.

Clark's Creek 

Aspen Restoration 

and Ecosystem 

Enhancement 

Project

Situated in Clark's 

Creek, a 10,000 

acre tributary 

watershed to Last 

Chance Creek, 

which flows to the 

North Fork of the 

Feather River.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Long-term reduction of fuels. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions.

Mills Peak Trail Lakes Basin 

Recreation Area 

Beckwourth 

Ranger District

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. Long 

term improvement to water 

quality.

Smith Lake and Mt 

Elwell trails 

reroutes

Lakes Basin 

Recreation Area

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water quality .

Water Quality 

Improvement 

Projects- Meadow 

improvement, road 

improvements.

Frenchman , Red 

Clover, Last 

Chance, NelsonOnion.

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 187

Project type Location Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Meadow and 

Stream 

Restoration)

ProjectsLast 

Chance 

(Meadowview) 

and Little Last 

Chance (Rowland 

Creek, Dotta 

Canyon, Sulphur 

Creek/Berry 

Creek, Red 

Clover/Poco, 

Black Gulch, 

Greenhorn Creek

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Middle Fork 

Whitetop Project

Middle Fork 

Feather River

Toxicity and potentially reduced 

water quality. Individual frogs 

could be killed from treatment.

Short-term direct and indirect 

effects to individual CRLF, 

long-term enhancement of 

habitat by maintenance of 

native plant species.

Moonlight Road 

Relocation Project

The project is 

located about 10 

miles north of 

Taylorsville, 

California on 

Forest Service 

Road 28N03

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water quality.

Dredger's Delight 

and High Grade 

Placer Claims

Quincy Highway, 

on Thompson 

Creek

Impacts from increased sediment 

delivery, decrease in water quality.

Mining decreases habitat 

quality, mainly in riverine 

systems. Potential long term 

cumulative effects due to 

potential persistant 

sedimentation into riverine 

habitats due to mining 

operations.

Snake Lake 

Meadow Thinning

East side of 

Snake Lake, 

Plumas County, 

California

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels.

Short-term micro-climate 

change, long-term reduction of 

fuels and improved meadow 

habitat conditions.

Dutch Hill Tunnel Along the 26N42Y 

road, Barker 

Gulch, Seneca, 

CA.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine habitats.

Potential long term cumulative 

effects due to potential 

persistant sedimentation into 

riverine habitats due to mining 

operations.

Cascade Trailhead 

Improvements

Cascade 

Trailhead, near 

Quincy, CA.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine habitats.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. Long 

term improvement to water 

quality. Recreational use, 

potential effects to FYLF and 

NWPT and their habitat. 

Vegetation 

Regeneration 

Project

Buck’s Fen, Bucks 

Lake Wilderness, 

adjacent to Rt. 

Hand Salt Creek, 

Mt. Hough RD, 

Quincy, CA. 

Positive direct and indirect impact, 

reduced grazing impact and 

reduced compaction and 

sedimentation. 

Short and long-term 

improvement to habitat and 

water quality.

Trail 

Reconstruction

Greenville 

Campground

Concentrate personnal onto trail 

and reduced random impacts to 

habitat, overall improvement to 

riverine and lacustrine habitats. 

Short and long-term 

improvement to habitat and 

water quality.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

188 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Location Riverine and lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Cattle 

Exclosures/Drift 

Fence construction

McFarland Ravine Positive direct and indirect impact, 

reduced grazing impact and 

reduced compaction and 

sedimentation. 

Short and long-term 

improvement to habitat and 

water quality.

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction Project, 

and multiproduct 

biomass, Group 

Selection & 

Reforestation

Keddie, American 

Valley, Meadow 

Valley , Corridor 

Wildand Interface, 

Empire, Ingalls, 

Jackson, Grizz, 

Big Hill, Freeman, 

Mabie, Camp 14, 

WUI 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions. 

Fires Recovery and 

Restoration Project

Moonlight and 

Wheeler, 

Moonlight 

Amendment, 

Silver Fire Fuel 

Reduction Project, 

Rich Fire, 

Moonlight 

Reforestation 

Project

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions. 

Upper Indian Creek 

Water Quality 

Improvement 

Projects

Upper Indian 

Creek watershed, 

Roads 27N25Y, 

27N19Y, 27N20Y, 

27N22Y, 29N43

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation. 

Meadow improvement, road 

improvements.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Private Timber 

Harvest Plans 

(308,120 acres) to 

implement 

vegetation mgt 

projects. (Multiproduct, thinning, 

salvage, stand 

conversion, and 

slash removal. 

Forest wide Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short term micro-climate change, 

long term reduction of fuels.

Short term sedimentation, long 

term protection from wildfire 

through fuel reduction.

3.6.7.3.3 Road Densities and Cumulative Effects Analysis

Watershed data was reviewed for cumulative effects for the FYLF and NWPT, and the findings are 

there is not an appreciable cumulative effect to FYLF and NWPT and their habitat. Reference the 

CRLF Cumulative Effects Analysis section for a discussion of the cumulative effects of road densities 

on watershed conditions. Again, the Soil and Watershed Report completed a detailed analysis of the 

effects of the Nation Forest System Roads on watersheds within the Project Areas (Plumas National 

Forest).

3.6.7.4 Summary of Effects

With analysis of route and trail miles within RCAs, ZOIs and CARs, stream crossings, route and trail 

miles within 500 feet of FYLF and NWPT occurrences, Alternative 1 has the highest potential for 

direct and indirect effects to FYLF and NWPTs; Alternative 2 has a moderate to high potential for 

direct and indirect effects to FYLF and NWPTs; and Alternative 4 has a low potential for direct and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 189

indirect effects to FYLF and NWPTs. Alternative 5 has a moderate to low potential for direct and 

indirect effects. Alternative 3 has no potential for direct and indirect effects to FYLF and NWPTs. 

Again, past and current cumulative effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats include current and 

historic livestock grazing; reduced suitability of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; mining 

activities; and recreational activities including hunting, camping, and general recreation activities 

including all forms of motorized use, including four-wheel-drive vehicles, OHVs, and motorcycles. 

3.6.7.5 Determinations

3.6.7.5.1 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Alternative 1 may affect individuals and is likely to result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog. This determination is based on: 

1. The allowance of cross-country travel and the potential proliferation of additional 

unauthorized routes within RCAs, ZOIs and within 500 feet of known FYLF occurrences

2. The magnitude of effects is greater in every category for Alternative 1, including miles of 

route within RCAs, ZOIs, stream crossings, and route miles within known occurrences.

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward listing 

or loss of viability for the foothill yellow-legged frog. This determination is based on: 

1. Cross-country travel and the potential for proliferation of additional motorized routes are 

eliminated.

2. Miles of proposed designated trails are relatively low within CARs that contain FYLF.

3. The miles of proposed designated trails within 500 feet of known occurrences are very low (< 

1 mile). 

Alternatives 3 would not affect the FYLF. This determination is based on: 

1. Cross-country travel and the potential for proliferation of additional motorized routes are 

eliminated, there are no proposed designated trails. 

3.6.7.5.2 Northwestern Pond Turtle

Alternative 1 may affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability 

for the Northwestern Pond Turtle. This determination is based on: 

1. The allowance of cross-country travel and the potential proliferation of additional motorized 

routes within RCAs, ZOIs and within 500 feet of known NWPT occurrences,. 

2. The magnitude of effects is greater in every category for Alternative 1, including miles of 

route within RCAs, ZOIs, stream crossings, and route miles within known occurrences.

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward listing 

or loss of viability for the Northwestern Pond Turtle. This determination is based on: 

1. Cross-country travel and the potential for proliferation of additional motorized routes are 

eliminated.

2. Miles of proposed designated trails are relatively low within CARs that contain NWPT, and 

(3) The miles of proposed designated trails within 500 feet of known occurrences are very 

low (< 1 mile).

Alternative 3 would not affect the NWPT. This determination is based on: 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

190 – Plumas National Forest

1. Cross-country travel and the potential for proliferation of additional motorized routes are 

eliminated. 

2. There are no trails proposed to be added to the NFTS.

3.6.8 Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs

3.6.8.1 Affected Environment

Mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada occupy aquatic habitats for almost all their 

seasonal life history; they breed, rear, and overwinter in aquatic habitat. In general, habitat for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog is lentic (lakes and ponds), and lotic (streams) at 3,500 feet elevation 

and above on the Plumas National Forest. The northern species, R. sierrae, appears to occupy stream 

habitats more frequently, whereas the southern species, R. muscosa, often occupies lake habitats. 

Because mountain yellow-legged frog larvae overwinter at least one year, perennial aquatic habitats 

that do not freeze in the winter are needed for breeding and rearing. The species generally are thought 

to use perennial aquatic sites for overwintering, though this is not well-studied. Larvae and 

metamorphs to some level support a segment of the high-elevation food web: for example between 

invertebrates and garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.). Benthic invertebrates appear to be the primary 

food source of postmetamorphic life stages (juveniles and adults) in lake-dwelling populations. 

Postmetamorphic stages, known to move among aquatic sites seasonally, can rapidly colonize 

unoccupied habitat. Such movements may maintain proximate clusters of occupied sites that may 

function as metapopulations.

3.6.8.1.1 Prior to 1980

Historic mountain yellow-legged frog data for the PNF and vicinity are sparse. Prior to 1980, 

mountain yellow-legged frogs have been recorded from 6 general localities.

No data exist prior to the 1940s. In 1943, Margaret Storey collected mountain yellow-legged 

frogs from 3 localities in Sierra County: At the bridge over Slate Creek [CAS-SU 8602-8604]; 1 km 

north of Scales [CAS-SU 8611]; and Howland’s Flat [CAS-SU 8612]). In 1947, D. V. Brown 

collected a juvenile mountain yellow-legged frog at Camp La Porte, the Boy Scouts of America camp 

at La Porte (CAS-SU 9528).

One collection dates from the 1950s; Walter Howard and Ed Jameson, Jr. collected a juvenile 

mountain yellow-legged frog 11.2 km north of Quincy in 1950 (CAS 218482).

The only other pre-1980 records from the vicinity of the PNF date from the 1960s. In 1960, 8 

mountain yellow-legged frogs were collected from near LaPorte (CSUC 1115, 1253-1259). In 1961, 5 

mountain yellow-legged frogs were collected from Big Grizzly Creek (CSUC 1107-1111; Koo and 

Vindum 1999).

3.6.8.1.2 1980 to Present

Based on re-survey of historically occupied sites, Jennings and Hayes (1994) indicated that the 

species appeared extirpated from several localities. Plumas National Forest surveys conducted from 

1990 through 2004 have generally followed the Fellers and Freel (1995) protocol, but significant 

variation in survey effort has been applied. A handful of these surveys have recorded mountain 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 191

yellow-legged frogs at one to three locations, and most observations have been of individual frogs; 

sites with even two or three individuals are rare (Twedt and Evans 1993; USFS 1994, 2000a; Fellers 

and Freel 1995; Fellers 1997b; Koo and Vindum 1999, 2002; Foster Wheeler 2001; Williams 2004). A 

number of surveys within the appropriate elevation range and habitat have failed to detect mountain 

yellow-legged frogs (Fellers 1996; Ganda 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2001e; Ecosystems West 

2001, NSR 2001, Klamath WR 2003, Manda 2004).

Based on surveys during the 1990s, analysis of amphibian survey data, and collected positive 

sightings from the PNF, 54 known sites currently have mountain yellow-legged frogs, but data on 

numbers of individuals are largely lacking (C. Davidson, pers. comm., 2001). Nine of these sites, all 

in Plumas County, are specimen-documented: meadow on Pinkard Creek (CAS 203170); tributary to 

Rock Creek (CAS 206093); small pond north of Pine Grove Cemetery (CAS 209668); Faggs 

Reservoir (CAS 209370-209377); Silver Lake (CAS 209386); Rock Lake (209404) and its effluent 

(CAS 227668); outlet of Gold Lake (CAS 227259); upper Lone Rock Creek (CAS 227639); and 

Boulder Creek at Lowe Flat (CAS 227640).

Based on the most recent entries into the PNF Amphibian Database, between 2000 and 2003, of 

over 80 surveys conducted that included mountain yellow-legged frog as a target species, 34 surveys 

across 26 different sites recorded the species. Except for one site at which ca. 100 mountain yellowlegged frog larvae were found, one to 12 mountain yellow-legged frogs (various life stages) were 

recorded across remaining sites. The species appears to have disappeared from some of the relatively 

few historic sites on the PNF, and species abundance now seems low.

From 2003 to 2006, the USFS SNAMP surveyed nine watersheds on the PNF containing 50 sites. 

No sites had evidence of mountain yellow-legged frog breeding, and adults or juveniles were located 

at two (4 percent) of the sites surveyed. Only one to two mountain yellow-legged frogs were found on 

a given survey. 

Also over the interval 2003-2006, CDFG conducted 86 surveys (see detail of survey approach in 

Status section) of 78 different sites with potential mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. Mountain 

yellow-legged frogs were detected at 16.7 percent (n = 13) of surveyed sites. The collective recent 

data indicate that mountain yellow-legged frogs are sparsely distributed on the PNF.

A three-year MYLF telemetry study began in July 2003 and ended in September of 2007. The 

objective of the study is to determine the dispersal behavior of the MYLF in relation to steams and 

adjacent terrestrial habitat. From this telemetry study, current findings include that the frogs are only 

associated directly within the drainage or just adjacent (23 meters away from stream); in the summer 

months each adult frog has been located very close to the same pool/territory; and in the fall, as 

temperatures decline, female frogs have been found to be moving downstream within the stream 

channel towards male frogs (Vance, personal com. 2004).

3.6.8.1.3 Current Status

Mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada occur on both sides of the mountain axis between 

the headwaters of the Feather River and the headwaters of the Kern River between 1,100 m (3,609 

feet) and 3,810 m (12,500 feet), but their eastside distribution appears to be restricted to the Tahoe 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

192 – Plumas National Forest

Basin southward. Rana sierrae occupies the northern and central Sierra Nevada south to the vicinity 

of Mather Pass (Fresno County), whereas R. muscosa occupies the Sierra Nevada south of this area.

The Forest has proposed conservation measures to reduce impacts to potential MYLF habitat on 

twenty-three perennial stream crossings by the construction of hardened crossings and crossing 

structures such as small culvert installation (reference appendix A of FEIS). 

3.6.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.6.8.2.1 Route and Trail Miles within Riparian Conservation Areas and Zone of Influence 

Alternative 1

With implementation of Alternative 1 there are a very high number of miles existing trails and 

unauthorized existing routes on the PNF and thus a greater negative effect; 108 miles of routes fall 

within 300-foot RCA of perennial streams and 208 miles of routes fall within the 300-foot RCA 

buffer of intermittent streams (Table 49). There are 64.2 miles of routes within the 500-foot ZOI 

buffer of perennial streams and 140 miles of routes are the 500-foot ZOI buffer of intermittent 

streams at 3,500 foot elevation and above on the Plumas National Forest (Table 50). These figures 

dramatically drop in proposed designated trail miles with all other action alternatives.

Alternative 2

A moderately high to high number of trail miles are proposed for Alternative 2, with 79 miles within 

the RCA of perennial streams and 151 miles within the RCA of intermittent streams and 47 miles 

within the ZOI (300-to-500-foot buffer) of perennial streams and 101 miles within the ZOI of 

intermittent streams (Table 49 and Table 50). This is approximately 28% less than the miles currently 

existing as unauthorized routes with an “open” Forest (Alternative 1), and a moderate to high direct 

and indirect effect to the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes to add no new trails to the system, and therefore, no negative direct and 

indirect effects would occur to the MYLF and potential MYLF habitat. Alternative 3 does eliminate 

cross country travel, reducing the use of 1107 miles of unauthorized trails, and therefore will have a 

positive effect on MYLF and their habitat. Road miles are used as a relative index to measure the 

potential indirect effects to aquatic species including the MYLF. As discussed above in the general 

effects section, to continue to allow OHV travel throughout the Forest, may have a direct effect on the 

MYLF by potentially crushing the frog, tadpole, or eggs by a vehicle. Indirectly, the loss of riparian 

cover, soil compaction, increased access by predators due to lack of cover and habitat degradation are 

direct and indirect effects of the implementation of Alternative 1.

Alternatives 4 and 5

A low number of trail miles are proposed with Alternatives 4 and 5 with 10 to 15 miles respectively, 

within the RCA of perennial streams and 20 to 36 miles respectively, within the RCA of intermittent 

streams (Table 49). There were 13 to 22 miles respectively within the RCA and ZOI of perennial 

streams and 40 to 62 miles respectively within the ZOI of intermittent streams above 3,500 feet 

elevation (Table 50). This is 10% to 16% of the number of miles currently existing as unauthorized 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 193

routes with an “open” forest (Alternative 1) and a low to moderate direct and indirect effect to the 

mountain yellow-legged frog with the implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5. 

There is minimal impact to lakes and ponds by the No-action and all four action alternatives 

within the PNF (Table 49 and Table 50). There will be no further analysis of effect to ponds. 

Table 49. Miles and Acres of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS 

(Alts. 2-5) within potential Mountain yellow-legged frog habitat within 300 feet (RCA) of perennial 

streams, intermittent streams, ponds and lakes above 3,500 feet elevation

Habitat Acres on 

Forest 

(>3500’) 

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS and 

acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

Perennial 

Streams

88,211 108.8 79.0 25.8 19.0 0 0 8.0 5 14.3 10

Intermittent 

Streams

204,028 208.0 151.0 54.0 39.0 0 0 20.9 15.0 34.3 26.0

Ponds 

Lakes 

4,376 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0 0 0.1 0.07 0.1 .07

Note: SNF S&G#94: Ground disturbing activity will be no more than 25% of RCA; all of the figures above total no more than 1% 

of the perennial RCA, intermittent RCA, and pond/lake RCAs in Alternative 1. Alternative 5 is much less. Riparian Management 

Objectives have been met by all action alternatives (reference appendix A of soil and water report)

Table 50. Miles and Acres of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS 

(Alts. 2-5) within potential Mountain yellow-legged frog habitat within 300-500 feet (ZOI) of perennial 

streams, intermittent streams, ponds and lakes above 3,500 feet elevation

.

Habitat Acres on 

Forest 

(>3500’) 

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS and 

acres of potential habitat affected

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

Perennial 

Streams

147,941 64.2 47.0 18.0 13.0 0 0 5.4 4.0 8.0 6.0

Intermittent 

Streams

349,585 139.6 101.0 42.0 30.0 0 0 19.0 13.0 28.3 20.0

Ponds 

Lakes 

6,969 0.1 .07 0.3 0 0 0.1

3.6.8.2.2 Route and Trail Miles within Critical Aquatic Refuges

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the MYLF due to the greatest number of miles proposed for 

addition to the NFTS. Critical Aquatic Refuges with known or suspected MYLF occurrence are, Lone 

Rock, Boulder/Lowe, Rowland, Lakes Basin, Pinegrove, Pinkard, Willow, Rock and Buck’s. 

Alternative 1 has the greatest impact to the MYLF with a range of 4 to 36 miles of unauthorized 

routes available for use in these CARs. The largest known populations of MYLF occur in Lone Rock, 

Boulder/Lowe, Lakes Basin, Rock, and Buck’s CARs. The miles of unauthorized routes within these 

CARs range from 7 to 35 for Alternative 1 with a high direct and indirect effect to MYLF and its 

habitat. With the known population and suitable habitat scattered throughout the watershed, there is a 

high likelihood of an OHV crushing a MYLF (near the streams) adult or metamorph directly affecting 

the species. MYLF are known to travel up to 23 meters from perennial waterbodies (MGW, 2007).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

194 – Plumas National Forest

A detailed analysis of the Critical Aquatic Refuges can be found in the Biological Assessment and 

Evaluation written for this EIS, located in the project record. The Rowland, Pinegrove, Boulder/Lowe 

and Rock CARs are of concern to remain open (under Alternative1) with such a high density of use in 

Alternative 1 with a range of 22 to36 miles of open routes available for use (Table 51), and therefore 

the potential for a very high direct and indirect effect. Pinegrove and Rock would have a high direct 

and indirect effect with the implementation of Alternative 2 with a range of 15 to 18 miles of trails 

proposed for addition to the NFTS and with the implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5 a range of 7 to 

12 miles of proposed designated trails available for use. Boulder/Lowe is of some concern of a 

moderate direct and indirect effect by the implementation of Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 with a range of 2 

to 6 miles proposed trails to be added to the NFTS. Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect 

effect on MYLF and its habitat within all the CARs with known or suspected MYLF populations. 

Overall, there is a predicted moderate to low direct and indirect effect to the Critical Aquatic Refuges 

for MYLF with all of the action alternatives (Table 51).

Table 51. Miles of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) and unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) 

within Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs), PNF – Mountain yellow-legged frogs above 3,500’ elevation

CARs Total Acres within the CAR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Lone Rock 16,890 6.6 2.6 0 2.3 2.8

Boulder/Lowe 18,195 21.9 6.1 0 1.7 2.4

Roland 35,570 31.6 2.2 0 0.7 2.

Lakes Basin 23,252 12.0 1.2 0 1.3 1.3

Pinegrove 20,017 36.0 18.4 0 7.0 12.2

Willow 8,478 4.6 1.4 0 0.5 0.5

Jacks 19,215 20.4 12.8 0 0 0

Pinkard 4,907 4.0 0.5 0 0 0

Rock 36,860 34.9 15.4 0 8.9 11.1

Bucks 58,138 14.3 4.2 0 1.6 1.6

3.6.8.2.3 Number of Stream Crossings within RCAs 

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the MYLF from native surface motorized crossing densities 

with 222 perennial stream crossings and 714 intermittent stream crossings (Table 52). Alternative 1 

has the greatest chance of having a high direct effect by potentially crushing a MYLF, tadpole or egg 

masses with a potential very high impact. Alternative 2 has a potential for a high to moderate impact 

on MYLF and habitat with 63 perennial stream crossings and 179 intermittent stream crossings 

proposed across the Forest. Alternatives 4 and 5 have the potential for a moderate impact on MYLF 

and its habitat with a range of 14 to 29 perennial stream crossings and 74 to 138 intermittent stream 

crossings proposed across the Forest. Impacts would be minimized with hardening of crossings and 

the construction of crossing structures. Alternative 3 does eliminate cross country travel, reducing the 

use of user created trails and thus reduced stream crossings and potential effects to MYLF and their 

habitat. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 195

Table 52. Number of stream crossings on unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails to be added to 

the NFTS (Alts 2-5) above 3500’ elevation, by alternative on the Plumas National Forest.

Number of Crossings by Stream Type on Beckwourth, Feather River and Mt. Hough RDs

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Stream 

Type

Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh Bk Fr Mh

Perennial 

xings

57 100 65 10 43 10 0 0 0 1 7 6 4 18 7

Intermittent 

xings

322 88 304 55 27 97 0 0 0 8 7 59 17 13 79

Total 

Crossings

379 188 369 65 70 107 0 0 0 9 14 65 21 31 86

Table 53 displays the miles of route or trail that are within or adjacent to 500 feet of known 

occurrences of MYLF. There are 154 known occurrences (single and multiple frog sightings per 

occurrence. Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for a moderate direct or indirect effect to MYLF 

and its habitat with 4 miles of unauthorized routes and proposed designated trails within the 500-foot 

buffer. Alternatives 2 thru 5 have the potential for a low direct or indirect effect to MYLF and its 

habitat with a range of 0 to 0.8 mile proposed designated trails within 500 feet of known occurrences 

of MYLF.

Table 53. Unauthorized route (Alt. 1) and proposed trail miles to be added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) within 

500 feet of mountain yellow-legged frog occurrences. 

Species Number of 

Known/Confirmed 

Occurrences

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Mountain 

Yellow Legged 

Frog

154 4.0 0.8 0 0.5 0.5

The Plumas National Forest completed a three-year telemetry study on MYLF on Bean Creek 

(~10 miles South West of Quincy, CA). The maximum linear movement of a MYLF along the stream 

was less than one mile. To determine a potential effect of an OHV crossing a stream, a 1 mile buffer 

was placed around every occurrence of MYLF herpetofauna on the Forest. Table 54 displays the 

number of routes that cross perennial and intermittent streams within one mile of known MYLF 

occurrences. There are 154 known occurrences (single and multiple frog sightings per occurrence 

(Table 54). Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for moderate direct or indirect effects to MYLF 

and its habitat with 43 perennial and intermittent stream crossings of unauthorized routes within 1 

mile of known MYLF occurrences. Alternative 2 has a moderate to high direct or indirect effect to 

MYLF and its habitat with 31 perennial and intermittent stream crossings of proposed motorized 

trails within 1 mile of known MYLF occurrences. Alternatives 4 and 5 have a low to moderate direct 

or indirect effect to MYLF and its habitat with 10 to 17 perennial and intermittent stream crossing of 

proposed motorized trails within 1 mile of known MYLF occurrences. Alternative 3 has no direct or 

indirect effect on MYLF and its habitat. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

196 – Plumas National Forest

Table 54. Number of unauthorized route (Alt. 1) or proposed trails to be added to the NFTS (Alts 2-5) 

that cross perennial and intermittent streams within one mile of MYLF occurrences. 

Species Number of 

Known/Confirmed 

Occurrences

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

P I P I P I P I P I

Mountain 

Yellow Legged 

Frog

154 32 11 24 7 0 0 5 5 11 6

Total 43 31 0 10 17

3.6.8.2.4 Temporal Effects

Short-term (1 year) Alternative 1 would continue to have the potential for the greatest direct and 

indirect effect to MYLF and its habitat. In the long term (20 years), Alternative 1 would continue to 

degrade occupied and suitable MYLF habitat from 3,500 and above. A minimum of 1,107 miles of 

unauthorized inventoried OHV trails would continue to be used and there would be no ability for the 

compacted, degraded soil and vegetative conditions to recover. There would be an immediate reduced 

direct effect by the closure of any trails within 500 feet of MYLF occurrence, reducing the chance for 

crushing any life stage of the MYLF. In the short term, Alternatives 2 and 5 would have a reduced 

potential for a direct effect to individual MYLFs, yet a minimal change in the short term for recovery 

of the 742 to 880 miles of closed unauthorized routes to recover. In the long term (20 years), these 

742 to 880 miles of closed unauthorized routes would have time to recover naturally. Some could be 

manually restored by putting the route back to the natural contour of the land, mulching, and seeding. 

In the short term (1 year), Alternatives 3 and 4 would have a reduced potential for a direct effect to 

individual MYLFs, with a short term for recovery of the 965 to 1,107 miles of closed unauthorized 

routes. In the long term (20 years); these 965 to 1,107 miles of closed unauthorized routes would have 

to recover naturally and again recovery could be enhanced by manual treatment.

3.6.8.3 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative actions applicable to all Alternatives are described in the FYLF and NWPT sections 

above. Again, a detailed analysis of the cumulative effect of Forest road densities can be found in the 

Soil and Water Resources section of Chapter 3 and in the Soil and Water Specialist Report.

General discussion for the past and current cumulative effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats 

are described above in the CRLF, FYLF, and NWPT sections. Specific actions that affect the MYLF 

are described in Table 55 listing all of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including 

fuels, vegetation, recreation, range allotment plans, non-motorized trail development, and special use 

permit re-issuances. Table 55 summarize cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects and include a description of the potential impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 197

Table 55. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat from Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects12. 

Project type Location Riverine and Lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Implement interim 

OHV forest orders 

to prohibit vehicle 

travel off existing 

inventoried roads, 

areas, and trails for 

an interim period, 

until site specific 

analysis can occur 

utilizing appropriate 

levels of NEPA. 

Forest wide: 

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

Project CE 31.b(1) 

No additional direct and indirect 

effects, overall reduced potential 

for direct and indirect effects 

such as crushing or disturbance 

to aquatic species, decrease in 

sedimentation and vegetative 

disturbance at crossings and 

downstream. 

Reduced inpacts from effect 

from open forest to cross 

country travel. No additional 

trails will be added to the 

Forest, and overall reduced 

cumulative effect compared to 

the existing condition with a 

“open” forest. Overall benefit 

to herpetofauna habitat by 

eliminating effects to habitat 

quality. 

Designation of 

backcountry 

motorized trail to tie 

Plumas together 

with statewide trail

Forest wide: 

Backcountry 

Discovery Trail

Minimal impacts depending on 

location, some additional direct 

and indirect effects with the 

potential for direct and indirect 

effects such as crushing or 

disturbance to aquatic species, 

increased sedimentation and 

vegetative disturbance. 

Harrassment, collection, human 

disturbance, site degradation.

Ongoing OHV activity and 

associated disturbances both 

physical to environment, and 

disturbance by noise and 

human activities.

Motorcycle 

Recreational Events 

(Described in Table 

42)

Forest wide: Robert 

Van Court Ironman 

Dual Sport 

Motorcycle Rec 

Event

Potential direct and indirect 

effects are short term and 

minmal due to the use of existing 

road system. Short term OHV 

activity and associated 

disturbances both physical to 

environment, and disturbance by 

noise and human activities.

Cumulative effects minimal 

due to two to three day events.

Mining/Suction 

Dredging

Cedar Mining 

Claim (Placer), 

Copper Penny and 

Two Penny

Impacts from increased sediment 

delivery, decrease in water 

quality.

Mining/suction dredging add to 

cumulative impacts by 

decreasing habitat quality, 

mainly in riverine systems. 

Hazard tree removal Ongoing Forest 

wide

Minimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance during harvest. 

Reduction of LWD within riverine 

habitats.

Cumulative impact of loss of 

LWD into riverine and 

lacustrine habitats, but 

decrease in fuels and reduced 

risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

Aquatic Organism 

Passage Projects 

Ongoing , 

proposals, 

throughout Forest, 

including ARRA 

projects

Direct effects of crushing of an 

aquatic organism by equipment. 

Indirect effects is a short-term 

sediment disturbance during 

project construction.

Increase herpetofauna 

passage and improved aquatic 

connectivity. Short-term 

cumulative impacts from 

sediment and habitat 

disturbance are minor. 

 12 Reference Appendix C of FEIS for project descriptions
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

198 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Location Riverine and Lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Watershed 

Restoration 

Clark’s Creek 

Aspen Restoration 

and Ecosystem 

Enhancement 

Project,

Direct effects of crushing of an 

aquatic organism by equipment. 

Indirect effects is a short-term 

sediment disturbance during 

project construction. 

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. Long 

term improvement to water 

storage capacity and improved 

water quality. Improved habitat 

conditions from restoration 

project.

Range Allotment 

permit renewal

Strawberry Valley 

Allotment

Stream bank trampling from 

livestock resulting in increases in 

sediment and decrease in water 

surface shade from browsing 

riparian shrubs.

Cumulative impacts from 

sediment and water surface 

shade are expected to be 

within Forest Plan standards 

(<20%).

Integrated Noxious 

Weed Control 

Program

Forest wide Toxicity and potentially reduced 

water quality. Individual frogs 

could be killed. Potential loss of 

individuals during Rx burn. 

Short-term direct and indirect 

effects to individual CRLF, 

long-term enhancement of 

habitat by maintenance of 

native plant species. 

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction Projects, 

Site Prep, and 

Reforestation

Antelope 

Reforestation, 

Ingalls DFPZ, 

Corral Thin 

Addition,Rock 

Island, On Top

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions. 

Fire Restoration 

Projects and 

Reforestation

Cold Fire Recovery 

and Roadside 

Safety Project, 

Cold Fire Soil 

Stabilization and 

fireline rehab, 

Camp 14 Salvage 

and Reforestation 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions.

Trail Maintenance 

and reroutes

Mills Peak Trail, 

Smith Lake and Mt. 

Elwell Trail 

Reroutes

Short-term sediment disturbance 

into riverine habitats, during 

project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water quality.

Corral Thin 

Addition

Off Forest Service 

System Road 

24N10, west of 

Lake Davis.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine 

habitats, short-term microclimate change, long-term 

reduction of fuels.

Dotta Canyon 

Meadow 

Restoration

Dotta Canyon Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation. 

Potential increase in breeding 

habitat for invasive species such 

as bull frogs.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Last Chance 

(Meadowview) and 

Little Last Chance 

(Rowland Creek) 

Watershed 

Restoration 

Projects

Meadowview and 

Rowland Creeks

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation. 

Potential increase in breeding 

habitat for invasive species such 

as bull frogs.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Middle Fork 

Whitetop Project

Middle Fork 

Feather River

Toxicity and potentially reduced 

water quality. Individual frogs 

could be killed. Potential loss of 

individuals during treatment. 

Short-term direct and indirect 

effects to individual CRLF, 

long-term enhancement of 

habitat by maintenance of 

native plant species. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 199

Project type Location Riverine and Lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Plinco Mine Off Site 

Water 

Developments

Plinco Unit 

McKesick Peak 

Allotment

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

waterquality.

Moonlight Road 

Relocation Project

The project is 

located about 10 

miles north of 

Taylorsville, 

California on Forest 

Service Road 

28N03

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water quality.

Corridor Wildland 

Urban Interface 

(WUI) Fuels 

Reduction Project

The project is 

located adjacent to 

the community of 

Quincy within the 1⁄4 

mile WUI of 

Chandler Road and 

Highway 89.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine 

habitats, short-term microclimate change, long-term 

reduction of fuels. 

Snake Lake 

Meadow Thinning

East side of Snake 

Lake, Plumas 

County, California

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine 

habitats, short-term microclimate change, long-term 

reduction of fuels.

Dutch Hill Tunnel Along the 26N42Y 

road, Barker Gulch, 

Seneca, CA.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine habitats. 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine habitats due to mining 

operations.

Cascade Trailhead 

Improvements

Cascade Trailhead, 

near Quincy, CA.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine habitats.

Recreational use, potential 

effects to FYLF and NWPTs 

and their habitat. 

Upper Indian Creek 

Water Quality 

Improvement 

Projects

Upper Indian Creek 

watershed, Roads 

27N25Y, 27N19Y, 

27N20Y, 27N22Y, 

29N43

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Dixie Valley and 

Little Dixie Sheep 

Allotments

10 to 14 miles 

north-northeast of 

the city of Portola, 

California

Stream bank trampling from 

livestock resulting in increases in 

sediment and decrease in water 

surface shade from browsing 

riparian shrubs.

Cumulative impacts from 

sediment and water surface 

shade are expected to be 

within Forest Plan standards 

(<20%).

Red Clover and 

Poco Creeks 

Meadow 

Restoration

Red Clover and 

Poco Creeks

Short-term sediment disturbance 

during project implementation.

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Long-term improvement to 

water storage capacity and 

improved water quality.

Non-Motorized Trail 

Construction

Lake Davis, CA. 

South of 

Lightening Tree 

Campground 

around N. and W. 

Sides of Lake

Buffer around lake, minimal 

direct and indirect impacts. 

Short-term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor. 

Recreational use, potential 

effects to herpetofauna and 

their potential habitat.

Aspen release,

conifer thinning. 

Dotta and NW 

Frenchman, Dixie 

Game Refuge, CA. 

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels.

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine 

habitats, short-term microclimate change, long-term 

reduction of fuels.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

200 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Location Riverine and Lacustrine Direct 

and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Wildlife Guzzler 

Replacement and 

Removal

Eureka Ridge and 

Frenchman Lake

No Impact, existing structures. Potential stranding of 

herpetofauna drawn to water 

source. Existing cumulative 

impact, removal and 

replacement. This potential 

may decrease in the long 

term. 

DFPZ Underburn Red Clover Valley Minimal impact, upland habitat Short term microclimate 

change, long term reduction of 

fuels. 

Canyon Dam Fuel 

Treatment Project

8 to 10 miles north 

of Greenville, 

California

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short-term micro-climate change, 

long-term reduction of fuels. 

Reduced fuel and potential for 

future catastrophic wildfire. 

Riparian habitat improvement, 

improved micro-climate 

change, and improved aquatic 

and riparian conditions. 

Copper Penny and 

Two Penny mining 

Plan of Operation

On or near Lights 

Creek, on the Mt. 

Hough Ranger 

District; nearest 

town is Greenville 

Impacts from increased sediment 

delivery, decrease in water 

quality.

Mining/suction dredging add to 

cumulative impacts by 

decreasing habitat quality.

Private Timber 

Harvest Plans 

(308,120 acres) to 

implement 

vegetation mgt 

projects. (Multiproduct, thinning, 

salvage, stand 

conversion, and 

slash removal. 

Forest wide on 

private land

Potential sedimentation into 

riverine and lacustrine habitats, 

short term micro-climate change, 

long term reduction of fuels.

Short term sedimentation, long 

term protection from wildfire 

through fuel reduction.

3.6.8.3.1 Road Densities and Cumulative Effects Analysis

Watershed data was reviewed for cumulative effects for the MYLF, and the findings are there is not 

an appreciable cumulative effect to MYLF and their habitat. Reference the CRLF Cumulative Effects 

Analysis section for a discussion of the cumulative effects of road densities on watershed conditions 

within the project boundary. The Soil and Watershed Report completed a detailed analysis of the 

effects of the Nation Forest System Roads on watersheds within the Project Areas (Plumas National 

Forest).

3.6.8.4 Summary of Effects

With analysis of route and trail miles within RCAs, ZOIs, and CARs, stream crossings, route and trail 

miles within 500 feet of MYLF occurrences, Alternative 1 has the highest potential for direct and 

indirect effects to MYLF Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 have a low potential for direct and indirect effects to 

MYLFs. shas no direct or indirect effects to MYLF. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable

cumulative effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats include current and historic livestock grazing; 

reduced suitability of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; mining activities; and recreational 

activities including hunting, camping, and general recreation activities including all forms of 

motorized use, including four-wheel-drive vehicles, OHVs, and motorcycles. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 201

3.6.8.5 Determinations

Alternative 1 may affect individuals and is likely to result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability 

for the mountain yellow-legged frog. This determination is based on: 

1. The allowance of cross-country travel and the potential proliferation of additional motorized 

routes within RCAs, ZOIs and within 500 feet of known MYLF occurrences. 

2. The magnitude of effects is greater in every category for Alternative 1, including miles of 

route within RCAs, ZOIs, stream crossings, and route miles within known occurrences.

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward listing 

or loss of viability for the mountain yellow-legged frog. This determination is based on the following:

1. Cross-country travel and the potential for proliferation of additional motorized routes are 

eliminated. 

2. The miles of proposed designated trails are relatively low within CARs that contain MYLF. 

3. The miles of proposed designated trails within 500 feet of known occurrences are very low 

(<1 mile).

Alternative 3 would not affect the MYLF. This determination is based on the following: 

1. Cross-country travel and the potential for proliferation of additional motorized routes are 

eliminated. 

2. There are no existing system trails within 500 feet of known occurrences for MYLF. 

3. System trail densities within RCAs and ZOIs are very low and insignificant ranging from 0.5 

to 0.08 mile per square mile.

3.6.9 Hardhead Minnow

3.6.9.1 Affected Environment

Hardhead minnow (Mylopharodon conocephalus) are listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s 

Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). Hardhead are a cyprinid species endemic to 

California and are native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin system, Russian River and Napa River 

(Moyle 2002). 

On the PNF, hardhead are known to inhabit the North Fork Feather River from Lake Oroville to 

the confluence with the East Branch North Fork Feather River, East Branch North Fork Feather River 

to the confluence of Rush Creek, Indian Creek from confluence with Spanish Creek to Flournoy 

Bridge, portions of Spanish Creek, portions of Greenhorn Creek, Middle Fork Feather River from 

Lake Oroville to the confluence of Humbug Creek near Portola, and South Fork Feather River from 

Ponderosa Reservoir to a natural migration barrier approximately 2 miles upstream. Hardhead are 

also known to inhabit Butt Valley Reservoir and Ponderosa Reservoir. Hardhead inhabit 

approximately 142 miles of stream on the PNF.

Route associated risk factors: Potential road and trail associated risk factors to hardhead include 

the immediate loss of individual fish at stream crossings and increases in sedimentation leading to the 

following: changes in water quality, changes in prey base, and changes to potential spawning bed 

capacity.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

202 – Plumas National Forest

3.6.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.6.9.2.1 Site-Specific Physical Impacts and Disturbance to Occupied Hardhead Streams

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to hardhead where unauthorized routes and cross-country travel 

have the potential to impact occupied hardhead habitat. Cross-country travel has the potential to cause 

direct and indirect effects to hardhead habitat if streams are crossed by motor vehicles and if vehicles 

travel within the RCAs. Direct effects include potential hardhead mortality. Indirect effects include 

increased sedimentation and changes to channel, stream bank characteristics and vegetation structure. 

The remaining action alternatives indirectly affect occupied hardhead streams by the potential to 

deliver sediment to streams, but the indirect effects are likely limited due to low mileage of proposed 

trails to be added to the NFTS.

3.6.9.2.2 Route and Trail Miles within Riparian Conservation Areas

Table 56 shows the miles of unauthorized routes and proposed trails to be added to the NFTS within 

RCAs of known occupied hardhead habitat by alternative. Alternative 1 has the most miles of 

unauthorized routes within RCAs and poses the greatest risk to hardhead. Alternative 3 has no miles 

of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS in RCAs. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 have less than half a mile 

of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS within RCAs. In Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 the effects would 

be limited to the Middle Fork Feather River. All action Alternatives pose lesser risk to hardhead than 

Alternative 1.

Table 56. Miles of proposed trails to be added to the NFTS (Alt. 2-5) and unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) 

within 300’ of known occupied Hardhead Minnow habitat on the PNF

Habitat Strm Miles/

Lake Acres

Acres w/in 

RCA

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 1 Alt 5

Perennial 

Streams

141.8 18,565 10.05 0.43 0 0.30 0.30

Ponds 

Lakes 

2,074 623 0.02 0 0 0 0

1 

3.6.9.2.3 Number of Stream Crossings within RCAs

Alternative 3 has no proposed trails to be added to the NFTS. 

Table 57 shows the number of stream crossings by alternative for PNF. There are no stream crossings 

within RCAs of hardhead occupied streams in any of the alternatives. However, Alternative 1 allows 

cross-country travel, which could result in stream crossings which poses the greatest risk of direct 

impacts to hardhead.

Table 57. Number of stream crossings created by unauthorized routes (Alt. 1) and proposed trails to be 

added to the NFTS (Alts. 2-5) by alternative on the Plumas National Forest.

Stream Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Perennial 252 74 0 13 38

Intermittent 511 108 0 41 77

Total Crossings 763 182 0 54 115

1 Alternative 3 has no proposed trails to be added to the NFTS. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 203

3.6.9.3 Cumulative Effects

Past, current and foreseeable future actions that effects hardhead include change of habitat and water 

quality due to pollution and sediment inputs from past logging and mining, loss of connectivity by 

hydropower projects, and competition with non-native species. Appendix C provides a list and 

description of present and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Forest and private lands within the 

PNF boundary. 

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of cumulative impacts by the increased effects to hardhead 

from unauthorized routes and cross-country travel that may directly and indirectly affect streams 

currently occupied by hardhead. Alternative 1 has the highest number of route miles within RCAs. 

Under Alternative 1, unauthorized route proliferation would likely continue and increase at an 

accelerated rate in the future, potentially increasing sediment delivery and alteration of stream bank 

vegetation and hydrologic condition, which may affect the abundance of hardhead within localized 

areas in the future. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would slightly increase cumulative impacts to hardhead 

within the Middle Fork Feather River watershed. Under Alternative 1, unmanaged cross-country 

travel would continue to occur and increase at an unknown rate where impacts to fisheries resources 

are uncertain. Under all other alternatives, cross-country travel would be prohibited. Over time, 

benefits to fisheries would be realized once unauthorized routes are obliterated or recover naturally.

3.6.9.4 Summary of Effects 

Analysis of route and trail miles within RCAs, ZOIs, and CARs, stream crossings, route and trail 

miles within 300 feet of hardhead occupied streams show the following: Alternative 1 has the highest 

potential for direct and indirect effects to hardhead; Alternative 2 has low to moderate potential for 

direct and indirect effects to hardhead; Alternative 3 has no potential for direct and indirect effects to 

hardhead; and Alternatives 4 and 5 have very low potential for direct and indirect effects to hardhead. 

Past, current and foreseeable future action effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats include current 

and historic livestock grazing; reduced suitability of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; mining 

activities; and recreational activities including hunting, camping, and general recreation activities 

including all forms of motorized use, including four-wheel-drive vehicles, OHVs, and motorcycles. 

These activities along with others described above would add to the direct and indirect effects of each 

alternative as described above.

3.6.9.5 Determination

Alternatives, 1, 2, 4 and 5, may affect individuals, but are not likely result in a trend toward Federal 

listing or loss of viability for hardhead minnow. Alternative 3 would not affect the hardhead minnow. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

204 – Plumas National Forest

3.6.10 Summary of Effects Analysis of All Alternatives

Table 58. Summary of effects analysis across all alternatives.

Indicators – Aquatic Biota Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to TES 

aquatic biota habitat.

1 2 5 4 3

Density of motorized routes and trails as a measure of 

habitat effectiveness at the 7th 1order watershed level. 

2 5 4 3

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of areas 

at forest-wide scale and within the habitat for each 

species. 

1 2 5 4 3

The proportion of a species habitat that is affected by 

motorized routes and trails (including the routes or trails 

plus a biologically meaningful ‘zone of influence’ (e.g., 

300 ft.).

1 2 5 4 3

Number hydrologically sensitive areas within 300 ft. 

(RCA width) of an added route or area. 

1 2 5 4 3

Average for Aquatic Biota 1 2 5 4 3

1 

3.6.11 Summary of Determinations of All Alternatives

A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for aquatic biota related to the indicator. A score of 1 indicates the 

alternative has the greatest impact for aquatic biota related to the indicator.

Table 59. Summary of Effects of Proposed Action on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive 

Aquatic Species that Potentially Occur on the Plumas National Forest. 

Species Alternative1

No-action

Alternative 2, 4 

and 5

Alternative 3

FISH

Hardhead Minnow (Mylopharodon 

conocephalus)

MAI MAI WNA

AMPHIBIANS

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii)

MALAA MALAA (Alt 2 )

MANLAA (Alts. 

4&5)

NE

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) LRTTFL MAI WNA

Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) LRTTFL MAI WNA

REPTILES

Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata 

marmorata)

LRTTFL MAI WNA

Determinations: WNA = Will Not Affect, MAI = May Affect Individuals, but in not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing 

or loss of viability, LRTTFL = May affect individuals, and is Likely to Result in a Trend Toward Federal Listing or loss of viability.

NE = No Effect, MALAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect, MANLAA = May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect. 

3.6.11.1.1 California Red-legged Frog

Alternatives 1 and 2 may affect and is likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frogs and 

their habitat. Alternatives 4 and 5 meet all the criteria to lead to a “May affect, not likely to adversely 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 205

affect” determination for the CRLF. Alternative 3 would not affect the California red-legged frog or 

its habitat. 

In addition, impacts would be avoided or mitigated by complying with the Aquatic Management 

Strategy and assuring that all guidelines and RMOs are followed and met (Appendix A, Soil and 

Water Specialist Report, 2010), the Interdisciplinary Team agreed upon mitigations, in addition to the 

implementation of a season of use period and best management practices. 

3.6.11.1.2 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Alternative 1 may affect individuals and is likely to result in a trend toward Federal Listing of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog and its habitat. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but are not 

likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Alternative 3 would not affect FYLF.

3.6.11.1.3 Northwestern Pond Turtle

Alternative 1 may affect individuals and is likely to result in a trend toward Federal Listing of the 

northwestern pond turtle and its habitat. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but are not 

likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the northwestern pond turtle. 

Alternative 3 would not affect the NWPT. 

3.6.11.1.4 Mountain Yellow-legged Frog

Alternative 1 may affect individuals and is likely to result in a trend toward Federal Listing of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog and its habitat. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but is not 

likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the mountain yellow-legged 

frog. Alternative 3 would not affect the NWPT. 

3.6.11.1.5 Hardhead Minnow

Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 may affect but is not likely to adversely to result in a trend towards federal 

listing or loss of viability for the hardhead minnow. Alternative 3 would not affect the hardhead 

minnow.

3.6.12 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Compliance with the Forest Plan as amended (SNFPA ROD, 2004) would be met. Mitigations have 

been developed to minimize any adverse conditions by the proposed alternatives for TES Aquatic 

Species.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

206 – Plumas National Forest

3.7 Terrestrial and Riparian Species

3.7.1 Introduction

Management of wildlife species and habitat and maintenance of a diversity of animal communities is 

an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National 

Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

must be planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened 

or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive 

Species. In addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives 

established in each Forest Plan. Management decisions related to public motorized travel can affect 

wildlife by increasing human-caused mortality, causing changes in behavior due to disturbance and

habitat modification (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulak and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 1998). It 

is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife and avoid 

significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM 

2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to public motorized travel on NFS lands must 

consider minimizing effects to wildlife and their habitat. Specialist reports, including the Biological 

Assessment/Evaluation, Migratory Bird, Bald & Golden Eagle and Management Indicator Species, 

are incorporated by reference into this analysis. 

3.7.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Direction relevant to the alternatives and their effects to terrestrial biota includes:

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a threatened or endangered (TE), or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires 

the responsible federal agency to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest 

Service policy to analyze impacts to TE to ensure management activities are not be likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a TE, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in a Biological 

Assessment (BA) and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter. For compliance with ESA, the 

analysis for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beatle in the BA implemented the October 2006 

Programmatic Agreement and Project Design Criteria agreed to by the Pacific Southwest Region of 

the Forest Service (R5) and the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670). Forest Service Sensitive Species are animal 

and plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The 

Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals 

do not become threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on National Forests. It is 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 207

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to Sensitive Species to ensure management activities do not 

create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in a 

Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following Standards and Guidelines applicable 

to motorized travel management and terrestrial biota, which will be considered during the analysis 

process:

• California spotted owl and northern goshawk: Mitigate impacts where there is documented 

evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, 

trail and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, offhighway vehicle routes and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb 

nest sites (Management Standard and Guideline #82). 

• Pacific fisher and American marten: Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence 

of disturbance to the den site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail and 

road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off-highway 

vehicle routes and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites 

(Management Standards and Guidelines #87 and #89). 

• Riparian Dependent Species: Identify roads, trails, OHV trails, and staging areas, developed 

recreation sites, dispersed campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use 

sites during landscape analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to 

ensure consistency with standard and guidelines or desired conditions. (Management 

Standards and Guidelines #116). 

3.7.3 Background

In recent years, the increasing demand for motorized recreational opportunities on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands has lead to controversy over the potential effects of this use on wildlife. Several 

scientific papers and literature reviews have been written on the interaction between the motorized 

roads and trails on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. The majority of the literature and reviews 

describe the interactions between wildlife and roads rather than wildlife and trails. Most of the 

research has focused on wide-ranging carnivores (Zielinski, et al, 2007) and ungulates (hoofed 

animals)(Hayden et al., 2008). Most commonly, interactions included displacement and avoidance 

where animals were reported as altering their use patterns in response to roads. Disturbance at 

specific sites are also commonly reported, such as disruption at breeding or wintering sites. Collision 

with vehicles is another common report. Edge effects and habitat fragmentation, especially in regard 

to late-successional forests is another commonly identified impact of roads.

The broad general impacts of motorized trails to wildlife and riparian species are described below

(Trombulak and Frissell 2000):

• Mortality from collision with vehicles.

• Modification of animal behavior.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

208 – Plumas National Forest

• Alteration of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

• Alteration and use of habitats by humans.

3.7.3.1 Mortality from Collision with Vehicles

Animal mortality or injury from collision with vehicles is well documented in the literature.

Trombulak and Frissell (2000) reported animal mortality from vehicle collisions included a wide 

array of wildlife including deer, wolves, bear, hawks, owls, songbirds, snakes, lizards and

amphibians. Road associated mortality generally increases as traffic volume and speed increases. 

There is less concern for vehicle related mortality or injury on unpaved Forest roads (level 2 roads) 

for large mammals than for other wildlife species. Raptors may also be vulnerable to collisions on

Forest roads and trails because of their foraging behavior (Loos and Kerlinger 1993); however, most 

reports of raptor mortality are in association with highways. Motorized routes, due to their width (e.g. 

12 inches for motorcycle only and 50 inches or less on quad and/or motorcycle routes) and expected 

slower speed limits <15 mph (Jeep trails) are not expected to pose the same risk of collisions with 

wildlife as highways, paved roads or even Forest Service Level 3 (graveled, smooth surface passenger 

vehicle) roads.

Road and trail corridors may act as habitat sinks for wildlife that are attracted to corridors 

(Jalkotzy et al. 1997). However, direct mortality of animals (e.g. Barn owls) from vehicle collisions 

along these corridors (sinks) has been documented primarily in relation to higher speed paved roads 

and highways. Little scientific information is available about vehicle collisions on Forest roads or 

motorized trails, though some very limited mortality from use of Forest roads and motorized trails is 

to be expected depending on the type of trail and the amount of use a trail receives. However, we 

anticipate that collisions with wildlife to be lower risk on motorized routes, since use is often less and 

vehicle speeds are slower than on paved roads and highways.

Indirect mortality along roads and trails is associated with human access. Wildlife populations of 

hunted and trapped species are subject to increased mortality due to better access by humans (e.g. 

hunters on roads). Interior-forest birds breeding adjacent to roads and trails may receive higher nest 

predation by a variety of bird and mammal predators, and some songbird species have shown to have 

increased brown-headed cowbird parasitism rates.

3.7.3.2 Modification of Animal Behavior

A road or trail may modify the behavior of animals positively or negatively. Behavior modifications 

include changes or shifts in home range, changes in movement patterns, loss of reproductive success, 

flight or escape response and changes in physiological condition. Some wildlife species are more 

sensitive to well-traveled roads as opposed to motorized routes and trails that are only used by high 

clearance 4-wheel drive, motorcycle and all-terrain vehicles (OHVs). Other wildlife are more 

sensitive to the latter. In general, all roads and trails depending on the type of vehicle and the amount 

of use have some type of positive or negative impact to wildlife.

The most common interaction identified in literature between motorized routes and trails and 

wildlife species were displacement and avoidance, which altered habitat use (Kasworm and Manley 

1990, Mace et al. 1996 In Gaines et al. 2003). Wildlife often avoid habitats in the vicinity of roads 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 209

because of repeated disturbances along the corridor (Jalkotzy, et al. 1997). Studies, that provided 

examples of this avoidance behavior, indicated that both black bears and grizzly bears shifted their 

home ranges away from areas of high road density to areas of lower road densities (Brody and Pelton 

1989, McLellan and Shackelton 1988). Road avoidance may vary seasonally. Both grizzly and black 

bears tended to avoid roads less in the spring than in the fall. Elk also avoided roads less in the spring 

and more in the fall. These references are provided to show how wildlife interact with roads and how 

wildlife on the Plumas may respond similarly to high road densities.

Roads may affect the reproductive success of some species. Bald eagles in Oregon and Illinois 

showed declines in nesting productivity the closer nests were to roads. Bald eagle nests were 

preferentially selected away from roads (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). On the Plumas NF, the 

response of bald eagles to human activities (i.e. road use) is variable and individual bald eagle pairs 

show different thresholds of tolerance for disturbance. For example, bald eagles at Antelope Lake nest 

close to a paved road, whereas the bald eagle territory at Snake lake (camping, OHV use) has been 

unoccupied for several years.

Havlick (2002) documented numerous studies that show wildlife, including birds, reptiles and

large ungulates, respond to disturbance with accelerated heart rate and metabolic function and suffer 

from increased levels of stress. These factors can lead to displacement, mortality and reproductive 

failure. Wildlife was also reported to avoid areas with high levels of disturbance.

The impacts of motor vehicles to terrestrial wildlife can include disturbance from noise generated 

by OHVs. Determining the effects of noise on wildlife is complicated because responses vary 

between species. The variation in responses is based upon the type of noise and its duration, 

frequency, the magnitude, location, the species life history characteristics, habitat type, season, 

activity at time of exposure and whether other environmental stresses are occurring coincident to 

exposure of noise (Busnel 1978 In Radle 2002, Steidl and Powell 2006, Delaney and Grubb 1999, 

Delaney and Grubb 2003, Delaney and Grubb, 2004). Effects of noise can cause physiological 

responses in wildlife including increased heart rate, altering metabolism and hormone balance. 

Behavioral responses can include head raising, body shifting, short distance movements, flapping of 

wings (birds) and escape behavior. Together these effects potentially can lead to bodily injury, energy 

loss, decreased food intake, habitat avoidance, nest abandonment and reproductive loss. The vast 

majority of studies conducted on wildlife effects from motorized trail-associated noise has been done 

on bird species.

Many studies have reported interactions between roads and ungulates, particularly elk and deer. 

Some of the studies are contradictory. Rost and Bailey (1979) reported that elk and mule deer avoided 

roads within a 200-meter distance. Thomas et al. (1979) indicated that roads open to vehicular traffic 

will adversely affect the use of an area by elk and, to a lesser extent, by deer. The habitat guidelines 

for mule deer within the Northern Forest Ecoregion, developed by the Mule Deer Working Group 

recommend minimizing open road densities as much as possible and maintaining an average of less 

than or equal to 1.9 miles of open road per square mile of forest land, less on winter range (Hayden et 

al. 2008). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

210 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.3.3 Alteration of the Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat

Forest roads and trails change the biological and physical conditions on and adjacent to them, creating 

edge effects with influences beyond the extent of the road prism (Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

Trombulak and Frissell (2000) describe eight physical characteristics that are altered by roads: soil 

density, temperature, soil water content, light, dust, surface-water flow, pattern of runoff and 

sedimentation.

Long term use of roads causes soil compaction that lasts long after road use is decommissioned. 

Increases in soil density on decommissioned roads can persist for decades.

3.7.3.3.1 Some Potential Effects of Habitat Alteration to Species Habitats

Trombulak and Frisell (2000) report that surface temperature of a road increases as water vapor 

transport decreases. Heat stored on the road surface is released in the atmosphere at night, creating 

heat islands around roads. Small birds and snakes are attracted to warm roads and increase their risk 

of mortality from vehicle collisions.

Roads can change the hydrology of slopes and stream channel characteristics, which result in 

changes to surface-water habitats that may be detrimental to aquatic dependent species (e.g. 

macroinvertebrates). Roads in floodplains may redirect water, sediment and nutrients, causing 

degradation to wetland and riparian habitats. Erosion through channel down cutting, gully formation 

or head cuts may result when high concentrations of runoff on hill slopes is caused by changes in 

routing of shallow groundwater and surface flow. These processes can be detrimental to riparian 

species far downstream for a long period of time. In addition, chronic effects from fine sediment 

transported from unpaved roads to streams, lakes and wetlands, increases turbidity, reducing habitat 

quality.

3.7.3.3.2 Some Potential Effects of Habitat Alteration to Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats

Forest roads and trails can both enhance and decrease habitat for wildlife (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). The 

road or trail creates edge habitat for species that are habitat generalists, particularly for some mammal 

species (e.g., coyote and deer mice) and some songbird species. Ravens are more common along 

roads since carrion is more available along these corridors. For habitat specialists, such as interior 

dwelling species that require intact, undisturbed patches of habitat such as the American marten and 

the spotted owl, roads can fragment habitat. Roads and trails can also fragment or disrupt habitat 

indirectly by introducing exotic or noxious weeds (See Noxious Weeds section for further explanation 

of the effects). In addition, roads can increase pollutants like dust and vehicle emissions that can 

contaminate roadside vegetation that wildlife feed upon.

3.7.3.3.3 Increased Alteration and Use of Habitats by Humans

Several studies have indicated that high road densities result in adverse impacts on certain wildlife 

species. Impacts from high densities include excessive harvest including legal and illegal, 

disturbance/harassment from noise and habitat alteration. Brocke et al. (1988) reported that high road 

densities can elicit a variety of negative impacts of certain wildlife species. These effects include 

human disturbance. In Adirondack counties, the black bear population density index (based on the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 211

number of legal kill) showed a ten-fold decrease when road density increased by ten times. Other 

studies were cited as showing similar sensitivity to road density for other large predators and 

ungulates. 

3.7.4 Effects Analysis Methodology

The Plumas National Forest (PNF) is one of ten National Forests within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. 

The varied landscapes of the Sierra Nevada support a rich diversity of plant and animal species, some 

of which are found only in the Sierra Nevada. Species vary greatly in abundance and distribution, 

from very abundant and widespread to extremely rare and locally distributed and all combinations in 

between. More than 550 vertebrate species have been identified in the Sierra Nevada Bioregion, 

including approximately 30 amphibian, 35 reptile, 130 mammal, 270 bird and 95 fish species (SNFPA 

2001, Appendix R).

The species assessment presented here is organized by Species Groups divided along major 

habitat associations or life zones (for example terrestrial or riparian). Projected effects of motor 

vehicle travel management on sets of species in these major groupings are described. In addition, 

individual species assessments are presented for federally listed species, Forest Service Sensitive 

Species and Management Indicator Species. More detailed information is also found in the Biological 

Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife, the Management Indicator Species project report and the Sierra 

Nevada Management Indicator Species report.

The major habitat associations or life zones for each species utilizes the California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model—a system developed jointly by the California Department of 

Fish and Game that classifies forest stands by dominant species types, tree sizes and tree densities and 

rates the resulting classes in regard to habitat value for various wildlife species or guilds. The table 

below shows trees size and canopy cover classes.

Table 60. CWHR Conifer Size and Canopy Closure definitions:

CWHR Tree Size CWHR Canopy Cover

CWHR Conifer Crown dbh CWHR WHR Closure 

Class

Ground Cover

1 Seedling Tree <1” S Sparse Cover 10-24%

2 Sapling Tree 1-6” P Open Cover 25-39%

3 Pole Tree 6-11” M Moderate Cover 40-59%

4 Small Tree 12-24” D Dense Cover 60-100%

5 Medium/Large 

Tree

>24”

6 Multi-layered

Tree

Size class 5 

over size class 

4 or 3 trees w/ 

a 60% CC

This assessment consists of 5 steps: (1) identify wildlife species and groups; (2) identify 

motorized trail associated factors for each group; (3) develop and apply assessment processes and 

GIS analysis to evaluate the influence of motorized trail associated factors on each group; (4) analyze 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

212 – Plumas National Forest

the effects of the alternatives based on outputs and analyses, and (5) implementation of measures to 

minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat. 

Step 1. Identify wildlife species and groups: Existing information and knowledge about the 

distribution of the terrestrial and riparian species on the PNF were used to develop the list of species 

and to develop species groups. Federally listed species, Forest Service Sensitive Species, 

Management Indicator Species and other species were selected and placed into species groups based 

on the potential for these species or their habitats to be affected by motor vehicle use on the PNF. 

Local knowledge and sources included corporate databases including distribution of special status 

species, vegetation maps, etc., which were used to develop species or habitat groups. Table 61

provides a list of all of the special status species described by status, habitat indicator and distribution 

on the PNF.

A total of 22 species are included in the terrestrial and riparian species group assessment. These 

include thirteen bird species and nine mammal species. These species were divided into wildlife 

groups (some species occurred in more than one group) as described in Table 62. The Valley 

Elderberry longhorn beetle, Swainson’s hawk, pallid bat, western red bat, Townsend’s big eared bat 

and greater sandhill crane are not included in this assessment as they are considered either a rare 

occurrence, or impacts for route designation are very unlikely, or there are no records of these species 

nesting on the PNF. Analysis for the longhorn beetle, Swainson’s hawk, pallid bat, western red bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat and greater sandhill crane can be found in the project level BA/BE. For 

more detailed discussion of Threatened, Endangered and sensitive aquatic species, see the Aquatic 

Biota Section of this EIS.

Table 61 List of PNF special status species (Terrestrial wildlife and MIS) by habitat indicator and 

distribution (TES Aquatic species are discussed in the Aquatic Biota Section).

Species Federally 

Listed 

Threatened

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Habitat Indicator Distribution on 

PNF

American marten X Mature and latesuccessional conifer 

forest

Exclusive to the 

Lakes Basin 

Recreation Area 

on the 

Beckwourth 

District (BKRD). 

No Den sites 

known on the 

PNF.

bald eagle X Mature conifer forest 

near large bodies of 

water

Nests near large 

reservoirs across 

the Forest

fox sparrow X Shrubland (west slope 

chaparral types)

Forest-wide 

within indicator 

habitat

yellow warbler X Riparian Forest-wide 

within indicator 

habitat
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 213

Species Federally 

Listed 

Threatened

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Habitat Indicator Distribution on 

PNF

valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle

X Valley Foothill Riparian 

communities containing 

elderberry (Sambucus

spp.)

Species found in 

one isolated area 

near NFFR 

FERC Project. 

No Critical 

Habitat 

designated on 

the PNF 

sooty (blue) 

grouse

X Late seral open canopy 

coniferous forest (5, S, 

P)

In transition zone 

to east side of 

Forest within 

indicator habitat

northern flying 

squirrel

X Late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest (5M, 

5D, 6)

Forest-wide 

within indicator 

habitat

mountain quail X Early and mid seral 

coniferous forest

Forest-wide 

within indicator 

habitat

Pacific tree frog X Wet meadow Forest-wide 

within indicator 

habitat

California spotted 

owl

X X Mature and latesuccessional conifer 

forest 

Forest-wide

California 

wolverine

X Mature and latesuccessional conifer 

forest

No confirmed 

detections on the 

PNF. 

great gray owl X Mature and latesuccessional conifer 

forest adjacent to 

meadows

Several recent 

detections on the 

west side of Lake 

Davis on the 

BKRD

greater sandhill 

crane

X Wet meadow, shallow 

lacustrine and fresh 

emergent wetland 

habitat

No known 

breeding 

populations 

occur on the PNF

Swainson’s hawk X Prairies and farmland. 

Nests in isolated trees.

Not known to 

nest on the PNF.

northern goshawk X Mature and latesuccessional conifer 

forest

Forest-wide

mule deer X Early and mid-seral 

stage, all forest types, 

especially in hardwood 

and hardwood/conifer 

forest types

Forest-wide

pallid bat X Snags, caves, mines, 

rock outcrops within 

mixed conifer containing 

an oak component and 

pine-oak habitats. 

Known or 

suspected 

Forest-wide.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

214 – Plumas National Forest

Species Federally 

Listed 

Threatened

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Habitat Indicator Distribution on 

PNF

Pacific fisher X Mature and latesuccessional conifer 

forest

Suitable habitat 

only. PNF falls 

within identified 

fisher distribution 

gap. No fishers 

from SPI reintroduction 

detected on PNF 

to date. No Den 

sites known on 

the PNF.

Sierra Nevada red 

fox

X Mature subalpine conifer 

forest and 

riparian/montane 

meadow

Suitable habitat, 

no known or 

verified 

detections

Townsend’s bigeared bat

X Occupies caves, mines, 

and manmade structures 

(bridges, buildings, 

tunnels) 

Known to occur 

on the Feather 

River RD.

western red bat X Low elevation riparian 

habitat containing a 

dominant cottonwood 

component. 

Known or 

suspected 

Forest-wide

willow flycatcher X Riparian shrub (willow) 

and wet meadow.

Occurs at 

discreet 

willow/meadow 

habitat 

throughout the 

PNF.

Table 62. Wildlife group and species represented within groups from Table 61.

Wildlife group Species

Wide-ranging carnivores wolverine, Sierra Nevada red fox

Ungulates Mule deer

Coniferous forest associated species (early, mid, and 

late seral)

California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great gray owl, 

American marten, Pacific fisher, sooty grouse, northern 

flying squirrel, mountain quail, pallid bat.

Riparian and wetland associated species [including 

lacustrine (lakes) and riverine habitat (rivers, 

streams)]

bald eagle, greater sandhill crane, willow flycatcher, Sierra 

Nevada red fox, Pacific tree frog, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, western red bat, yellow warbler, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates.

Step 2. Identify motorized trail-associated factors: Several studies have identified a 

classification or conceptual model of responses from wildlife to motorized trail-associated activities

(Knight and Cole and Liddle In Gaines, et al. 2003). The causal factors were grouped by impact to 

wildlife into disturbance, habitat modification and harvest/mortality. (1) Disturbance is when an 

animal sees, hears, smells, or otherwise perceives the presence of a human but no contact is made and 

it may or may not alter its behavior. (2) Habitat modification occurs when habitat is modified through 

creation of a path, absence of food, or removal of vegetation. (3) Harvest/mortality is human-induced 

where there is a direct and negative impact on the animal as a result of hunting, fishing, collision with 

vehicles and other incidental contact which results in removing an individual from a population.

These causal factors are used as indicators in this analysis which provide a quantified method of 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 215

comparing the relative differences between alternatives and assessing coarse magnitudes of effects. 

This approach is supported in Gains et al. 2003 where the author states “The information provided in 

this review, and subsequent development and application of cumulative effects models, improves the 

knowledge base that can be used to evaluate project proposals and make informed decisions.”

Based on a review of literature and local knowledge of selected species on the PNF, these three

broad disturbance classifications were used for this assessment. Table 63 lists the motorized trailassociated factors along with their disturbance type, activity type effects and affected wildlife groups.

Step 3. Processes and analyses: The assessment process to analyze the effects of motorized trails 

on the PNF was done in two primary steps: 1) the cumulative effects of travel routes to species groups 

were assessed based on a similar process completed by Gaines et al. 2003, and 2) the relative 

environmental risk of motorized trails to riparian habitats was determined.

Table 63. Motorized trail-associated factors with disturbance and activity type and affected wildlife 

group

Motorized trail—

associated factors1 Activity type2 Definition of associated factors Wildlife group affected

Hunting and 

Trapping

Harvest Mortality from hunting or trapping as 

facilitated by motorized trail access.

Ungulates

Coniferous Forest Associated 

Species (Grouse, Quail)

Poaching Harvest Increased illegal take of animals as 

facilitated by motorized trails.

Wide-ranging carnivores

Ungulates

Coniferous Forest Associated 

Species (Grouse, Quail)

Collisions Harvest Mortality or injury resulting from a motor 

vehicle running over or colliding with an 

animal.

Wide-ranging carnivores

Coniferous forest associated 

species

Riparian – Wetland species

Ungulates

Habitat loss and 

fragmentation

Habitat 

modification

Loss and resulting fragmentation of 

habitat due to the establishment of 

motorized trails, or networks and

associated human activities.

Wide-ranging carnivores

Coniferous forest associated 

species

Riparian – Wetland species

Ungulates

Edge effects Habitat 

modification

Changes to habitat microclimate 

associated with the edge induced by 

motorized trails.

Coniferous forest associated 

species

Route for 

competitors and 

predators

Habitat 

modification

A physical human-induced change in the 

environment that provides access for 

competitors or predators that would not 

have existed otherwise

Wide-ranging carnivores

Riparian – Wetland species

Coniferous forest associated 

species

Disturbance at a 

specific site

Disturbance Displacement of individual animals from a 

specific location that is being used for 

reproduction and rearing of young

Wide-ranging carnivores

Coniferous forest associated 

species

Riparian – Wetland species

Ungulates

Physiological 

response

Disturbance Increase in heart rate or stress hormones 

when near a motorized trail or network of 

motorized trails.

Ungulates

Coniferous forest associated 

species

Riparian – Wetland species

Wide-ranging carnivores

1

Based in part on Wisdom et al. 2000 In: Gaines et al. 2003 (refer to Tables 7, 11 and12)

2

Disturbance occurs when an animal sees, hears, smells, or otherwise perceives the presence of a human but no contact is 

made and it may or may not alter its behavior. Habitat modification is when habitat is changed in some way. Harvest involves 

human actions in which there is direct and damaging contact with the animal
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

216 – Plumas National Forest

Step 4. Analysis of effects: The information generated in step 3 was used to analyze the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives on the wildlife groups. The analysis of the project 

alternatives focuses on the effects of two actions: (1) the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle 

travel (Alternatives 2-5) and (2) adding facilities (unauthorized routes, mixed use and/or use areas) to 

the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS).

3.7.4.1 Wildlife Analysis Assumptions

• All vehicle types result in approximately the same amount of disturbance effect to wildlife.

• The location of the route is equal to disturbance effects from that route (e.g., trail located 

adjacent to known nest site (<0.25mi) (high) versus trail not located adjacent to nest site 

(>0.25mi) (low)).

• Habitat is already impacted in the short term. In the long term, habitat will remain the same on 

proposed trails added to the NFTS; but will improve, at least to some degree on unauthorized 

routes that are not proposed for addition to the NFTS, with the prohibition of cross-country 

travel and subsequent passive restoration (under Alternatives 2-5).

• The estimation of route densities for Alternative 1 (no action) includes all existing 

unauthorized routes; this is based on the assumption that these routes would continue to be 

used under continued cross-country travel. Under the other alternatives (2-5), only routes 

proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) are included in the 

estimation of route densities, since under the ban for cross-country travel, motorized use 

would only occur on the NFTS.

• The focus is on suitable habitat. The assumption is that site-specific species wildlife surveys 

were not conducted on all unauthorized routes, since several unauthorized routes were 

eliminated from detailed study due to inconsistencies with the criteria in Subpart B of the 

Travel Management Rule (e.g. minimize damage to forest resources), multiple resource issues, 

or conflicts with private landowners. Past and recent survey information from other efforts 

(e.g. HFQLG) were used in the analysis. Where surveys were not conducted suitable habitat 

was assumed occupied.

3.7.4.2 Wildlife Sources of Information

GIS layers and other pertinent information for the following wildlife resources were used for analysis:

1. Bald Eagle – territories and nesting territory sites.

2. California spotted owl – nest sites, Activity Centers, Protected Activity Centers, Home 

Range Core Areas, CWHR habitat types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6.

3. northern goshawk – nest sites, Protected Activity Centers, CWHR habitat types 4M, 4D, 5M, 

5D and 6.

4. Forest Carnivores (marten, fisher, Sierra Nevada red fox and wolverine) – Carnivore 

Detections, Draft Plumas Forest Carnivore Network, Old Forest Emphasis Areas, CWHR 

habitat types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6).

5. Other wildlife species (e.g. MIS) – appropriate CWHR habitat types; State deer herd maps.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 217

6. Public input – Response to comments, Wilderness Society Maps, Public open-house 

meetings. 

3.7.4.3 Analysis Indicators

GIS queries were utilized to assess each indicator using the sources of information mentioned above. 

They are focused on assessing and disclosing the effects of each alternative presented in this EIS. The 

effects of prohibition of cross-country travel and addition of routes and facilities are assessed as 

described below.

• Miles of motorized routes, mixed use and acres of areas to measure potential disturbance to a 

specific site (e.g. miles of route proximal to a specific site (nest, roost, PAC or Territory).

• Zone of influence [acres of a species (or species group’s) key habitat that is affected by 

motorized routes or mixed use].

• The density of motorized routes was evaluated in relation to habitat effectiveness for a species 

groups - wide ranging carnivores and ungulates. (Note: this includes the 4.1 miles of mixed 

use under Alternatives 4 and 5).

Step 5. Measures to minimize harassment and disruption of wildlife habitats: This analysis 

considers efforts made in minimizing harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife 

habitat. This analysis evaluated routes, trails, mixed use and use areas (e.g. sly creek) based on 

application of distance buffers, available vegetation screening that would minimized effects of noise, 

and position of a route on the landscape in relation to known sites (e.g. nests, roosts), sensitive 

habitats (e.g. wet meadows) or seasonal habitats (deer winter range). Based on this analysis, a route, 

trail, mixed use or use area was either maintained without minimization measures or a minimization 

measure was implemented, such as limited operating periods (LOPs) or season of use, or the route or 

trail was eliminated entirely. These minimization efforts are reflected in changes made to routes, 

trails, use areas or mixed use by alternative and are reflected in Appendix A.

3.7.5 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

by Species Groups

This section describes both the affected environment and environmental consequences of the 

alternatives arranged by species groups: wide-ranging carnivores, ungulates, forest associated species

and riparian associated species. Selected species represented within each group include Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive (TEPS) species and MIS are included. While not all of the 

species within the groups are necessarily analyzed in detail, each species group analysis provides 

enough information to infer impacts. 

3.7.5.1 Affected Environment Description

The Affected Environment discussion focuses on pertinent literature available for selected species 

within the wildlife groups and does not represent an exhaustive or comprehensive literature summary 

on wildlife and motorized trail interactions. For some species represented in the group, little 

information may be available on wildlife interaction with motorized trails. Known information on the 

distribution and status of the species on the Plumas National Forest is also presented in the Affected 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

218 – Plumas National Forest

Environment Section for each selected species, particularly species with special status (Threatened, 

Endangered, Sensitive or Management Indicator Species).

3.7.5.2 Environmental Consequences Description

3.7.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Boundary

Direct and indirect effects of each alternative are analyzed on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

within the boundary of the Plumas National Forest (PNF). The analysis area includes all motorized 

trails, collectively referred to as routes, mixed use and use areas that have been analyzed. Routes 

include existing system trails, proposed trails and unauthorized routes (unclassified or user created 

routes and historic routes) (all alternatives), mixed use on 4.1 miles of Forest Road 24N28 

(Alternatives 4 and 5 only), and the 36-acre Sly Creek use area (Alternative 2). The 36-acre Sly Creek 

use area is the old borrow pit that was used to build the Sly Creek Reservoir Dam. The 36-acre area is 

barren and does not include suitable habitat for any species evaluated in this analysis. Therefore, the 

focus of direct and indirect effects will be on motorized routes and mixed use. 

3.7.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects Boundary (Space and Time)

The cumulative effects analysis includes all motorized routes that occur within the boundary of the 

PNF on NFS lands. This cumulative effects geographic boundary pertains to all species groups.

The NFS lands encompass 1,204,225 acres and non-NFS lands encompass 273,308 acres within 

the boundary of the PNF. The total NFS and non-NFS lands within the boundary of the PNF 

comprises 1,477,533 acres. All NFS lands within the boundary of the PNF is an appropriate scale to 

analyze cumulative effects of terrestrial and aquatic species for activities associated with motorized 

roads and trails, since this area is sufficiently large to encompass wildlife habitat being influenced by 

routes, as well as movement patterns and home ranges for the groups of species being analyzed within 

the project area including coniferous forest associated species, wide-ranging carnivores, riparian and 

wetland species and ungulates. 

Within the cumulative effects boundary, cumulative effects are analyzed on the accumulation of 

all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions including the existing NFTS motorized 

trails (130 miles), one 36-acre use area (Sly Creek), mixed use on 4.1 miles of Forest Road 24N28, 

existing unauthorized routes (1,107 miles) and any future routes that would be created within the next 

20 years within the boundary of the PNF (NFS lands). Twenty years is a reasonable timeframe for 

estimating cumulative impacts of motorized routes in the reasonably foreseeable future. Present 

actions are those that are ongoing (ex: forest closure order prohibiting cross country travel) at the 

present time. Past actions include unauthorized routes that were created since development of the 

Plumas NF Forest Plan (1988) and will be incorporated into the existing condition, such as roads that 

are closed or decommissioned. In addition, the timeframe for analyzing past cumulative effects for 

other activities such as timber harvest, grazing and non-motorized recreation goes back to 2000. This 

year is selected since baseline conditions of past cumulative effects were updated for the species 

analyzed in this document as part of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest 

Plan Amendment completed in 1999.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 219

3.7.5.2.3 Analysis Measures or Indicators

Indicators or measures are presented in the Environmental Consequences Section to compare and 

contrast the effects of the project alternatives. Measures or indicators were selected for project effects 

based on a thorough review of literature on the interaction between wildlife and motorized routes. 

Analysis measures were used to compare project effects of each alternative: examples include - each 

route was evaluated based on 1) proximity to a specific site (nest, roost, PAC, territory) and its 

location on the landscape (if route disturbance was minimized by vegetation or topographic position), 

and 2) a Zone of Influence (ZOI) from a motorized route, mixed use or the Sly Creek use area in 

relation to a specific habitat (e.g. meadow, stream, spring).

3.7.5.2.3.1 Density of Roads, Motorized Trails and Unauthorized Routes for Habitat Effectiveness

Road and/or motorized trail and route density has often been used as a surrogate to estimate habitat 

effectiveness or the direct and indirect effects of motorized travel on terrestrial wildlife. Road and/or 

trail and route density thresholds for wildlife have not been established on the PNF and thresholds for 

wildlife in the literature can vary by season, geographic location and species. Therefore, road and trail 

density “thresholds” will not be used to determine effects of the project alternatives, but rather the

density of roads and trails is used for a relative comparison of the alternatives (Table 64) for wildlife 

species. The density was determined at the scale of 7th

Table 64. Percent of PNF acreage with road and trail densities from 0 - >6 miles per square mile 

(averaged by 7

order watershed, since this scale is sufficiently 

large to accurately estimate road and trail densities. Road and trail densities at a larger scale could 

potentially mask effects and therefore, underestimate effects to wildlife species. Densities at any 

smaller scale may actually be amplified and therefore overestimate the effects to wildlife.

th order watershed).

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Wildlife

Road and 

Motorized 

Route Density 

Category

(Percent of 

Forest Total)

0 Miles/Square Mile 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0-2 Miles/Square Mile 21% 30% 35% 30% 30%

2-4 Miles/Square Mile 59% 58% 59% 62% 58%

4-6 Miles/Square Mile 19% 12% 6% 8% 12%

>6 Miles/Square Mile 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3.7.5.2.3.2 Miles of Motorized Routes (Species-specific Disturbance Potential at a Specific Site)

The number of miles of motorized routes within a particular distance to a species reproductive site 

can be used to determine the potential disturbance to wildlife species. The distance from a site used to 

analyze disturbance potential varies by each species disturbance threshold based upon literature 

review, and other factors, such as natural screening (vegetation) and topography (position of route on 

the landscape). Species-specific disturbance potential of motorized routes were compared for 

California spotted owl and the northern goshawk reproductive sites (nests or activity centers). In 

addition, the number of miles of motorized routes occurring within spotted owl Protected Activity 

Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) and for goshawk Protected Activity Centers 

(PACs) were also compared by alternatives.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

220 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.5.2.3.3 Zone of Influence [Amount of a Species (or Species Group’s) Key Habitat that is Influenced 

by Motorized Routes]

Motorized routes have a Zone of Influence within which habitat effectiveness or suitability is reduced 

and wildlife population densities are lower (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Gaines, et al. 2003). The 

effects to wildlife extend beyond the immediate road prism itself, into what can be referred to as a 

Zone of Influence adjacent to motorized roads and trails. The degree of effect of the various factors 

associated with roads and trails can be evaluated more effectively when considering the amount of a 

given species habitat that occurs within this Zone of Influence of motorized routes. Wildlife species

behaviors and habitats are modified within various distances from motorized routes. The distances of 

the Zone of Influence for individual species that are used in the analysis of effects are based upon the 

best available science in the literature. Because there are limited data and studies for many species, 

assumptions and generalizations were made for some species where no data were available. The Zone 

of Influence is a relative index of habitat effectiveness that is used to compare alternatives.

3.7.5.3 Wide-ranging Carnivores

Large and mid-sized carnivores are unique in their response to human-induced habitat changes due to 

their large spatial habitat needs and their sensitivity to landscape patterns, including road edge effects 

and road density (Buskirk and Zielinski 2003). The wolverine (Gulo gulo) and the Sierra Nevada red 

fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) are the two species included in the wide-ranging carnivore habitat 

assessment group. The wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox may be considered to be sensitive to 

the presence of humans and human activities (Claar et al. 1999, Grinnell et al. 1937).

Table 63 provides a summary of some of the potential motorized trail associated factors to wideranging carnivores based on Gaines et al. 2003.

3.7.5.3.1 Effects Common to All Wide-ranging Carnivores

3.7.5.3.1.1 Changes in Class of Vehicles

Responses to motor vehicle use varies by species and depends upon the type of vehicle, the intensity, 

timing, speeds and amount of motor vehicle use. For this analysis, it is assumed that all vehicle types 

(motorcycle, quads, jeeps, etc.) result in the same disturbance to wildlife. Therefore, changes in the 

class of vehicles would not vary in their effects to wide-ranging carnivores for all of the alternatives.

3.7.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects Boundary in Space and Time for Wide-ranging Carnivores

The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects to wide-ranging carnivores (wolverine, 

Sierra Nevada red fox) are lands that fall within the boundary of the PNF including all NFS lands and 

non-NFS lands (private). The PNF boundary is sufficiently large to encompass the home ranges of 

wide-ranging species located on the PNF. In addition, the Forest boundary encompasses a wide 

variety of habitats used by these species - from early seral to late seral forests, subalpine and alpine 

habitats, meadows and riparian habitats. The timeframe for analyzing cumulative effects for wideranging carnivores runs from the year 2000 (the past) and twenty years into the future. This 

timeframe incorporates present actions, such as the forest closure order prohibiting cross country 

travel, as an example. The year 2000 was selected since the baseline for species evaluated in this 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 221

analysis was updated as part of the 1999 HFQLG Forest Plan Amendment. Twenty years into the 

future is a reasonable amount of time to estimate potential cumulative impacts to wide-ranging 

species from future foreseeable activities.

3.7.6 Wolverine and the Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Affected Environment

The wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox are wide-ranging carnivores that use a variety of 

vegetation types, but appear to select areas that are relatively free from significant human disturbance. 

Both the wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox are designated by the Regional Forester in the 

Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service as Sensitive. Although the wolverine and Sierra 

Nevada red fox are not known to occur on the Plumas NF at this time, and no direct effects to 

individuals are expected, suitable habitat will be evaluated for indirect effects based on Forest Service 

manual direction (2670). Systematic carnivore surveys have been conducted on the Plumas NF over 

the last decade. Approximately 2,121 systematic survey stations were established over this time 

period, resulting in zero detections of wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox.

In the Sierra Nevada, wolverine are known from over 4,000 feet elevation to over 10,000 feet 

elevation. According to Aubrey et al. (2007), wolverine natal den sites are highly correlated with 

subalpine and alpine regions that have late persistent snow during April and May. Until recently, there 

have been no verified sightings of wolverine documented within the State of California since the 

1920s, though several anecdotal wolverine observations have been reported throughout the Sierra 

Nevada. In February and March 2008, verified wolverine photographic detections were taken from 

remote controlled camera stations on the Tahoe National Forest between the towns of Truckee, 

California and Sierraville, California. Wolverine photographs were documented from four separate 

baited camera locations. Genetic results indicate the DNA evidence that has been collected to date is 

from a single male. DNA testing also indicates this individual is related to wolverine populations in 

the Rocky Mountain Region. To date no wolverines have been sighted on the Plumas NF. In 2009, an 

individual hiking in the Lakes Basin Area of the Plumas NF reported seeing what she believed to be a 

wolverine. Follow-up camera station surveys conducted by the Beckwourth Ranger District in the 

Lakes Basin Area did not detect wolverines, but did detect black bears in the vicinity of the reported 

sighting. 

Wolverines are known to be sensitive to humans and road associated factors, but are not 

necessarily affected by summer recreation trails (Gaines et al. 2003). Gaines et al. (2003) reported 

that wolverines may be displaced from natal dens in subalpine cirques as a result of winter recreation 

activities. Motorized trail-associated factors that may affect wolverine include reduction in down 

logs, disturbance at a specific site and vehicle collisions. Road density can be used as a relative 

measure of human influence on the wolverine, though no empirical data exists which correlates 

motorized route density with wolverine population numbers due to the scarcity of research, the low 

population numbers and overall difficulty in studying this species that encompasses large home 

ranges. Studies indicate that home ranges in North America may vary from less than 38.6 square 

miles to over 347.5 square miles.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

222 – Plumas National Forest

The current distribution and population status of the Sierra Nevada red fox is uncertain (CDFG 

2004). A small population of Sierra Nevada red fox occurs in the Lassen Peak vicinity and represents 

the only verified detections of the subspecies in recent years, and is the nearest known population to 

the Plumas NF (Perrine 2005, Perrine et al. 2006). The Sierra Nevada red fox has not been verified to 

occur on the PNF, though habitat for this species occurs within subalpine conifer habitats interspersed 

with meadows.

Road construction and increased human settlement in the Sierra Nevada has the potential to 

facilitate the dispersal of non-native red foxes into the historic range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, by 

providing access to areas previously unavailable to the non-native foxes. Roads provide a potential 

travel corridor for non-native foxes from the Sacramento Valley to move into Sierra Nevada red fox 

habitat. Although the tolerance of Sierra Nevada red fox to the presence of humans is unknown, it is 

evident that the non-native red foxes thrive in human-altered environments (Lewis et al. 1999, 

Kamler and Ballard 2002). In addition, urban development within the range of Sierra Nevada red fox 

may pose a risk to the species through an increased risk of predation from domestic pets, disease 

transmission, automobile collisions and other human-wildlife conflicts.

3.7.7 Wolverine and the Sierra Nevada Red Fox:

Environmental Consequences

Route Density: Route density provides a relative measure of habitat effectiveness. Many literature 

references indicate that wolverine and red fox are primarily associated with remote, secluded areas 

and may be sensitive to human presence. Therefore, it would follow that as route density increases, 

human presence may also increase, which reduces “security habitat” for wolverine and red fox. To 

compare alternatives, route density categories from 0 to >6-miles/square mile are presented (see Table 

64). 

Zone of Influence: The Zone of Influence within 200 meters of routes was used as a measure for 

analyzing habitat fragmentation within mature to late-successional forest habitat as classified by 4M, 

4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 CWHR types within the PNF. Furthermore, additional analysis of habitat 

fragmentation is presented within Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) and within the Draft PNF

Forest Carnivore Network which is presented in the section for Late-successional Forest Associated 

Species Group and Forest Carnivore Section.

Disturbance to a Specific Site: The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004) directs (in 

Standard and Guideline #32 on p. 54 of the ROD) that upon detection of a verified wolverine or 

Sierra Nevada red fox, management activities within 5 miles of the verified detection be analyzed. 

However, no Sierra Nevada red fox or wolverine detections that have been verified by a forest 

carnivore specialist have occurred anywhere on the PNF. The recent Tahoe wolverine detections are 

more than 50 miles from the southern PNF boundary and no specific site disturbances are expected as 

a result of PNF management activities. 

3.7.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Route Density. Route density thresholds for wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox have not been 

established and are hard to determine because of the rarity of these species and their elusive behavior 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 223

patterns. Therefore, route densities across the PNF provides a relative measure of habitat 

effectiveness and/or the amount of security habitat available to the wolverine and the Sierra Nevada 

red fox at the broad landscape scale for which to compare the alternatives. The route density within 

7th

Table 64

order watersheds was determined for all motorized routes including those on NFS lands and nonNFS lands. Since the wolverine is known to avoid areas within high concentrations of human 

presence, High security habitat and Moderately high security is best provided for where route 

densities are the lowest (e.g. 0 mi/sq mile or 0-2 mi/sq mile) ( and Table 65). In addition, 

effects to habitat were analyzed and compared using a ZOI approach within mature and latesuccessional habitat types (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6), Old Forest Emphasis Areas (See 

Late-successional Forest Associated Species Section) and within the Draft PNF Forest Carnivore 

Network (See Forest Carnivore Section).

Table 65 provides data on the percent of lands within the PNF with existing system roads (which 

incorporates mixed use on 24N28), motorized trails and unauthorized route densities that range 

between 0 (High Security) and > 6-miles/square mile (Least Security). Alternative 1 has the lowest 

percentage of land (21%) in the High and Moderately high security categories, and the highest 

percentage of land (20%) in the Lower and Least security categories. For the Moderate security 

category, Alternative 1 is similar to all of the action alternatives at 59%. However, since Alternative 1 

would allow cross country travel to continue, it poses the greatest direct and indirect risk to wolverine 

and Sierra Nevada red fox habitat security for all five alternatives.

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) improve habitat security for the wolverine and 

Sierra Nevada red fox over Alternative 1 in that they provide a higher percentage of land (>30% for 

Alternatives 2-5 vs. 21% for Alternative 1), in the High and Moderately High security level 

categories, and would also prohibit cross-country travel. Alternatives 2 and 5 are identical in their 

percentage of land base in the High and Moderately high security levels (30%), Moderate Security 

Level (58%) and in the Lower and Least security categories (12%). Alternative 4 maintains a similar 

percentage of land base in the High and Moderately high security levels (30%) as Alternatives 2 and 

5. However, Alternative 4 is slightly better than Alternatives 2 and 5 in that it maintains more habitat 

in the Moderate security level category (62%), and less land base in the Lower and Least security 

categories (8%). Alternative 3 presents the least direct and indirect risk to wolverine and Sierra 

Nevada red fox habitat security of the five alternatives evaluated. Alternative 3 provides the highest 

percentage of land base (35%) in the High and Moderately High security levels for the wolverine and 

Sierra Nevada red fox. For the Moderate security level, Alternative 3 is similar to the other four 

alternatives with 59%. However, Alternative 3 contains the lowest percentage (6%) of land base 

within the Lower and Least security levels for all five of the alternatives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

224 – Plumas National Forest

Table 65. Percent of PNF with road and trail densities between 0 and >6-miles/square mile

Motorized Route Density

Category

Security Level for 

Carnivores

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

0 Miles/Square Mile High Security 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0-2 Miles/Square mile Moderately High Security 21% 30% 35% 30% 30%

2-4 Miles/Square mile Moderate Security 59% 58% 59% 62% 58%

4-6 Miles/Square mile Lower Security 19% 12% 6% 8% 12%

>6 Miles/Square mile Least Security 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3.7.7.2 Cumulative Effects: Sierra Nevada Red Fox and Wolverine

3.7.7.2.1 Cumulative Effects of Motorized Routes 

The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects to wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red 

fox are lands that fall within the boundary of the PNF including all National Forest System (NFS)

lands and non-NFS lands (private). The PNF boundary is sufficiently large to encompass the home 

ranges of the wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox should they be present on the PNF in the future. In 

addition, the Forest boundary encompasses a wide variety of suitable habitats used by the wolverine 

and red fox—a variety of forested habitats, subalpine meadow habitats and riparian streamside 

habitats. The timeframe for analyzing cumulative effects for the wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox 

is defined as the year 2000 for past effects, as the baseline for the wolverine and Sierra Nevada red 

fox were re-evaluated as part of the 1999 HFQLG Forest Plan Amendment and approximately 20 

years into the future, which is a reasonable amount of time to estimate potential cumulative impacts to 

these species from future foreseeable activities. This timeframe incorporates present actions as well, 

such as the forest closure order prohibiting cross country travel, as an example.

The cumulative effects to wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox are evaluated by analyzing the 

effects of the alternatives in terms of route density and habitat fragmentation from past, present and

reasonably foreseeable actions (Table 66). Past and present route densities are combined to represent 

the current existing condition. Route density is only used to compare the relative differences between 

the alternatives. Route densities categories >4 miles/square mile, which represent the lower and least 

security levels, are used as a metric to compare the alternatives where human impacts of roads, trails 

and routes may render habitat less suitable and/or less secure to wolverine and SN red fox.

3.7.7.2.2 Overall Cumulative Effects to California Wolverine and Sierra Nevada Red Fox from Past, Present

and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Plumas NF. This 

appendix was evaluated to determine which projects had cumulative effects on the wolverine and red 

fox. From that list, the following ongoing (present) and future actions were selected. 

The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments including both cattle and sheep. The 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of grazing impacts on rangelands. 

Improved range conditions as a result of implementing the revised grazing Standards and Guidelines 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 225

should benefit prey species for both the wolverine and red fox, especially as sight specific allotment 

management plans are updated and developed.

Since the year 2000, more than 73,345 acres of vegetation management activities have occurred 

on the PNF. These activities primarily thinned, masticated and/or burned vegetation to reduce the 

potential for catastrophic wildfires. It is uncertain how vegetation treatments actually affect the 

wolverine as no empirical data exists on how vegetation management affects habitat quality for both 

the wolverine and the red fox. In general, management treatments which maintain or enhance habitat 

for deer should benefit the wolverine. Vegetation and fuels treatments generally do not increase 

forage quality and quantity for deer (wolverine prey species) because they do not usually result in

reducing the canopy cover below 40%. At 40% canopy cover, the production of understory species 

important for deer foraging is not necessarily increased. These treatments may result in the short-term 

reduction in cover for the California wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox, though it is expected 

that in the longer term, habitat will be protected by reducing wildfire risk. 

Loss of habitat by wildfires poses a significantly higher risk to habitat and habitat connectivity 

than designating motorized routes. Since 2000, approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, 

some of which removed suitable forested habitat for wide-ranging carnivores, including habitat within 

the Draft PNF Forest Carnivore Network that provided linkages between the Plumas and Lassen (e.g. 

Storrie Fire, Moonlight-Wheeler Fires). This habitat will not likely be suitable for another 50 to 100+ 

years. 

On the PNF, present and ongoing recreational impacts to the wolverine and red fox includes many 

forms of recreation including both passive and active recreation. Summer recreation, which includes 

fishing, hiking, camping at developed and dispersed sites, hunting, off-highway motor vehicle use and 

wildlife viewing. Winter recreation includes cross-country skiing and over-snow recreation. These

activities are primarily associated with existing roads, trails and unauthorized routes, and their 

disturbance effects can be associated to Table 64 (above) and the habitat security levels reflected by 

the percent density of roads, trails and routes. 

The wolverine and the red fox are considered to be primarily associated with areas with low 

human influence, such as remote wilderness and/or roadless areas. Increased recreational use on the 

PNF in the future has the potential to impact suitable denning habitat at high elevation subalpine and 

alpine areas, primarily after snow melt. However, use of motorized routes are generally not likely to 

affect suitable denning habitat for wolverine and red fox when they are covered by snow. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

226 – Plumas National Forest

Table 66. Cumulative effects to Wolverine and Sierra Nevada Red Fox from route density, Habitat 

Fragmentation and Disturbance to a Specific Site.

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Past, Present and Future Actions

Route Density - Total Combined 

Percent of PNF Lower (4 to 6 

mi/square mile) and Least secure 

habitat (>6 miles/square mile) 

20% 12% 6% 8% 12%

Habitat Fragmentation - Total 

Percent of Forest within 200 meters 

of existing and proposed motorized 

routes (approximate percentage, 

some overlap on routes may occur)

14% 5% 3% 3.6% 4.7%

Potential for route proliferation 

contributing to route density and 

habitat fragmentation into the 

future

High potential 

for increased 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation in 

the future due 

to unmanaged 

cross-country

travel

Low potential 

for increased 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation–

Cross-country

route 

proliferation 

would be 

prohibited

Low potential 

for increased 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation–

Cross-country

route 

proliferation 

would be 

prohibited

Low potential 

for increased 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation

– Crosscountry route 

proliferation 

would be 

prohibited

Low potential 

for increased 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation

– Crosscountry route 

proliferation 

would be 

prohibited

Overall Cumulative Effect of past, 

present and future actions and 

motorized routes to wolverine and 

red fox

Highest

cumulative 

effect from 

route density 

and percent of 

Forest 

fragmented by 

routes

Moderate 

cumulative 

effects of route 

density and 

habitat 

fragmentation. 

(similar to Alt.

5)

Lowest 

cumulative 

effects of route 

density and 

habitat 

fragmentation.

Low 

Cumulative 

effects of 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation.

Moderate 

cumulative 

effects of 

route density 

and habitat 

fragmentation 

(similar to Alt.

2)

After considering all of the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and recreation, the five alternatives are ranked in 

order of highest to lowest cumulative effect. 

Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative effect to the wolverine and red fox based on two 

primary factors; 1) the allowance of cross country travel and the potential for proliferation of 

additional routes across of the forest, and 2) provides the highest percentage (20%) of lower (route 

density category 4-6 mi/sq. mi.) and least (route density category >6 mi/sq. mi.) security level habitat 

on the PNF. 

Alternatives 2 and 5 pose a moderate cumulative effect and improve habitat conditions for the 

wolverine and red fox compared to Alternative 1. This is based on two primary factors; 1) 

Alternatives 2 and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes 

across the forest, and 2) would reduce the percent of habitat in the lower and least security levels from 

20% under Alternative 1 to 12%, and increase the amount of habitat in the High and Moderately High 

security levels from 21% under Alternative 1 to 30% under Alternatives 2 and 5.

Alternative 4 poses a low cumulative effects and improves habitat conditions for the wolverine 

and red fox compared to Alternative 1. This is based on two primary factors; 1) Alternative 4 would 

prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes across the forest, and 2) would 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 227

reduce the percent of habitat in the lower and least security levels from 20% under Alternative 1 to 

8%, and increase the amount of habitat in the High and Moderately High security levels from 21% 

under Alternative 1 to 30% under Alternative 4.

Alternative 3 poses the lowest cumulative effects and improves habitat conditions for the 

wolverine and red fox compared to Alternative 1. This is based on two primary factors; 1) Alternative 

3 would prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes across the forest, and 

2) would reduce the percent of habitat in the lower and least security levels from 20% under 

Alternative 1 to 6%, and increase the amount of habitat in the High and Moderately High security 

levels from 21% under Alternative 1 to 35% under Alternative 3. 

3.7.7.2.3 Sensitive Species Determinations

Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect or result in a trend toward federal listing 

or loss of viability for the California wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox. This determination is 

based on the rationale that 1) Wolverine and red fox are not known to occur on the Plumas NF, 

therefore no direct affects to individuals are expected to occur, and 2) cross-country travel would 

continue in the future and lead to additional loss of habitat, an increase in habitat fragmentation, and 

result in an increase in the percent of habitat forest wide within the lower and least security level 

habitat categories over time. Based on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an 

average of 48 miles of unauthorized routes per year were established. When this rate is applied over 

the next 20 years, an additional 960 miles of unauthorized routes could be added under Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the California wolverine or the Sierra Nevada red fox 

within the planning area of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale 

that 1) Wolverine and red fox are not known to occur on the Plumas NF, therefore no direct affects to 

individuals are expected to occur, 2) the action alternatives would prohibit current and future crosscountry travel across the PNF, 3) habitat fragmentation (9% to 11% less) and route densities (8% to 

14 % less) would be reduced compared to Alternative 1 (No-action), and 4) a higher percentage (9% 

to 14% more) of habitat would be maintained at the High and Moderately High security level 

categories. 

In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local 

knowledge of this species as discussed previously in this evaluation and professional judgment.

3.7.8 Forest Associated Species (Late successional): Affected Environment

The late-successional forest group is comprised of the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), American 

marten (Martes americana) and Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti). These species are associated with 

late-successional forests that can be impacted by activities associated with trails and roads. Gaines et 

al. (2003), conducted a literature review where 71 late-successional forest associated wildlife species 

were identified that were negatively impacted by a variety of motorized trail-associated factors. These 

impacts include habitat loss and fragmentation, road avoidance or displacement, harassment and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

228 – Plumas National Forest

others. Growing concern over habitat fragmentation for late-successional associated species has been 

expressed by individuals, environmental groups and agency biologists. In addition, studies have 

shown that species within this group are sensitive to disturbance.

According to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004), which amended the PNF Forest 

Plan (1988), habitat types that are important for late-successional/old forest associated species (e.g. 

spotted owl, goshawk, marten and fisher.) are California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) 4M, 

4D, 5M, 5D and 6 vegetation types (stands of trees >11” dbh with >40% canopy cover). In addition, 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment provides broad management direction for Old Forest 

Emphasis Areas where they are “managed to maintain or develop old forest habitat in areas 

containing the best remaining large blocks or landscape concentrations of old forest and areas that 

provide old forest functions (such as connectivity of habitat over a range of elevations to allow 

migration of wide-ranging old-forest-associated species).”

Finally, the PNF developed a Draft Forest Carnivore Network based on suitable and potential 

suitable habitat for marten and fisher that is used by agency biologists as a tool for evaluating impacts 

to habitat fragmentation. The Draft Forest Carnivore Network, however, is not an official land 

designation on the Plumas, and therefore does not have associated standard and guidelines that apply 

under the forest plan.

A summary of motorized trail associated factors to late-successional forest associated species 

(Gaines, et al. 2003) is provided in Table 63.

3.7.9 Forest Associated Species (Late-successional): Environmental 

Consequences 

3.7.9.1 Effects Common to All Late-successional Species

3.7.9.1.1 Changes in Class of Vehicles

Responses to motor vehicle use vary by species and depend upon the type of vehicle, the intensity, 

timing, speeds and amount of motorized vehicle use. For this analysis, it is assumed that all vehicle 

types result in the same disturbance to all late-successional forest associated species. Therefore, 

changes in the class of vehicles would not vary in their effects to late-successional associated species 

for all of the alternatives.

3.7.9.2 Analysis Measures for Direct and Indirect Effects

Two primary indicators will be used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives to late-successional 

forest associated species as follows:

Zone of influence: the Zone of Influence is analyzed for each alternative to measure habitat 

fragmentation and other zonal effects associated with motorized routes, trails and mixed use including 

noise disturbance, avoidance, edge effects, mortality, etc. The distance from routes and trials used to 

calculate the Zone of Influence for selected species in the group was determined from a thorough 

review of available literature (Rost and Bailey, 1979). For all species in this group, a Zone of 

Influence of 200-meters encompasses a greater array of potential route associated effects to old forest 

associated species including edge effects, habitat fragmentation and habitat effectiveness.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 229

Disturbance at a specific site: Disturbance at a specific site was analyzed for California spotted 

owl and northern goshawk (see spotted owl and goshawk sections) by determining the number of 

miles of unauthorized routes, proposed trails and mixed use within Protected Activity Centers. Also, 

the number of miles occurring within 1⁄4-mile of a reproductive site (nest site or nest grove) were 

evaluated by alternative under the PAC by PAC analyses for both California spotted owl and northern 

goshawk, since disturbances within 1⁄4-mile of a reproductive site have been shown to disrupt or cause 

reproductive failure to these species. Other factors such as vegetative screening and position of the 

route on the landscape were considered on a case by case basis. The PAC by PAC analyses were 

completed for both the goshawk and spotted owl where a proposed trail (including mixed use) 

intersected a PAC and those findings are incorporated by reference into this analysis (see project 

record) and the findings of that analyses are reflected in Appendix A.

3.7.9.3 Analyzing for Cumulative Effects

This analysis of cumulative effects focuses on the cumulative effects associated with existing roads 

and motorized routes on NFS lands. Other cumulative effects to old forest associated species include 

cumulative effects of vegetation management, fuels reduction, catastrophic wildfires, recreation, 

grazing and others. These cumulative effects are complex and difficult to quantify over space and 

time. 

For this analysis, cumulative effects are simply the sum total of direct and indirect effects of the 

project alternatives plus the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future impacts of the existing 

NFS motorized trails. Cumulative impacts include all of the routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

as trails and the existing NFS motorized trails. This analysis assumes all motorized routes or trails 

have the same impact on old forest species. Reasonably foreseeable impacts from motorized use are 

considered by assessing the potential for motorized route proliferation for each alternative.

3.7.9.3.1 Cumulative Effects Boundary

The boundary of the PNF (NFS lands and non-NFS lands) is the geographic boundary used for 

analyzing cumulative effects of motorized vehicle routes on late-successional forest associated 

species. This area is sufficiently large enough to include home ranges for the species occurring within 

this group and includes an array of forest vegetation types important to old forest species from low 

elevations to high elevations including mixed conifer types, true fir types, yellow pine types, 

lodgepole pine and subalpine conifer types. The temporal scale used for analyzing cumulative effects 

is the year 2000 for past actions and 20 years out into the future in order for present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. This timeframe sufficiently analyzes any present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions on the Forest.

3.7.9.4 Late-successional Forest Habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6)

Zone of Influence: For each of the alternatives, the Zone of Influence within late-successional forest 

habitat (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6) was determined to be 200 meters (Table 67). Delaney et al. 

(1999) found that old forest species, such as the spotted owl, were shown to be sensitive to noise 

disturbance generated by helicopters within a distance of 100 meters, therefore a 100-meter Zone of 

Influence can represent habitat effectiveness for old forest species. Gaines et al. (2003) reported that 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

230 – Plumas National Forest

brown creepers and other forest interior bird species avoided an area within 200 meters of motorized 

routes. Potential impacts within a 200-meter Zone of Influence to late-successional associated species 

includes potential negative impacts including avoidance due to noise disturbance or edge effects, 

habitat fragmentation, introduction of invasive species (i.e. brown-headed cowbirds), microclimate 

changes and others. Zone of Influence may vary by species and by species responses to route type, 

level of use and intensity. Since absolute thresholds of concern for any given species are difficult to 

determine due to limited research on effects of routes, a 200-meter Zone of Influence was selected 

that would represent the array of responses that route-associated factors might influence fitness or 

distribution of species in the group. Species-specific discussion in relation to the 200-meter Zone of 

Influence will be discussed in detail.

3.7.9.5 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.7.9.5.1 Zone of Influence at 200 meters

Comparing the Zone of Influence at 200 meters of unauthorized routes, proposed trails and mixed use 

within mature and late-successional forest as classified by CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6, 

provides a relative indication of how the alternatives affect habitat effectiveness for many latesuccessional forest associated species. 

Table 67 displays the direct and indirect effects of the five alternatives analyzed and the amount 

of late-successional forest habitat that would be impacted by mixed use, unauthorized routes, 

proposed trail additions to the NFTS. Alternative 1 contributes considerably to reduced habitat 

effectiveness for old forest species where 126,276 acres of late-successional forest habitat would be 

negatively influenced by unauthorized routes. The amount of habitat affected would be expected to 

increase over time since cross country travel would be allowed to continue under Alternative 1. All 

the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) are expected to improve habitat effectiveness for late 

successional forest species compared to Alternative 1 due to the prohibition of cross country travel 

and the significantly reduced acres affected by each alternative. Alternative 2 reduces habitat 

effectiveness for old forest associated species on approximately 38,431 acres, an improvement of 

87,845 acres when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 5 reduces habitat effectiveness for old 

forest associated species on approximately 23,229 acres, an improvement of 103,047 acres when 

compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 4 reduces habitat effectiveness for old forest associated species 

on approximately 18,371 acres, an improvement of 107,905 acres when compared to Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 would not contribute to a direct or indirect reduction in habitat effectiveness for latesuccessional forest associated species at 200 meters as no unauthorized routes would be added to the 

NFTS.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 231

Table 67. Acres of CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6 (Late-successional Forest) that lie within 200-meters of 

proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4 and 5) and unauthorized routes (Alt. 1).

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of late-successional forest (CWHR 4M, 4D, 

5M, 5D and 6) within a 200-meter Zone of Influence

126,276 38,431 0 18,371 23,229

3.7.9.6 Cumulative Effects

3.7.9.6.1 200-meter Zone of Influence

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of

their project location and the actions involved that may be occurring within the PNF boundary. Some, 

but not all, of these activities will contribute to impacts to late-successional associated species within 

the cumulative effects boundary. See overall cumulative effects for spotted owl in the Management 

Indicator Species section for a summary of cumulative effects from past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects for all late-successional species.

Zone of Influence: The cumulative effects to mature/late-successional forests (CWHR types 4M, 

4D, 5M, 5D, 6) within a 200-meter Zone of Influence are compared for the five alternatives in Table 

68.

Table 68. Cumulative Effects for acres of Late-successional Forest Habitat (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M,5D, 6) 

within 200-meters of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing trails (Alt. 3).

Alt 1 Alt 2 1 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing 

unauthorized 

routes (Alt. 1)

or proposed 

trail additions

(Alts. 2-5)

126,276 38,431 0 18,371 23,229

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Existing 

motorized 

routes- NFS 

lands (130 mi 

of NFTS)

16,471 16,471 16,471 16,471 16,471

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall 

Cumulative 

Effects 

142,747 54,902 16,471 34,842 39,700

1

When comparing the cumulative effects to late-successional forests within a 200-meter Zone of 

Influence by adding up all of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives plus the cumulative 

effects of past, present and future actions, Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative effects and the

greatest risk to habitat connectivity associated with routes within late-successional forest habitat due 

to two primary factors; 1) Alternative 1 would contribute considerably and add to the proliferation of 

unauthorized routes since unmanaged cross-country motorized travel would continue into the future 

and would have a high likelihood of increasing in future years, and 2) Alternative 1 cumulatively 

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

232 – Plumas National Forest

affects approximately 142,747 acres of late-successional forest habitat, which is significantly higher 

than any of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5).

All the action alternatives significantly reduce cumulative effects to late-successional forest 

habitat when compared to Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 5 reduce cumulative effects significantly 

down to 54,902 and 39,700 acres respectively, and pose a moderate risk to habitat connectivity 

associated with routes within late successional forest habitat. In addition to the significant reduction 

in acres affected under Alternatives 2 (87,845 acres less) and 5 (103,047 acres less), these action 

alternatives also prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes across the 

Forest.

Alternative 4 further reduces cumulative effects down to 34,842 acres (107,905 acres less) and 

represents a low risk to habitat connectivity associated with routes within late successional forest 

habitat. Alternative 4 also prohibits cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes 

across the Forest. 

Alternative 3 represents the alternative with the lowest cumulative effect and lowest risk to 

habitat connectivity associated with routes within late successional forest habitat. Alternative 3 would 

cumulatively affect only 16,471 acres of late-successional forest habitat, which is a reduction of over 

126,006 acres when compared to the cumulative effects represented by Alternative 1. In addition, 

Alternative 3 prohibits cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes across the Forest. 

Alternative 3 would pose the best scenario for late-successional forest species.

3.7.9.7 Direct and Indirect Effects in Old Forest Emphasis Areas 

3.7.9.7.1 Zone of Influence in Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) 

The zones of influence within OFEAs are analyzed for the alternatives within 200 meters of 

unauthorized routes and proposed trails (Table 69). Analysis of OFEAs were based on the land 

designation originally applied in the 2001 Framework and carried over to the 2004 SNFPA.

3.7.9.7.2 200-Meter Zone of Influence 

Comparing the Zone of Influence at 200 meters of mixed use, unauthorized routes and proposed trails 

provide a relative indication of how the alternatives affect habitat effectiveness for late-successional 

forest associated species within OFEAs. Potential negative impacts within a 200-meter Zone of 

Influence to late-successional associated species includes avoidance due to noise disturbance or edge 

effects, habitat fragmentation, introduction of invasive species (i.e. brown-headed cowbirds), 

microclimate changes and others.

Table 69 provides data from the analysis conducted on a 200 meter zone of influence from 

unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) and proposed trails (Alternatives 2, 4, 5) to determine the amount 

of OFEAs that would have direct and indirect impacts. Alternative 1 would contribute to the highest 

reduced habitat effectiveness for old forest species where 91,865 acres of OFEAs would be directly 

and indirectly influenced by continued use of existing unauthorized routes. This level of impact 

would likely increase in future years due to the proliferation of additional routes across the landscape 

as cross country travel would be allowed under Alternative 1.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 233

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce direct and indirect impacts to 

late successional associated species within OFEA, plus prohibit cross country travel and the 

proliferation of additional routes across the landscape. Alternative 2 would have direct and indirect 

impacts on 22,966 acres of OFEAs, which represents a reduction of 68,899 acres from Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 would have direct and indirect impacts on 14,705 acres of OFEAs, which represents a 

reduction of 72,652 acres from Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would have direct and indirect impacts on 

9,645 acres of OFEAs, which represents a reduction of 82,220 acres from Alternative 1. Alternative 3

would not contribute to direct or indirect impacts to late successional associated species within 

OFEAs, since no new trails would be added.

Table 69. Acres of OFEAs occurring within the 200-meter Zone of Influence of unauthorized routes and 

proposed trails.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of OFEAs within 200 meters of 

unauthorized routes and proposed trails.

91,865 22,966 0 9,645 14,705

1

3.7.9.8 Cumulative Effects from Zone of Influence in Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) 

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

The cumulative effects to OFEAs within a 200-meter Zone of Influence are compared for the 

alternatives (Table 70). 

3.7.9.8.1 200-Meter Zone of Influence

Table 70 displays the data generated from analysis of cumulative effects to OFEA within a 200-meter 

Zone of Influence. Cumulative effects to OFEAs within a 200-meter Zone of Influence were 

determined by summing the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives and the cumulative effects of 

past, present and future actions, 

Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative effect to late successional species within OFEAs based 

on two primary factors; 1) the allowance of cross country travel and the potential for proliferation of 

additional routes across of the forest, and 2) cumulatively impacts 103,348 acres of OFEAs on the 

PNF.

Alternatives 2 and 5 pose a moderate cumulative effect by reducing impacts to late successional 

species within OFEAs when compared to Alternative 1. This is based on two primary factors: 1) 

Alternatives 2 and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes 

across the forest, and 2) would reduce the amount of OFEAs impacted from 103,348 acres under 

Alternative 1 to 34,449 acres under Alternative 2 and to 26,188 acres under Alternative 5.

Alternative 4 poses a low cumulative effect by reducing impacts to late successional species 

within OFEAs when compared to Alternative 1. This is based on two primary factors: 1) Alternative 4 

would prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes across the forest, and 2) 

would reduce the amount of OFEAs impacted from 103,348 under Alternative 1 down to 21,128 acres 

under Alternative 4.

Alternative 3 poses the lowest cumulative effects by reducing impacts to late successional species 

within OFEAs when compared to Alternative 1. This is based on two primary factors; 1) Alternative 3 

would prohibit cross country travel and the proliferation of additional routes across the forest, and 2) 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

234 – Plumas National Forest

would reduce the amount of OFEAs impacted from 103,348 under Alternative 1 down to 11,483 acres 

under Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would pose the best scenario for late-successional forest species 

within OFEAs.

Table 70. Cumulative Effects to Old Forest Emphasis Areas within a 200-meter Zone of Influence of 

unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing trails (Alt. 3) within the Boundary 

of the PNF.

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

Existing unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 91,865 22,966 0 9,645 14,705

Cumulative Effects of past, present and proposed actions

Existing motorized trails (130 mi) - NFS lands 11,483 11,483 11,483 11,483 11,483

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Cumulative Effects 103,348 34,449 11,483 21,128 26,188

1

3.7.10 Spotted Owl: Affected Environment

Alternative 1 includes the existing unauthorized routes, while Alternatives 2,4,5 include proposed trails.

The California spotted owl is designated by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species and is 

selected as a Management Indicator Species on the Plumas National Forest (PNF). The PNF has 276

designated California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers. Protected Activity Centers are 

delineated around spotted owl territorial pairs or territorial individuals. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment (2004) provides direction to designate Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home 

Range Core Areas (HRCAs) by using CWHR types 6, 5D, 5M, 4D and 4M. These CWHR types are 

in essence considered suitable habitat (nesting and foraging) for California spotted owls. Pure eastside 

pine types are not considered suitable for California spotted owls. As of December 1, 2008, there are 

495,071 acres of suitable California spotted owl habitat with CWHR types 6, 5D, 5M, 4D and 4M on 

the PNF.

The PNF has conducted surveys for spotted owl presence and reproductive status across the 

Forest since the early 1980s. Based on survey results to date, 276 Protected Activity Centers (PACs) 

and 267 Home Range Core Areas (HRCA) have been designated covering 278,747 acres within the 

PNF administrative boundary (Table 71). PACs and HRCAs are comprised of the best available 

habitat encompassing approximately 300 and 700 acres respectively. 

Table 71. Number of California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers by Ranger District on the Plumas 

National Forest.

*Includes loss of 20 PACs as a result of the 2007 Moonlight/Wheeler Fires, and 1 PAC as a result of the 2008 Rich Fire. No 

PACs were lost as a result of the Cold, Canyon or Antelope fires.

Ranger District Number of PACS

Mount Hough 115*

Feather River 124

Beckwourth 37

Total 276
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 235

3.7.11 Spotted Owl: Environmental Consequences

Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed studies on the Northern spotted owl and determined that motorized trail 

associated factors that were likely to affect spotted owls were collisions, disturbance at a specific site, 

physiological response, and edge effects. These same factors are expected to affect the California 

spotted owl in a similar way based upon available literature (Verner et al. 1992, Seamans 2005, 

Blakesley 2003, Delaney and Grubb 1999).

Collisions: Collisions with vehicles are known to be a source of mortality for spotted owls. The 

degree to which this occurs on the PNF is unknown. However, at least two spotted owls were killed 

by vehicles on paved roads on the Eldorado NF. However, collisions from motorized use on proposed 

trails are expected to extremely low to non-existent based on speeds, time of use, and applied season 

of use (see Appendix A) for spotted owls. The risk of spotted owl mortality from illegal shooting is 

also a possibility, but the degree to which this is happening is unknown as well, but this risk is also 

expected to be extremely low to non-existent.

Disturbance at a Specific Site and Physiological Response: The Forest Service considers 

activities greater than 0.25 mile from a spotted owl nest site to have little potential to affect spotted 

owl nesting (SNFPA 2004, S&G 75, p. 60). In addition, Delaney et al. (1999) found that Mexican 

spotted owls were found to show an alert response to chainsaws at distances less than 0.25 mile. 

Preliminary study results on a Northern spotted owl study in northern California, indicated that 

spotted owls did not flush from nest or roost sites when motorcycles were greater than 105 meters 

away during the post-fledgling period (Delaney and Grubb 2001). In addition, Delaney and Grubb 

(2003) found that spotted owl responses to motorcycle noise depended upon an array of complex 

factors including, sound level and frequency distribution, stimulus distance and event duration, 

motorcycle type and condition, frequency of motorcycle events, number of motorcycles per group, 

trail slope, topography, road substrate and condition and microphone position relative to sound 

source. In general, motorcycle noise did not appear to affect reproductive success. However, this 

study is ongoing and the impacts of motorcycle noise are not conclusive at this point.

A study by Wasser et al. (1997) found that stress hormone levels were significantly higher in male 

Northern spotted owls (but not females) when they were located <0.41 km (0.25 mi) from a major 

logging road compared to spotted owls in areas >0.41 km (0.25 mi) from a major logging road. It is 

not well understood how elevated stress hormones affect spotted owl populations. However, Mara and 

Holberton (1998) reported that chronic high levels of stress hormones (corticosterone) may have 

negative effects on reproduction or the physical condition of individual owls. Swartout and Steidl 

(2001) found hikers caused juvenile and adult spotted owls to flush at <12meters (<39 feet) and <24

meters (79 feet), respectively. Mexican spotted owls did not elicit any response from hikers that 

exceeded a distance of 55 meters (180 feet). 

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Edge Effects: California spotted owls may be affected by 

edge effects from roads when roads and trails fragment suitable habitat. Several studies indicate that 

California spotted owls are sensitive to changes in forest canopy closure and habitat fragmentation 

(Seamans 2005, Blakesley 2003) that could result from a network of roads. Roads and trails can result 

in a reduction in interior forest patch size which decreases the amount of habitat available and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

236 – Plumas National Forest

increases the distance between suitable interior forest patches for late-successional species such as the 

spotted owl. 

Caveats for determining proposed alternative impacts to spotted owls from motorized 

routes: Although the type and amount of use along the different types of routes may differ in their 

effects to spotted owls, all motorized routes are treated equally in this analysis because data is lacking 

in the amount of use received by all of the routes within the PNF, this sort of detailed analysis would 

be difficult and complex. In addition, the type of motorized road or trail likely varies in how they 

contribute to spotted owl disturbance and habitat fragmentation. For example, high clearance roads

generally receive less use than roads used by passenger vehicles which would equate to less noise 

disturbance to owls. In addition, single track motorcycle trails would likely fragment habitat less than 

would a passenger road due to the narrower width of the single track motorcycle routes that would 

result in removing less habitat. However, noise generated from motorcycles along trails may 

contribute to greater noise disturbance to spotted owls than a 4x4 jeep would. Since impacts to 

spotted owls are not well understood, impacts from all motorized routes, regardless of route type and 

intensity of use, are treated the same.

3.7.11.1 Analysis Measures for Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Spotted Owls

Miles of mixed use, unauthorized routes and proposed trails within spotted owl Protected Activity 

Centers (PACs) and within 0.25-mile of spotted owl Activity Centers to assess potential disturbance 

to breeding spotted owls: The direct and indirect effects to breeding spotted owls may be measured by 

the amount of disturbance that may be generated from noise or other trail and road associated factors

within 1) the designated Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and within 2) a 0.25-mile radius circle of 

spotted owl Activity Centers (nest or roost stand). PACs are delineated surrounding each territorial 

spotted owl activity center detected since 1986. PACs are delineated to include known and suspected 

nest stands and encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat which include 2 or more canopy 

layers, trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes averaging 24 inches dbh or greater, at 

least 70 percent tree canopy cover and in descending order of priority, CWHR classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D

and 4M and other stands with at least 50% canopy cover. Activity Centers are known nest sites, roost 

sites or suspected nest stands.

Zone of Influence within PACs and HRCAs to assess potential habitat fragmentation and 

edge effects: In addition, to determine the habitat fragmentation potential within suitable spotted owl 

habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), a zone of influence was applied within spotted owl 

PACs and HRCAs using a distance of 200-meters from unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) and 

proposed trails (Alternatives 2, 4 and 5).

3.7.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Spotted Owls

3.7.11.2.1 Protected Activity Centers

The miles of unauthorized routes and proposed trails to be added to the travel management system are 

compared to determine how the various alternatives have the potential to impact breeding spotted 

owls from noise disturbance and other factors associated with motorized use. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 237

Table 72 displays by alternative the analysis conducted to determine the total miles of mixed use, 

unauthorized routes and trails proposed for adding to the transportation system within spotted owl 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs), and the number and percentage of PACs affected. 

Based on the data contained in Table 72, Alternative 1 results in the highest level of direct and 

indirect impacts within spotted owl PACs and to breeding spotted owls. Under Alternative 1, a total of 

77 miles of unauthorized routes would impact approximately 139 PACS, and have the potential to 

directly and indirectly affect breeding across 50% of the known owl territories on the PNF. These 

direct and indirect effects are expected to increase under Alternative 1 since cross country travel 

would be allowed and the potential for proliferation of additional routes across the Forest would exist. 

All action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce direct and indirect impacts to 

spotted owl PACs and breeding owls across the PNF. In addition, under Alternatives 2-5, crosscountry travel is prohibited, which further reduces any direct or indirect impacts that may result from 

the proliferation of additional routes across the Forest.

Alternative 2 significantly reduces direct and indirect impacts to owl PACs and to breeding owls 

by reducing proposed trail miles within PACs by 50 miles (from 77 to 27 miles) and impacting 88 less 

owl PACs (from 139 to 51 PACs) when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also reduces the 

direct and indirect effects to breeding from 50% under Alternative 1 to 18% of the known owl 

territories on the PNF. 

Alternative 5 significantly reduces direct and indirect impacts to owl PACs and to breeding owls 

by reducing proposed trail miles within PACs by 61 miles (from 77 to 16 miles) and impacting 103

less owl PACs (from 139 to 36 PACs) when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 5 also reduces the 

direct and indirect effects to breeding from 50% under Alternative 1 to 13% of the known owl 

territories on the PNF. 

Alternative 4 significantly reduces direct and indirect impacts to owl PACs and to breeding owls 

by reducing proposed trail miles within PACs by 67 miles (from 77 to 10 miles) and impacting 119 

less owl PACs (from 139 to 20 PACs) when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 4 also reduces the 

direct and indirect effects to breeding from 50% under Alternative 1 to just 7% of the known owl 

territories on the PNF. 

Alternative 3 does not result in direct or indirect impacts to owl PACs or breeding owls since no 

proposed trails will be added to the NFTS.

Table 72. Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized routes1 within California spotted owl Protected 

Activity Centers, number of PACs affected and percentage of total PACs affected on the Plumas National 

Forest.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of mixed use, proposed trails or unauthorized motorized 

routes within spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs)

77 27 0 10 16

Number of spotted owl PACs intersected by mixed use, 

proposed trails and unauthorized routes 

139 51 0 20 36

Percent of PACs affected by additions to the NFTS or 

unauthorized routes (Total PNF PACs = 276)

50% 18% 0% 7% 13%

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

238 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.11.2.2 Within 0.25-Mile Radius Circle of Activity Centers (Nest Site or Nest Stand)

Table 73 displays the potential direct and indirect effects of the five alternatives on breeding spotted 

owls by showing the miles of mixed use, unauthorized routes and proposed trails that lie within a 

0.25-mile radius circle of a nest site or nest stand (e.g. Activity Center). 

Based on the analysis conducted and the data displayed in Table 73, Alternative 1 results in the 

highest direct and indirect effects to breeding owls as a result of noise disturbance by allowing cross 

country travel to continue and the potential for proliferation of additional routes across the landscape, 

plus approximately 25.4 miles of unauthorized routes occur within a 0.25 mile distance of owl 

activity centers. 

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce the magnitude of direct and 

indirect effects to breeding spotted owls as the result of two primary factors: 1) the prohibition of 

cross country travel and 2) the significantly reduced miles of proposed trail that would occur within 

0.25 miles of an Activity Center. Alternative 2 would have direct and indirect effects to breeding owls 

by containing 9 miles of proposed trails that would lie within 0.25 miles of an owl activity center. 

This represents a reduction of 16.4 miles when compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 would have direct and indirect effects to breeding owls by containing 5.2 miles of 

proposed trails that would lie within 0.25 miles of an owl activity center. This represents a reduction 

of 20.2 miles when compared to Alternative 1. Mixed use does not affect breeding owls within 0.25 

miles of an activity center under alternative 5.

Alternative 4 would have direct and indirect effects to breeding owls by containing 3.5 miles of 

proposed trails that would lie within 0.25 miles of an owl activity center. This represents a reduction 

of 21.9 miles when compared to Alternative 1. Mixed use does not affect breeding owls within 0.25 

miles of an activity center under alternative 4.

Alternative 3 would have no effect on breeding spotted owls, as no trails are proposed to be added 

under this alternative. 

Table 73. Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized routes1 within 0.25-Mile radius circle of California 

spotted owl Activity Center (nest site or nest stand)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized routes within 0.25-

mile radius circle of Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand)

25.4 9 0 3.5 5.2

1

3.7.11.3 Cumulative Effects to Spotted Owl Breeding Sites

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

3.7.11.3.1 Cumulative Effects Boundary (Space and Time)

The cumulative density of motorized routes increases within the larger cumulative effects analysis 

area that includes private lands within the Forest. The cumulative effects geographic boundary for the 

California spotted owls includes all spotted owl Protected Activity Centers and their associated 

Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand) within the boundary of the PNF. This is an appropriate scale 

for determining cumulative effects to spotted owls, since the PNF boundary is sufficiently large and

includes 276 spotted owl territories and their home ranges across the Forest. In addition, the PNF

boundary encompasses an array of spotted owl habitat conditions from low elevation to high 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 239

elevation, including several vegetation types from westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and true 

fir. The cumulative effects timeframe is the same as other species—20 years out into the future and to 

the year 2000 for past actions.

3.7.11.3.2 General Cumulative Effects of Past and Future Vegetation Management Projects and Wildfires

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of 

their project location and the actions involved that may be occurring within the PNF boundary. Some, 

but not all, of these activities will contribute to impacts to the California spotted owl within the 

cumulative effects boundary. In its Notice of Finding on a petition to list the California spotted owl, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that loss of habitat to stand-replacing wildfires and 

habitat modification for fuels reduction were the primary risk factors to California spotted owls 

occurring on NFS lands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). 

Since 2000, wildfires resulted in burning approximately 266,963 acres of various habitats across 

the PNF. Some, but not all have resulted in impacts to spotted owl habitats. A total of 21 PACs have 

been lost due to wildfires during this timeframe. Since 2000, more than 73,345 acres of forest 

vegetation and fuels thinning and mastication projects were completed, which were designed to 

reduce the risk of additional habitat loss to wildfires. These treatments generally do not result in 

habitat removal, but may result in changes to habitat quality (e.g. from nesting to foraging). These 

wildfires and vegetation treatment projects have resulted in a reduction in the amount of and quality 

of spotted owl habitat on the PNF since 2000. 

Thinning projects designed to reduce hazardous fuels will continue to be the primary activity 

affecting spotted owl habitat on the Plumas (Appendix C). Although these treatments may reduce 

habitat quality (e.g. nesting habitat reduced to foraging habitat), it expected that suitable habitat will 

be maintained in the long term, and it is anticipated that these treatments will reduce the amount of 

spotted owl habitat potentially lost from future stand-replacing wildfires (USDA Forest Service 

2004).

3.7.11.3.3 Assessing Cumulative Effects from Routes

Cumulative effects to breeding spotted owls are assessed by determining the sum total miles of all 

motorized trails and unauthorized routes on PNF within spotted owl PACs and within 0.25-mile 

radius of spotted owl Activity Centers. For each alternative, cumulative effects are calculated by 

adding the total miles of proposed trails (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) and unauthorized routes 

(Alternative 1) (direct and indirect impacts) with existing motorized trails (Alternative 3) (NFS 

lands).

3.7.11.3.4 Cumulative Effects to Breeding Owls within Protected Activity Centers

When considering the cumulative effects of all motorized NFS trails and unauthorized routes,

Alternative 1 has the highest cumulative miles of routes (89.4 miles) within spotted owl PACs on the 

PNF and therefore poses the greatest overall potential risk and cumulative impacts to breeding spotted 

owls on the PNF (Table 74). Given the magnitude of potential effects upon spotted owl nest sites and 

habitat and considering the projections for future increases in recreation uses and OHV activity, 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

240 – Plumas National Forest

Alternative 1 may, over time, contribute to cumulative effects upon spotted owl populations. Because 

Alternative 1 does not prohibit cross-country travel, there is a potential that route proliferation may 

add additional routes across the PNF and increase associated cumulative impacts upon spotted owls

over time.

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) result in significantly less cumulative effects to 

breeding spotted owls when compared to Alternative 1. This is due to two primary factors: 1) crosscountry travel is prohibited under all four of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5), and 2) all the 

action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) have significantly reduced miles of proposed trails within 

spotted owl PACs. 

Alternative 2 presents a moderate risk to breeding spotted owls, which cumulatively has 

approximately 39.4 miles of proposed trails and existing NFS motorized trails. This risk is 

significantly reduced compared to Alternative 1 and represents a reduction of 50 miles of routes 

within PACs.

Alternative 5 presents a moderate risk to breeding spotted owls, which cumulatively has 

approximately 28.4 miles of proposed trails and existing NFS motorized trails. This risk is 

significantly reduced compared to Alternative 1 and represents a reduction of 61 miles of routes 

within PACs. 

Alternative 4 presents a low risk to breeding spotted owls, which cumulatively has approximately 

22.4 miles of proposed trails and existing NFS motorized trails. This risk is significantly reduced 

compared to Alternative 1 and represents a reduction of 67 miles of routes within PACs. 

Alternative 3 presents the lowest risk to breeding spotted owls, which cumulatively has 

approximately 12.4 miles of existing NFS motorized trails. This risk is significantly reduced 

compared to Alternative 1 and represents a reduction of 77 miles of routes within PACs. Alternative 3 

would pose the best scenario for breeding spotted owls and PACs.

Table 74. Cumulative miles of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing 

trails (Alt. 3) within spotted owl Protected Activity Centers

Route Miles Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and indirect effects of the alternatives

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 77 27 0 10 16

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Miles of existing motorized trails on NFS lands (130 miles) 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4

Total Cumulative Effect

Total cumulative impact (miles of all routes) 89.4 39.4 12.4 22.4 28.4

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

3.7.11.4 0.25-mile Radius Circle of Activity Centers (Nest Site or Nest Stand)

Table 75 presents the analysis of cumulative effects of route or trail miles that lie within the 0.25-mile 

radius circle of spotted owl activity centers (nest or roost stand). The cumulative effects analysis for 

activity centers results in a similar conclusion and ranking of alternatives as the cumulative effects 

found for PACs.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 241

Alternative 1 has the highest cumulative miles (29.8 miles) of motorized trails and unauthorized 

routes when compared to the four action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5). Alternative 1 clearly poses 

the greatest cumulative risk to nesting spotted owls by allowing continued cross-country travel and 

the potential for proliferation of additional routes across the PNF which could increase routes miles 

within 0.25 miles of an activity centers in the future.

All action alternatives (Alternatives 2–5) significantly reduce cumulative effects to breeding owls 

by having less routes and miles within the 0.25-mile radius circle of activity centers, and by 

prohibiting cross country travel and the potential of additional routes across the PNF.

Alternative 2 poses a moderate risk to breeding spotted owls by having 13.4 miles of proposed 

and existing trails within 0.25 miles of an activity center. The risk under Alternative 2 is moderated 

due to the reduction of 16.4 miles of route when compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 poses a moderate risk to breeding spotted owls by having 9.6 miles of proposed and 

existing trails within 0.25 miles of an activity center. The risk under Alternative 5 is moderated due to 

the reduction of 20.2 miles of route when compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 poses a low risk to breeding spotted owls by having 7.9 miles of proposed and 

existing trails within 0.25 miles of an activity center. The risk under Alternative 4 is lowered due to 

the reduction of 21.9 miles of route when compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 poses the lowest risk to breeding spotted owls by having only 4.4 miles of existing 

trail within 0.25 miles of an activity center. The risk under Alternative 3 is low due to the reduction of 

25.4 miles of route when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would pose the best scenario for 

breeding spotted owls and activity centers.

Table 75. Cumulative miles of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), existing trails (Alt. 3) or proposed trails (Alts. 

2, 4, 5) within a 0.25 Mile Radius Circle of spotted owl Activity Centers (Nest Sites/Stand).

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 25.4 1 9.0 0 3.5 5.2

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Miles of existing motorized trails - NFS lands 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Cumulative Impact 29.8 13.4 4.4 7.9 9.6

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

3.7.11.5 Summary of Cumulative Effects to Breeding Spotted Owls

An analysis of breeding spotted owls on the PNF at two scales (within PACs and within a 0.25-mile

radius circle), indicates that cumulative effects are significantly greater under Alternative 1 (No 

action) compared to all of the four action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5). In addition, under 

Alternative 1, unmanaged cross-country travel would continue to occur and potentially pose even 

greater threats to breeding spotted owl populations on the PNF as the potential for route proliferation 

adds additional routes in the future. Based on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan 

development), an average of 48 miles of unauthorized routes per year were established. When this 

rate is applied over the next 20 years, an additional 960 miles could be added under Alternative 1.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

242 – Plumas National Forest

Under all of the other alternatives (Alternatives 2-5), cross-country travel would be prohibited and 

cumulative effects would be significantly reduced. All alternatives are equally affected by existing 

road densities. Forest Service System Roads currently exists within PACs, since development of 

PACs included roads by default due to existing road density levels across the forest. LOP’s are 

applied to our system roads when anticipated use levels increase due to logging activities or when 

concentrated use levels are anticipated. Effects from our system roads are mitigated (e.g. LOP 

applied) on a case by case project basis and contribute relatively low cumulative effects to existing 

spotted owl PACs.

3.7.11.6 Direct and Indirect Effects to Fragmentation and Edge Effects within California Spotted Owl 

Protected Activity Centers

Habitat fragmentation and edge effects were described for late-successional associated species within 

late-successional forest types (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) and within Old Forest Emphasis 

Areas (OFEAs) under the section “Effects Common to All Late-successional Associated Species.” 

Those analyses provided a forest-wide view of how the project alternatives affect spotted owl habitat 

fragmentation within late-successional habitats and OFEAs. This section provides a focused analysis 

of spotted owl habitat fragmentation and edge effects (including noise disturbance) from motorized 

routes at the site-specific PAC scale, where known spotted owl nest territories are located.

3.7.11.6.1 Zone of Influence at 200 meters

Spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) are delineated land allocations (SNFPA 2004), 

comprised of the best available spotted owl habitat, which are managed specifically for sustaining 

viable populations of spotted owls (see previous section on Protected Activity Centers). For all 

spotted owl PACs on the PNF, the effects of the project alternatives are also analyzed for the amount 

of habitat fragmentation and edge effects occurring by considering the Zone of Influence within PACs 

at the spatial scale of within 200 meters of mixed use, proposed trails or unauthorized routes (Table 

76). The 200-meter Zone of Influence represents all impacts which could occur to spotted owls. Since 

absolute noise disturbance thresholds of concern for California spotted owls have not been 

established, the best available science indicates that 100 meters and 200 meters may be important 

noise disturbance thresholds for spotted owls and other birds of prey (Delaney 1999, Delaney and 

Grubb 2001, Delaney and Grubb 2003, Delaney and Grubb 2004).

Table 76 displays the direct and indirect effects by showing the amount of PAC acres that fall 

within the 200-meter Zone of Influence of proposed trails and unauthorized routes. Direct and indirect 

effects of Alternative 1 within spotted owl PACs show that 14,127 acres would have reduced habitat 

effectiveness for spotted owls. These acres would be expected to increase under Alternative 1 over 

time as cross-country travel would still be allowed, and the potential for route proliferation and 

additional routes to be added across the PNF would still exist.

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce impacts to PACs within the 

200-meter zone of influence when compared to Alternative 1. In addition all of the action alternatives 

prohibit cross country travel and would further reduce any future potential impacts to PACs.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 243

Alternative 2 would directly and indirectly affect habitat effectiveness on 3,740 acres within 

PACs. When compared to Alternative 1, this is a reduction of 10,387 acres.

Alternative 5 would directly and indirectly affect habitat effectiveness on 2,931 acres within 

PACs. When compared to Alternative 1, this is a reduction of 11,196 acres.

Alternative 4 would directly and indirectly affect habitat effectiveness on 1,508 acres within 

PACs. When compared to Alternative 1, this is a reduction of 12,619 acres.

Alternative 3 does not propose any new trails, therefore no direct and indirect effects to habitat 

effectiveness within PACs would occur under this alternative.

Table 76. Acres of California spotted owl PACs affected by a 200-meter Zone of Influence of proposed

trails and unauthorized routes that would have a reduction in habitat effectiveness.

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of spotted owl PACs within a 200-meter Zone of Influence of 

proposed trails, mixed use and unauthorized routes.

14,127 3,740 0 1,508 2,931

1

3.7.11.7 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

3.7.11.7.1 Zone of Influence at 200 meters

The cumulative effects of unauthorized routes and proposed trails and their 200-meter Zone of 

Influence within spotted owl PACs are compared for the five alternatives (Table 77). Table 77

displays the results of the cumulative effects analysis for the five alternatives analyzed for impacts to 

habitat effectiveness within PACs that result from motorized trails and unauthorized routes on NFS 

lands. When comparing the cumulative effects of trails and/or routes and their 200-meter zone of 

influence to spotted owl PACs (by summing the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives and the 

cumulative effects of past, present and future actions), Alternative 1 has the highest overall 

cumulative impact to PACs by affecting habitat effectiveness on 15,789 acres. Alternative 1 also

poses additional risk to habitat connectivity and other negative cumulative impacts associated 

(including noise disturbance) by allowing cross-country travel to continue into the future.

All action alternatives significantly reduce impacts to habitat effectiveness within PACs by 

prohibiting cross-country travel and reducing acres affected within PACs by over 10,000 acres, when 

compared to Alternative 1. For example, Alternative 2 contributes to overall cumulative impacts 

within PACs on just 5,402 acres. Alternative 5 has slightly less cumulative effects than Alternatives 2,

with only 4,593 acres affected. Alternative 4 affects the lesser amount of spotted owl habitat with 

3,170 acres. Alternative 3 represents the least impact to habitat effectiveness within PACs with 1,662 

acres affected. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

244 – Plumas National Forest

Table 77 Cumulative effects--proportion of spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) within a 200-

meter Zone of Influence of existing trails (Alt. 3), proposed trails (Alt. 2, 4, 5) and unauthorized routes

(Alt. 1).

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes, mixed use or proposed trail 

additions 

14,127 1 3,740 0 1,508 2,931

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Existing motorized trails - NFS lands 1,662 1,662 1,662 1,662 1,662

Total Cumulative Effects 15,789 5,402 1,662 3,170 4,593

1

3.7.11.8 Cumulative Effects Summary to PACs at 200-meter Zone of Influence

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Cumulative effects of habitat effectiveness within California spotted owl PACs were assessed by 

determining the amount of spotted owl PACs that are influenced by motorized trails and unauthorized 

routes on NFS lands. A 200-meter Zone of Influence was used to determine potential effects from the 

influence of noise, edge effects and habitat alteration associated with unauthorized routes, proposed 

trails and motorized trails.

Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative effects and greatest risk to habitat effectiveness within 

PACs at the 200-meter of Zone of Influence scale. Under Alternative 1 cumulative effects would 

result in 15,789 acres of PAC habitat with reduced habitat effectiveness. In addition, the risk is 

increased since Alternative 1 would still allow cross country travel and the potential for route 

proliferation to add additional routes across the PNF.

Alternative 2 significantly reduces cumulative effects to habitat effectiveness and poses about 

half the risk to habitat effectiveness within PACs compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 results in 

5,402 acres of cumulative effects to PACs and would prohibit cross country travel. The prohibition of 

cross country travel would reduce the risk of route proliferation into the future.

Alternative 5 significantly reduces cumulative effects to habitat effectiveness and poses about a 

quarter of the risk to habitat effectiveness within PACs compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 5 

results in 4,497 acres of cumulative effects to PACs and would prohibit cross country travel. The 

prohibition of cross country travel would reduce the risk of route proliferation into the future.

Alternative 4 significantly reduces cumulative effects to habitat effectiveness and poses about one 

fifth the risk to habitat effectiveness within PACs compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 4 results in 

3,075 acres of cumulative effects to PACs and would prohibit cross country travel. The prohibition of 

cross country travel would reduce the risk of route proliferation into the future.

Alternative 3 significantly reduces cumulative effects to habitat effectiveness and poses a lowest 

risk (about 1/10) to habitat effectiveness within PACs compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 results 

in 1,662 acres of cumulative effects to PACs and would prohibit cross country travel. The prohibition 

of cross country travel would reduce the risk of route proliferation into the future. Alternative 3 would 

pose the best scenario for habitat effectiveness within PACs for the spotted owl.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 245

3.7.11.9 Home Range Core Areas—Direct and Indirect Effects

3.7.11.9.1 Zone of Influence at 200 meters

Delineated California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) are comprised of approximately 

700 acres of the best available spotted owl habitat (SNFPA 2004) surrounding the ~300-acre core nest 

area (PAC). The HRCAs are delineated to represent spotted owl foraging habitat, whereas, PACs are 

delineated as the best available nesting and foraging habitat around an activity center.

The purpose of using a Zone of Influence is to evaluate habitat fragmentation, noise disturbance 

and edge effects on spotted foraging habitat or HRCAs. The Zone of Influence within 200-meters of 

mixed use, proposed motorized trails and unauthorized routes within spotted owl HRCAs was 

determined for each alternative (Table 78). Table 78 displays the results of the direct and indirect 

impacts of unauthorized routes and proposed trails within spotted owl HRCAs.

Alternative 1 directly and indirectly reduces habitat effectiveness on 35,607 acres within spotted 

owl HRCAs. All action alternatives (2-5) significantly reduce impacts to habitat effectiveness within 

HRCAs by over 25,000+ acres. Alternatives 2 results in a reduction of habitat effectiveness within 

spotted owl HRCAs on 9,391 acres. Alternative 5 results in a reduction of habitat effectiveness within 

spotted owl HRCAs on 5,883 acres. Alternative 4 results in a reduction of habitat effectiveness within 

spotted owl HRCAs on 3,920 acres. Alternative 3 proposes no additional proposed trails and

therefore, would have no direct and indirect effects within the 200-meter Zone of Influence in spotted 

owl HRCAs. 

Table 78. Acres of California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) within a 200-meter Zone of 

Influence of unauthorized routes and proposed trails.

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of spotted owl HRCAs within a 200-meter Zone of 

Influence of unauthorized routes, mixed use and 

proposed trails

35,607 9,391 0 3,920 5,883

1

3.7.11.10 Cumulative Effects Summary of Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effects within Spotted Owl 

HRCAs

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

3.7.11.10.1 Zone of Influence at 200 meters

The cumulative effects to spotted owl HRCAs within a 200-meter Zone of Influence are compared for 

the alternatives (Table 79). As previously discussed, the cumulative effects analysis presented here 

only provides a relative comparison of cumulative effects to spotted owl habitat in HRCAs from 

unauthorized routes and proposed trails. Table 79 displays the cumulative effects of the alternatives of 

motorized routes on NFS lands within spotted owl HRCAs. When comparing the cumulative effects 

to HRCAs from routes and their associated 200-meter Zone of Influence (i.e., summing the direct and 

indirect effects of the alternatives and the cumulative effects of past, present and future actions), 

Alternative 1 has the highest cumulative impact where approximately 39,520 acres of habitat within 

HRCAs would be affected, either by increased disturbance to owls or avoidance by owls (e.g. not 

used). Alternative 1 would pose the highest risk to habitat connectivity and other negative cumulative 

impacts (i.e., noise disturbance) within spotted owl HRCAs due to continued route proliferation since

unmanaged cross-country travel would continue into the future.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

246 – Plumas National Forest

Alternative 2 poses a moderate cumulative effect and risk to spotted owl HRCAs. This is based 

on two primary factors: 1) the amount of acres affected which total 13,304 acres, and 2) the 

prohibition of cross country travel and reduced risk of route proliferation across the PNF.

Alternative 5 poses a moderate cumulative effect and risk to spotted owl HRCAs. This is based 

on two primary factors: 1) the amount of acres affected which total 9,796 acres, and 2) the prohibition 

of cross country travel and reduced risk of route proliferation across the PNF.

Alternative 4 poses a low cumulative effect and risk to spotted owl HRCAs. This is based on two 

primary factors: 1) the amount of acres affected is low, 7,833 acres, and 2) the prohibition of cross 

country travel and reduced risk of route proliferation across the PNF.

Alternative 3 poses the lowest cumulative effect and risk to spotted owl HRCAs. This is based on 

two primary factors: 1) the amount of acres affected are the lowest at 3,913 acres, and 2) the 

prohibition of cross country travel and reduced risk of route proliferation across the PNF. 

Table 79. Cumulative effects—acres of California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas that lie within a 

200-meter zone of influence of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), existing trails (Alt. 3) or proposed trails (Alts. 

2, 4, 5).

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes, mixed use or proposed trail 

additions

35,609 1 9,391 0 3,920 5,883

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Existing motorized routes - NFS lands 3,913 3,913 3,913 3,913 3,913

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Cumulative Effects 39,520 13,304 3,913 7,833 9,796

1

3.7.11.10.2 Sensitive Species Determinations 

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Based on the spotted owl analysis of effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS made a 

determination for the California spotted owl. 

Alternative 1 – This alternative may adversely affect, and is likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing and a loss of viability for the California spotted owl. This determination is based on the 

rationale that cross country travel would continue in the future and lead to additional loss of habitat, 

an increase in habitat fragmentation, and result in high risk to spotted owl PACs and HRCAs. Based 

on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an average of 48 miles of unauthorized 

routes per year were established. When this rate is applied over the next 20 years, an additional 960 

miles could be added under Alternative 1, resulting in increased cumulative effects (e.g. disturbance 

during reproduction period, abandonment of territories, etc.) over time.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the California spotted owl within the 

planning area of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale that 1) the 

action alternatives would prohibit current and future cross-country travel across the PNF, 2) risks to 

spotted owl PACs and HRCAs would be significantly reduced compared to Alternative 1 (No-action), 

and 3) a higher amount of owl nesting and foraging habitat would remain undisturbed for owl use. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 247

In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local 

knowledge of this species as discussed previously in this evaluation, best available scientific 

information and professional judgment.

3.7.12 Northern Goshawk: Affected Environment

The northern goshawk is designated as a Forest Service Sensitive Species in Region 5. There are

currently 495,071 acres of suitable goshawk habitat on the PNF as defined by CWHR types 4 M, 4D, 

5M, 5D and 6. All northern goshawk territories are managed on the Plumas National Forest as 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) as prescribed by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(2004). To date, the Plumas National Forest has 148 existing northern goshawk PACs (Table 80).

Table 80. Number of northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers by Ranger District on the Plumas 

National Forest. 

Feather River 60

Beckwourth 48

Mount Hough 40

(*includes loss of PACs as a result of the Moonlight and Rich Fires. No PACs lost as a result of Canyon, Butte, Cold and 

Antelope Fires)

Disturbance at a Specific Site: Human disturbance has the potential to cause goshawk to 

abandon nesting during the nesting and post fledging period (February 15 through September 15). 

Goshawk initiate breeding when the ground is still covered in snow and sometimes nests are located 

along roads and trails when they are not yet in use. Additionally, roads and trails provide flight access 

for goshawk. When the snow melts, these sites can potentially be areas of conflict as these roads and 

trails are used by people. Joslin and Youmans (1999) recommends maintaining low road densities to 

minimize disturbance to goshawk. Dunk et. al, 2007 (abstract) provided preliminary results from his 

2004 to 2006 data where he compared the effects OHV use on juvenile goshawk survival in a control 

and treatment scenario. The preliminary study results did not indicate differences in juvenile survival 

between the two test methods. However, this data is preliminary with analysis is still ongoing and 

final results not currently available. Therefore, the Grubb et al. (1998) study was used for this 

analysis. Grubb et al. (1998) reported that vehicle traffic from roads did not elicit any discernable 

behavioral response from goshawk at distances exceeding 400-meters (0.25 mile) from nests. Based 

on these study results, the disturbance at a specific site analysis for goshawks was conducted at a 

distance of less or equal to 400 meters or 0.25 miles.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation and Edge Effects: a network of roads and trails can fragment 

goshawk habitat by reducing canopy closure (Beir and Drennan 1997, Daw and DeStefano 2001) and 

by reducing forest interior patch size. However, how habitat fragmentation from roads and trails 

affects goshawk habitat suitability is not well understood. Generally, the wider the road, the more the 

fragmentation. Maintenance level 2 roads and trails probably do not pose as much a risk to habitat 

fragmentation compared to maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads, since level 2 roads are more narrow 

Ranger District Number of PACs

Total Number of PACs 148

Total Acres of PACs 31,395
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

248 – Plumas National Forest

than level 3, 4, and 5 roads. For obvious reasons, state and federal highways create the greatest habitat 

fragmentation due to the width of the road and associated edge effects.

3.7.13 Northern Goshawk: Environmental Consequences

3.7.13.1 Analysis Measures 

Miles of mixed use, proposed trails and unauthorized routes within northern goshawk Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs) and within 0.25 mile of northern goshawk Activity Centers to assess 

disturbance to breeding northern goshawk: The direct and indirect effects to breeding northern 

goshawk will be measured by the amount of disturbance that may be generated from noise or other 

trail and road associated factors within (1) the designated Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and (2) 

within a 0.25-mile radius circle of goshawk Activity Centers (nest or nest stand). The PACs are 

delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding territories on NFS lands on the 

PNF. The PACs are designated to include the latest documented nest site and location of alternate 

nests (SNFPA 2004). The PACs encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat which 

include two or more canopy layers, (1) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes 

averaging 24 inch dbh or greater; (2) in westside conifer and eastside mixed conifer forest types, 

stands have at least 70 percent tree canopy cover; and (3) in eastside pine forest types, stands have at 

least 60 percent tree canopy cover. Activity Centers are known nest sites or suspected nest stands.

Nest abandonment and failure can result from excessive noise disturbance, that may be associated 

with use of motorized routes.

Zone of Influence within PACs to assess potential habitat fragmentation and edge effects: In 

addition, to determining the habitat fragmentation potential from zones of influence within suitable 

goshawk habitat within CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 (See effects to late-successional forest 

habitats in effects common to all late-successional forest associated species), zones of influence were 

determined within goshawk PACs at 400 meters (0.25-mile) of unauthorized routes, mixed use and 

proposed trails.

3.7.13.2 Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Northern Goshawks

3.7.13.2.1 Protected Activity Centers

The miles of unauthorized routes and proposed trails to be added to the NFTS are compared to 

determine how the various alternatives have the potential to impact breeding northern goshawks from 

noise disturbance and other factors associated with motorized use. 

Table 81 displays the total miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails that are within goshawk 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) by alternative. Northern goshawks PACs are not affected by mixed 

use on 4.1 miles of Forest Road 24N28. It also displays the number and percentage of PACs affected 

by proposed trails or unauthorized routes for each alternative. There are a total of 148 goshawk PACs 

designated on the PNF.

Alternative 1 contributes significantly to direct and indirect effects to breeding goshawk, where 

cross-country motorized travel would continue, including motorized use on over 45 miles of 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 249

unauthorized routes, where 57% of goshawk PACs (84 PACs) on the PNF would be subjected to 

disturbance from the continued use of unauthorized routes.

All action alternatives (2-5) significantly reduce impacts to breeding goshawks within PACs. 

Alternative 2 proposes approximately 13 miles of proposed trails to be added to the PNF

transportation system that would contribute to direct and indirect effects to 17% of the PNF goshawk 

PACs (26 PACs). This is a reduction of over 30 miles and approximately 58 PACs, when compared to 

Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 proposes approximately 8 miles of proposed trails to be added to the PNF

transportation system that would contribute to direct and indirect effects to 11% of the PNF goshawk 

PACs (16 PACs). This is a reduction of over 37 miles and approximately 68 PACs, when compared to 

Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 proposes approximately 5 miles of proposed trails to be added to the PNF

transportation system that would contribute to direct and indirect effects to 7% of the PNF goshawk 

PACs (10 PACs). This is a reduction of over 40 miles and approximately 74 PACs, when compared to 

Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 does not propose any trails within goshawk PACs and therefore would not cause 

direct or indirect effects to breeding goshawk within PACs.

Table 81. Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized routes within northern goshawk Protected Activity 

Centers on the Plumas National Forest.

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized routes within 

goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs)

45.1 13 0 5 8

Number of goshawk PACs Intersected by proposed

trails and unauthorized routes 

84 26 0 10 16

Percent of goshawk PACs affected by proposed trails 

and unauthorized routes (Total PNF goshawk PACs =

148)

57% 17% 0% 7% 11%

1

3.7.13.2.2 0.25-Mile Radius Circle of goshawk Activity Centers (Nest Site or Nest Stand)

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Table 82 displays the potential direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on breeding goshawk 

within a 0.25-mile radius circle of goshawk Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand). Alternative 1 

poses the greatest risk from noise disturbance to breeding goshawk by allowing continued crosscountry motorized travel, including motorized use on over 29 miles of unauthorized routes within the 

0.25-mile of goshawk Activity Centers. 

All action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce impacts to breeding goshawks by 

reducing route miles within 0.25 miles of goshawk activity centers. Alternative 2 would contribute to 

noise disturbance from motor vehicles to breeding goshawk on approximately 10.4 miles of proposed 

trails that would be added within the 0.25-mile radius circle of goshawk activity centers. Alternatives 

5 would contribute direct and indirect impacts on 7 miles of proposed trails that would be added 

within 0.25 miles of goshawk activity centers. Alternative 2 would contribute 3.9 miles of proposed 

trails within the 0.25-mile radius circle of goshawk Activity Centers. Alternatives 3 does not directly 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

250 – Plumas National Forest

or indirectly affect breeding goshawk within a 0.25-mile radius circle of known or suspected goshawk 

activity centers.

Table 82. Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized routes within a 0.25-mile radius circle of northern 

goshawk Activity Center (nest site or nest stand).

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of proposed trails and unauthorized 

routes within a 0.25-mile radius circle of 

Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand)

29.8 10.4 0 3.9 7

1

3.7.13.3 Cumulative Effects to Breeding Goshawk

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

3.7.13.3.1 Cumulative Effects Boundary (Space and Time)

The cumulative effects geographic boundary for breeding goshawks includes all goshawk Protected 

Activity Centers and their associated Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand) within the boundary of 

the Plumas National Forest (PNF). This is an appropriate scale for determining cumulative effects to 

the goshawk, since the PNF boundary is sufficiently large and includes 148 goshawk territories. In 

addition, the PNF boundary encompasses an array of goshawk habitat conditions from low elevation 

to high elevation, including several vegetation types including westside mixed conifer, ponderosa 

pine, true fir (red fir and white fir), eastside mixed conifer, pure eastside pine, lodgepole pine and 

subalpine conifer. The cumulative effects timeframe is the same as other species—20 years out into 

the future and back to the year 2000 for past actions. In addition, cumulative effects of all past actions 

are incorporated into the existing condition (e.g. wildfires) for determining PAC status.

3.7.13.3.2 Assessing Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to breeding goshawk are assessed by determining the sum total miles of all 

motorized trails (proposed and existing) and unauthorized routes on the PNF within goshawk PACs 

and within 0.25-mile radius of goshawk Activity Centers. For each alternative, cumulative effects are 

calculated by adding the total miles of proposed trails or unauthorized routes (direct and indirect 

impacts) with existing motorized trails (NFS lands only). 

3.7.13.3.3 Protected Activity Centers

Table 83 displays the cumulative effects of all unauthorized routes, proposed trails and existing 

motorized trails on NFS lands. The data indicates that Alternative 1 has the most cumulative miles of 

routes (49 miles) within goshawk PACs on the PNF. Alternative 1 also continues the allowance of 

cross country travel, and therefore poses the greatest overall potential risk and cumulative impacts to 

breeding goshawk on the PNF. 

All of the action alternatives significantly reduce cumulative effects to goshawk PACs as a result 

of significantly less trail miles within PACs and the prohibition of cross country travel. Based on 

proposed and existing motorized trails, Alternative 2 has 16.9 miles that lie within goshawk PACs. 

Alternative 5 results in less cumulative miles within PACs within 11.9 miles. Alternative 4 results in 

8.9 cumulative miles within goshawk PACs. Alternative 3 results in the least amount cumulative 

effects to goshawk PACs within only 3.9 miles of existing trails. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 251

Table 83. Cumulative miles of all unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and the 

existing trails (Alt. 3) within goshawk Protected Activity Centers on PNF.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and indirect effects of the alternatives

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails to be added to 

system

45.1 1 13 0 5 8

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Miles of existing NFS motorized trails 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

Total cumulative effects

Total cumulative impact 49 16.9 3.9 8.9 11.9

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Forest Service System Roads currently exists within PACs, since development of PACs included 

roads by default due to existing road density levels across the forest. LOP’s are applied to our system 

roads when anticipated use levels increase due to logging activities or when concentrated use levels 

are anticipated. Effects from our system roads are mitigated (e.g. LOP applied) on a case by case 

project basis, and contribute relatively low cumulative effects to existing goshawk PACs.

3.7.13.3.4 0.25-mile Radius Circle of Activity Centers (Nest Site or Nest Stand)

Table 84 displays data from the analysis of cumulative effects within the 0.25-mile radius circle of 

goshawk Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand).

Alternative 1 has the most cumulative unauthorized route/trail miles (32.3 miles) and represents 

the highest cumulative effect to goshawk activity centers. In addition, risk to goshawk Activity 

Centers is increased under Alternative 1 since cross country travel would continue and the potential 

for route proliferation would add additional routes across the PNF.

All action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) reduce cumulative effects significantly compared to 

Alternative 1. Alternative 2 reduces impacts to goshawk activity centers down to 12.9 miles. 

Alternative 5 further reduces cumulative effects down to 9.5 miles. Alternative 4 contains 6.4 miles of 

proposed trail within 0.25 miles of Activity Centers representing low cumulative effects to goshawks. 

Alternative 3 does not add to the existing trail miles, but does represent 2.5 miles of existing trails 

that lie within 0.25 miles of a goshawk Activity Center. Alternative 3 represents the least risk to 

nesting goshawk compared to all other alternatives. 

Table 84. Miles of all unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and the existing trails 

(Alt. 3) within 0.25-mile of goshawk Activity Centers (nest site or nest stand) on the Plumas National 

Forest.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 29.8 1 10.4 0 3.9 7

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Miles of existing motorized trails - NFS lands 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Total cumulative effects 32.3 12.9 2.5 6.4 9.5

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

252 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.13.4 Direct and Indirect Effects to Fragmentation and Edge Effects

within Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers

Habitat fragmentation and edge effects were described for late-successional associated species within 

late-successional forest types (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) and within Old Forest Emphasis 

Areas (OFEAs) under the section “Effects Common to All Late-successional Associated Species.”

Those analyses provided a Forest-wide view of how the project alternatives affect goshawk habitat 

fragmentation within late-successional habitats and OFEAs. This section provides a focused analysis 

of goshawk habitat fragmentation and edge effects (including noise disturbance) from motorized trails 

and unauthorized routes at the site-specific goshawk PAC scale, where known goshawk nest 

territories are located.

3.7.13.4.1 Zone of Influence at 400 meters (0.25 mile)

Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs) are delineated land allocations (SNFPA 2004), 

comprised of the best available goshawk habitat, which are managed specifically for sustaining viable 

populations of goshawks. For all goshawk PACs on the PNF, the effects of the project alternatives are 

analyzed for the amount of habitat fragmentation and edge effects occurring by considering the Zone 

of Influence within goshawk PACs within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of unauthorized routes and 

proposed trails (Table 85). Although, absolute disturbance thresholds for goshawk are not readily 

available in the literature, Grubb et al. (1998) reported that goshawk were found to react negatively 

(flush) when noise associated with logging trucks were less than 400 meters (0.25 mile) from nests. 

Determining the acres of a goshawk PAC that is influenced by unauthorized routes or proposed trails 

within 400 meters (0.25 mile) gives a relative index of habitat fragmentation or habitat effectiveness 

at the site-specific goshawk PAC scale.

Table 85 displays the direct and indirect effects to goshawk PACs within a 400-meter Zone of 

Influence of unauthorized routes and proposed trails. The data indicates that Alternative 1 reduces 

habitat effectiveness and associated habitat fragmentation (including noise disturbance) within 14,181 

PAC acres. 

All the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) result in significantly reduced direct and indirect 

effects to goshawk PACs. Alternative 2 reduces habitat effectiveness of within goshawk PACs by 

3,952 acres. Alternatives 4 and 5 reduce habitat effectiveness within goshawk PACs on 1,643 and 

2,623 acres, respectively. Of the action alternatives that add trails to the NFTS, Alternative 4 

represents the least impact to goshawk PACs within the 400-meter zone of influence. Habitat 

effectiveness within goshawk PACs would not be affected by implementing Alternative 3, since to 

trails will be added under this alternative.

Table 85. Acres of PNF goshawk Protected Activity Centers that lie within a 400-meter Zone of Influence 

of unauthorized routes or proposed trails.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Acres of PNF goshawk PACs within a 400 meter 

zone of influence.

14,181 1 3,952 0 1,643 2,623

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 253

3.7.13.4.2 Cumulative Effects within a 400-meter Zone of Influence

Table 86 displays the cumulative effects of the alternatives of proposed trails and unauthorized routes 

on NFS lands. When comparing the cumulative effects of routes of goshawk PACs within a 400-

meter Zone of Influence (by summing the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives and the 

cumulative effects of past, present and future actions), Alternative 1 has the greatest overall 

cumulative impact to goshawk PACs (15,838 acres) and poses the greatest risk to habitat connectivity 

and other cumulative impacts associated (including noise disturbance) with unauthorized routes 

within goshawk PACs. In addition, Alternative 1 would contribute to continued route proliferation 

because unmanaged cross-country motorized travel would allowed to continue into the future.

All the action alternatives significantly reduce cumulative effects to goshawk PACs as a result of 

two primary factors: 1) the prohibition of cross country travel, and 2) the significantly reduced 

amount of habitat affected within goshawk PACs when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2

contributes to overall cumulative impacts within goshawk PACs on 5,602 acres, which represents a 

reduction from Alternative 1 of over 10,000 acres. Alternative 5 contributes to cumulative impacts on 

4,273 acres, which represents a reduction of over 11,500 acres. Alternative 4 contributes to 

cumulative impacts on 3,293 acres which represents a reduction of over 12,000 acres. Alternative 3 

contributes to cumulative effects on only 1,650 primarily due to existing trails.

Table 86. Cumulative effects—acres of goshawk Activity Centers that lie within a 400-meter (0.25-mile) 

Zone of Influence of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing trails (Alt. 3).

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 

14,181 1

3,952 0 1,643 2,623

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed 

actions

Existing motorized trails - NFS lands 

1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Cumulative Effects 

15,831 5,602 1,650 3,293 4,273

1

3.7.13.5 Cumulative Effects from Past, Present and Future Vegetation/Fuels and Past Wildfires

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while Alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of

their project location and the actions involved that may be occurring on NFS lands within the PNF

boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities will contribute to impacts to the northern goshawk

within the cumulative effects boundary.

Since 2000, wildfires burned approximately 266,963 acres of various habitats across the PNF. 

Some, but not all, have resulted in impacts to goshawk habitats. Since 2000, more than 73,345 acres 

of forest vegetation and fuels thinning and mastication projects were completed, which were designed 

to reduce the risk of additional habitat loss to wildfires. These treatments generally do not result in 

habitat removal, but may result in habitat quality changes. These wildfires and vegetation treatment 

projects have resulted in a reduction in the amount of and quality of goshawk habitat on the PNF 

since 2000.

Thinning projects designed to reduce hazardous fuels will continue to be the primary activity 

affecting goshawk habitat on the Plumas (Appendix C). Although these treatments may reduce habitat 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

254 – Plumas National Forest

quality (i.e. nesting habitat reduced to foraging habitat), it is expected that suitable habitat will be 

maintained in the long term and it is anticipated that these treatments will reduce the amount of 

goshawk habitat potentially lost from future stand-replacing wildfires (USDA Forest Service 2004).

3.7.13.6 Sensitive Species Determinations

Based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS 

made a determination for the northern goshawk.

Alternative 1 – This alternative may adversely affect, and is likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing and a loss of viability for the northern goshawk. This determination is based on the 

rationale that cross country travel would continue in the future and lead to additional loss of habitat, 

an increase in habitat fragmentation, and result in high risk to goshawk PACs and Activity Centers.

Based on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an average of 48 miles of 

unauthorized routes per year were established. When this rate is applied over the next 20 years, an 

additional 960 miles could be added under Alternative 1, resulting in increased cumulative effects 

(e.g. disturbance during reproduction period, abandonment of territories, etc.) over time.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk within the 

planning area of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale that 1) the 

action alternatives would prohibit current and future cross-country travel across the PNF, 2) that risks 

to northern goshawk PACs and Activity Centers would be significantly reduced compared to 

Alternative 1 (No-action), and 3) higher amounts of nesting and foraging habitat would be maintained 

for the goshawk. 

3.7.14 Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Pacific Fisher, Sierra Nevada Red Fox 

and Wolverine

Forest carnivores include the American marten, Pacific fisher, the Sierra Nevada red fox and 

wolverine. The Sierra Nevada red fox and the wolverine are addressed under the Wide-ranging 

Carnivore Group. This section will focus on the marten and fisher. Impacts to the marten and fisher 

will be considered together, since effects to these species are similar. More detailed information for 

these species can be found in the Biological Evaluation. Limited research or information on 

motorized trail impacts to forest carnivores is available in the literature, but some information is 

available as described below for species considered here.

The PNF developed a Draft Forest Carnivore Network in 1998 by evaluating suitable marten and 

fisher habitat. The purpose of the Draft Forest Carnivore Network is to provide forest biologists a tool 

to evaluate linkages and connectivity for forest carnivore species such as the marten and fisher during 

project level analysis. The Draft Forest Carnivore network is not a formal land designation under the 

Plumas NF Plan, as amended. Forest carnivores are considered to be interior forest species where 

habitat fragmentation is a concern.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 255

3.7.15 American Marten and Pacific Fisher (Forest Carnivores): Affected 

Environment

3.7.15.1 American Marten

Martens prefer coniferous forest habitat with large diameter trees and snags, large down logs, 

moderate-to-high canopy closure interspersed with riparian areas and meadows. Important habitat 

attributes are: vegetative diversity, with predominately mature forest, snags, dispersal cover and large 

woody debris (Allen 1987). Martens selected stands with 40-60% canopy closure for both resting and 

foraging and avoided stands with less than 30% canopy closure (Spencer et al. 1983). Martens 

generally avoid habitats that lack overhead cover, presumably because these areas do not provide 

protection from avian predators (Allen 1982, Bissonette et al 1988, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Spencer 

et al. 1983).

At a landscape scale, patches of preferred habitat and the distribution of openings with respect to 

habitat patches may be critical to the distribution and abundance of martens (Buskirk and Powell 

1994). While marten use small openings and particularly meadows for foraging, these openings must 

occupy a small percent of the landscape. Martens have not been found in landscapes with greater than 

25 percent of the area in openings (Hargis and Bissonette 1997; Potvin et al. 2000). As landscapes 

become fragmented, the combination of increasing isolation and decreasing patch size of suitable 

habitat compounds the effects of simple habitat loss (Andren 1994). For species like marten, this is 

likely to result in a decrease of greater magnitude than can be explained solely by the loss of suitable 

habitat. Marten may be a species that demonstrate exponential population declines at relatively low 

levels of fragmentation (Bisonette et al. 1997, in USDA Forest Service 2004). Zielinski, et al. 2008, 

evaluated the effects of off-highway vehicle use (OHV) on the Marten within the Sierra Nevada, and 

suggested “placing routes so they avoid high quality marten habitat (late-successional conifer forests 

near meadows and riparian areas; Spencer et al. 1983) will minimize the possibility that martens 

encounter OHV stimuli when they are actively engaged in foraging or social behavior”. The study 

also found that the degree of OHV use is important in regards to Marten occupancy and habitat 

fragmentation. Zielinski, et al. 2008 found that the level of OHV use (high mean 0.46 vehicles/hour) 

in their study did not affect occupancy and, therefore, did not appear to be contributing to 

fragmentation.

The Plumas NF has been extensively surveyed for Marten since 1999, with approximately 2,121 

systematic survey stations established over this time period. The distribution of Marten on the Plumas 

NF is well known based on extensive surveys and are known to occur within a limited range in the 

Lakes Basin Area of the Beckwourth Ranger District. 

3.7.15.2 Pacific Fisher

The Pacific fisher is a Forest Service Sensitive Species as designated by the Regional Forest. It is also 

listed as candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FWS species list in the project 

record). Roads can impact fisher in ways similar to the marten through direct mortality and habitat 

fragmentation. Vehicular collision is a known source of fisher mortality (Heinemeyer 1993).

Approximately 3.4 percent of 147 radio-collared fishers studied in Massachusetts (York 1996) and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

256 – Plumas National Forest

Maine (Krohn et al. 1994) were killed by vehicles. The risk of collision mortality increases with road 

density, but possibly increases with the density of highways and freeways where vehicle speeds are 

highest.

Suitable habitat for the fisher occurs primarily on the west side of the PNF. Roads can contribute 

to habitat fragmentation where the fisher generally avoids entering open areas that have no overstory 

or shrub cover; and roads and the associated presence of vehicles and humans, can cause animals to 

modify their behavior near roads (USDA Forest Service 2001). These indirect effects on fisher habitat 

could negatively affect the ability for fishers to be successfully reintroduced to the PNF. Previous 

studies have reported a negative correlation between detections of fisher and roads (Dark 1997, 

Golightly et al. 1997). Road construction associated with timber harvest activities could directly and 

indirectly affect fishers. If fishers avoid areas in proximity of roads, then these areas constitute habitat 

loss. Indirect effects would also include the effects on prey populations that may also avoid or be 

killed by motorized use.

The PNF falls within an area that was considered to be a distribution gap within the range of the 

fisher (Zielinski et al. 2005). The Plumas NF has been extensively surveyed for fisher since 1999, 

with approximately 2,121 systematic survey stations established over this time period and no Fisher 

have been found or confirmed on the Forest. A joint partnership between the California Department of 

Fish and Game (CDFG), Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

North Carolina State University (NCSU) has embarked on an fisher re-introduction effort within the 

distribution gap identified by Zielinski (2005), specifically within SPI’s Sterling Management Tract 

(Butte County). This re-introduction effort began during November 2009 with a total 14 animals 

being trapped and 13 animals (1 fatality) actually released onto SPI lands. To date, no fisher have 

moved onto or are suspected to be occupying or denning on the Plumas NF based on tracking 

information provided by the joint partners (A. Facka, personal communication).

For a summary of motorized trail associated factors associated with marten and fisher, please 

refer to Table 63.

Human-caused Mortality: Marten are known for their vulnerability to trapping in many parts of 

their range. In California, however, body-gripping traps have been banned since 1998 and, as a result, 

the likelihood of incidental capture of marten by legal fur trapping has been dramatically reduced. 

Illegal harvest threats remain and could increase in relation to greater accessibility. At present, illegal 

trapping or shooting of marten is not known to be a substantial source of mortality (USDA Forest 

Service 2001). The increased opportunity for poaching provided by increased public access may 

represent a substantial risk for fisher, based upon findings in the southern Sierra Nevada. Of nine 

recently documented fisher mortalities, two were suspected of being the result of poaching (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). 

Collision: Highways and roads can result in the direct and indirect mortality of individual 

martens. Road collisions with vehicles have been identified as a source of marten mortality (Buskirk 

and Ruggerio 1994), including in the Sierra Nevada (Spencer 1981, Martin 1987). Marten road 

mortality on the PNF, may be of concern since State Highways 89, 70 and Forest Service Route 24 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 257

(Lakes Basin Highway) bisects their habitat. Collisions are much less likely to occur along the 

slower-speed native surface routes that are being proposed as motorized trails in this project. 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation, Edge Effects, Movement Barriers, Displacement or 

Avoidance: Martens are known to be sensitive to changes in overhead cover, which can result from 

roads or trails (Hargis and McCullough 1984, Buskirk and Powell 1994). Roads and trails can 

fragment habitat, thus affecting the ability of marten to use otherwise suitable habitat on either side of 

the route. 

The loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat by roads and development is thought to have 

played a significant role in both the loss of fishers from the central Sierra Nevada and its failure to 

recolonize this area (USFWS 2004). Campbell (2004, in USFWS 2004) found that sample units 

within the central and southern Sierra Nevada region occupied by fishers were negatively associated 

with road density. This relationship was significant at multiple spatial scales (from 494 to 7,413 

acres). The USFWS (2004) concluded that, “vehicle traffic during the breeding season in suitable 

habitat may impact foraging and breeding activity” and that “hiking, biking, off-road vehicle and 

snowmobile trails, may adversely affect fishers.” Dark (1997) found that fishers in the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest used landscapes with more contiguous, unfragmented forests and less human activity. 

Roads can fragment habitat and affect the ability of the animals to use otherwise suitable habitat 

on either side of the road and the associated presence of vehicles and humans, can cause animals to 

avoid otherwise suitable habitats near roads. Robitaille and Aubrey (2000), studied marten in an area 

of low road density and traffic (primarily logging roads) and found that marten use of habitat within 

300 and 400 meters of roads was significantly less than habitat use at 700 or 800 meters distance. 

Although marten are detected in close proximity to roads, it appears that significantly less marten 

activity occurs within these zones.

If highways, with their high traffic speeds, jersey barriers and often steep side-slopes, limit the 

success and frequency of marten crossings, then the implications to marten dispersal may be of 

concern. State Highways 89 and 70 and Forest Route 24 bisect marten habitat. If marten avoid these 

highways, then marten populations could become fragmented into small isolated populations.

Roads may decrease prey and food availability for marten and fisher (Allen 1987) due to prey 

population reductions from road kills and/or behavioral avoidance of roads. Occasionally one and two 

lane Forest roads with moderate levels of traffic should not limit marten movements.

Standards and Guidelines in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD (2004), provide 

management direction for habitat connectivity for old forest associated species to “minimize old 

forest habitat fragmentation” and “assess the potential impacts of projects on the connectivity of 

habitat for old forest associated species,” particularly marten and fisher.

Routes for Competitors: Martens avoid habitats that lack overhead cover presumably because 

these areas do not provide protection from avian predators. Roads that are driven during the winter 

months may allow coyotes to enter into marten winter habitat, affecting marten through competition 

or direct mortality from predation. Since marten have unique morphologies that allow them to occupy 

deep snow habitats where they have a competitive advantage over carnivores, such as coyotes and 

bobcats, human modifications of this habitat, such as winter road use, over-the-snow travel and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

258 – Plumas National Forest

snowmobile trails, can eliminate this advantage and increase access for predators and competitors. 

This has been identified as a potentially significant risk factor in the Sierra Nevada worthy of further 

investigation.

Disturbance at a Specific Location (Meadows)—Marten Only: Various studies in the Sierra 

Nevada indicate marten have a strong preference for meadows and forest-meadow edges for foraging 

(Spencer et al. 1983, USDA Forest Service 2001). Microtine rodents (meadow voles) are important 

for the Marten diet and therefore, the quality of meadow habitat (especially meadows surrounded by 

mature lodgepole and red fir forests) influences the quality of marten habitat (Spencer et al. 1983).

Routes that are adjacent to and intersect meadows can alter meadow hydrology and vegetation which 

may have a negative effect on prey abundance. The combination of route use and increased human 

activity, as well as the potential impacts of routes upon meadow vegetation, may result in loss of these 

more easily exploitable “prey patches.”

3.7.16 American Marten and Pacific Fisher (Forest Carnivores): Environmental 

Consequences

Based upon a review of the literature, fisher were found likely to be affected by the same road and 

motorized trail-associated factors as marten: human caused mortality, collisions, displacement or 

avoidance, habitat loss or fragmentation, edge effects, movement barrier or filter and route for 

competitors (Gaines et al 2003, Buskirk and Rugerrio, 1994). The current absence of fisher on the 

PNF eliminates these risk factors, but this analysis will be conducted to analyze impacts of the 

alternatives to fisher if populations or individuals were to be re-established on the PNF.

Environmental consequences for marten and fisher are analyzed at three different scales - within 

late-successional habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6), Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) 

and PNF Draft Forest Carnivore Network. Late-successional habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D 

and 6) is considered to be suitable for marten (USDA 2004). The OFEAs, as previously described, are 

land allocations designated to manage for old forest dependent species, including marten. Although 

no management direction is specifically designated within the PNF Draft Forest Carnivore Network, 

the network provides a tool for analyzing habitat connectivity issues for forest carnivores, including 

the marten and fisher. These three scales are used for comparison, since habitat connectivity within 

these habitats are important considerations for marten and fisher. Although all three scales have 

considerable overlap because older forest types are included in all of them, there are slight differences 

between them because they were derived in different manners. The late-successional habitat types are 

comprised of individual patches of habitat types that may not necessarily be connected. Whereas, 

both the OFEAs and the Draft Carnivore Network incorporates larger blocks of older forest types.

3.7.16.1 Analysis Measures

Zone of Influence: Studies indicate marten and fisher habitat use declines within a distance

exceeding 300 meters from roads. For this analysis, a Zone of Influence of 300 meters from 

motorized routes was determined and the proportion of habitat occurring within this zone was 

analyzed. Within this zone, changes to habitat such as fragmentation and edge effects would occur.

These factors would be expected to influence a smaller area (probably about 60 meters) adjacent to 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 259

motorized routes. Thresholds associated with this measure have not been established, but relative 

changes in habitat effectiveness for marten and fisher can be evaluated and compared.

3.7.16.2 Direct and Indirect Effects—American Marten and Pacific Fisher (Forest Carnivores) 300-

meter Zone of Influence within Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types (4M, 

4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) and Cumulative Effects

3.7.16.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 87 displays the acres of the Draft Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types 

(4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) that fall within a 300-meter Zone of Influence from mixed use, 

unauthorized routes and proposed trails.

When increasing the Zone of Influence to 300 meters, higher amounts of marten and fisher 

habitat are influenced by proposed trails or unauthorized routes. Based on unauthorized routes within 

a 300-meter Zone of Influence, Alternative 1 results in the greatest amount of habitat fragmentation 

and reduced habitat connectivity within the Carnivore Network, late-successional habitat and within 

OFEAs, where marten and fisher habitat suitability may be reduced. Alternative 1 results in a

reduction in habitat connectivity within 70,828 acres of the Carnivore Network, a 155,023 acre

reduction in habitat connectivity in Old Forest Emphasis Areas and a 137,257 acre reduction in 

habitat connectivity in Old Forest habitat types (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6).

All the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce direct and indirect effects to 

habitat connectivity within the three habitat categories found in Table 87 when compared to 

Alternative 1. Based on proposed trails and a 300-meter Zone of Influence, Alternative 2 would 

reduce habitat connectivity for marten and fisher by 15,947 acres in the Carnivore Network, 40,191 

acres in the Old Forest Emphasis Areas and 71,374 acres in the Old Forest habitat types (CWHR 4M, 

4D, 5M, 5D, 6). Alternative 5 has slightly less impact to habitat connectivity for marten and fisher by 

having direct and indirect effects to 10,042 acres in the Carnivore Network, 22,662 acres in the Old 

Forest Emphasis Areas and 34,651 acres in the Old Forest habitat types (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6). 

Alternative 4 further reduces impacts to habitat connectivity for marten and fisher by having direct 

and indirect effects to only 5,316 acres in the Carnivore Network, 18,602 acres in the Old Forest 

Emphasis Areas and 29,624 acres in the Old Forest habitat types (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6). Under 

Alternatives 4 and 5, mixed use does not affect the draft Carnivore Network nor Old Forest Emphasis 

Areas, and acres of Old Forest types affected by mixed use are included in Table 87. Alternative 3 

would not reduce habitat connectivity for marten or fisher from existing conditions, since no proposed 

trails will be added under this alternative.

Table 87. Acres of the Draft Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest Habitat (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 

5D, 6) within a 300-meter “Zone of Influence” of Unauthorized Routes or Proposed Trails

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Carnivore Network 70,828 15,947 0 5,316 10,042

Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEA’s) 155,023 40,191 0 18,602 22,662

Old Forest Habitat (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6) 137,257 71,374 0 29,624 34,651

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

260 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.16.3 Cumulative Effects to Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHRs within the 300-

meter Zone of Influence

The acres of Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR occurring within a 300-meter Zone 

of Influence for unauthorized routes, proposed trails and existing motorized trails on NFS lands for all 

five of the alternatives are shown in Table 88, Table 89 and Table 90. 

Based on the cumulative effects analysis, Alternative 1 would pose the highest risk to habitat 

fragmentation within the Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest habitat types, where 

considerable cumulative impacts would be added to existing cumulative effects to marten and fisher. 

Future route proliferation could substantially add to cumulative impacts due to unmanaged crosscountry travel which would further add to habitat fragmentation which could seriously limit the 

distribution of marten and the future reestablishment potential of the fisher on the PNF. Alternative 1 

would cumulatively affect 166,871 acres within the draft carnivore network, 338,754 acres within 

OFEAs, and 323,927 acres within Old Forest CHWR types.

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) result in less cumulative effects to the draft 

carnivore network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types. In addition, Alternatives 2-5 would prohibit 

cross country travel and reduce the risk of route proliferation adding routes to within these three key 

habitat categories. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 reduces acres impacted within the draft 

carnivore network by 54,000+ acres, within OFEAs by over 100,000+ acres and within Old Forest 

CWHR Types by over 60,000+ acres. Alternatives 5, 4 and 3 reduces cumulative effects to much 

lower levels (see the following three tables). 

Table 88. Acres of Carnivore Network within a 300-meter Zone of Influence of unauthorized routes (Alt. 

1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing trails (Alt. 3).

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect Effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 70,828 1 15,974 0 5,316 10,042

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Proposed Actions

Existing motorized NFS trails (130 miles) - NFS lands 96,043 96,043 96,043 96,043 96,043

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Relative Cumulative Impact (Note: Some overlap 

may occur where route categories intersect)

166,871 112,017 96,043 101,359 106,085

1

Table 89. Acres of Old Forest Emphasis Areas within a 300-meter Zone of Influence unauthorized routes 

(Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing trails (Alt. 3).

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect Effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 155,023 1 40,191 0 18,602 22,662

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Proposed Actions

Existing motorized NFS trails (130 miles) - NFS lands 183,731 183,731 183,731 183,731 183,731

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Relative Cumulative Impact (Note: Some overlap 

may occur where route categories intersect)

338,754 223,922 183,731 202,333 206,393

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 261

Table 90. Acres of Forest-wide old forest (CWHR 4M/D, 5M/D, 6) within 300-meter “Zone of Influence” 

of unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and existing trails (Alt. 3).

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect Effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 137,257 1 71,374 0 29,624 34,651

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Proposed Actions

Existing motorized NFS trails (130 miles) - NFS lands 186,670 186,670 186,670 186,670 186,670

Total Cumulative Effects

Overall Relative Cumulative Impact (Note: Some overlap 

may occur where route categories intersect)

323,927 258,044 186,670 216,294 221,321

1

3.7.16.3.1 Cumulative Effects Summary

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of 

their project location and the actions involved that may be occurring on NFS lands within the PNF 

boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities have contributed to effects on forest carnivores and 

have the potential to impact forest carnivores in the near future (see Terrestrial Wildlife BE for a 

breakdown of projects affecting Marten and Fisher). In 2001 and 2004, the Forest Service amended 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plans to better address the needs of old forest-associated species (USDA Forest 

Service 2001 and 2004). In this assessment, the following key risk factors were identified for forest 

carnivores in the Sierra Nevada: (1) habitat alteration, particularly the removal of overhead cover, 

large diameter trees, or coarse woody material and (2) the use of roads and associated human access.

A discussion of road density was provided under the wide ranger carnivore sections, and similar 

impacts associated with road density would apply to these species. Habitat effectiveness for species 

such as marten and fisher is influenced based on road densities forest-wide. Currently, 65% to 79% of 

the forest contains road densities that are greater than 2mi/sq mi, providing moderate, low and least 

levels of security for these species.

On the PNF, several activities have influenced these risk factors for forest carnivores. Past timber 

harvest and more recent fuels reduction treatments have reduced important habitat components for 

forest carnvores. Since 2000, vegetation treatments (including timber harvest) and fuels treatments

(including mastication) on NFS lands have occurred on approximately 73,345 acres. These vegetation 

treatments have reduced habitat quality for marten and fisher by reducing canopy cover, structural 

complexity and coarse woody material within treated units. At the larger landscape scale, these 

treatments may affect the size and connectivity of patches of high quality habitat. 

Alternative 1 has the greatest likelihood of contributing to substantial adverse cumulative effects 

upon marten populations and may affect the ability to reestablish fisher over time. This cumulative 

effects determination is based on the rationale that a significant number of acres are affected under the 

draft carnivore network, OFEAs and Old Forest CHWR types, and magnified by the allowance of 

continued cross country travel and the potential for route proliferation to add additional routes across 

the PNF.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, result in substantially lower adverse cumulative effects to the draft 

carnivore network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types. The cumulative effects under Alternatives 2, 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

262 – Plumas National Forest

3, 4 and 5, however, are expected be significantly lower than Alternative 1 over time, due to the 

prohibition of cross country travel and the reduced potential for route proliferation over time due to a 

formally designated trail system. 

3.7.16.4 Marten and Fisher Determinations 

3.7.16.4.1 American Marten

Based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS 

made a determination for the American Marten.

Alternative 1 – This alternative may adversely affect, and is likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing and a loss of viability for the American Marten. This determination is based on the 

rationale that cross country travel would continue in the future and lead to additional loss of habitat, 

an increase in habitat fragmentation, and result in high risk to key habitat within the Draft Carnivore

Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types. Based on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan 

development), an average of 48 miles of unauthorized routes per year were established. When this 

rate is applied over the next 20 years, an additional 960 miles could be added under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the American Marten within the 

planning area of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale that 1) the 

action alternatives would prohibit current and future cross-country travel across the PNF, 2) risks to 

Marten habitat within the Draft Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types would be 

significantly reduced compared to Alternative 1 (No-action), and 3) that a higher amounts of suitable 

habitat would be maintained for the Marten. 

3.7.16.4.2 Pacific Fisher

Based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS 

made a determination for the Pacific Fisher.

Alternative 1 – This alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect or result in a trend 

toward federal listing for the Pacific Fisher. Since no Fisher have been found on the Plumas NF to 

date, no individuals are expected to be impacted. However this alternative does present a risk to 

existing suitable habitat on the PNF since cross country travel would continue in the future and lead 

to additional loss of habitat, an increase in habitat fragmentation, and result in high risk to key habitat 

within the Draft Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types. Based on route 

proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an average of 48 miles of unauthorized routes per 

year were established. When this rate is applied over the next 20 years, an additional 960 miles could 

be added under Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward federal listing for the Pacific Fisher. Since no Fisher have been found on the 

Plumas NF to date, no individuals are expected to be impacted. However these alternatives would 

present a lower risk to existing suitable fisher habitat on the PNF since they would 1) prohibit current 

and future cross-country travel across the PNF, 2) significantly reduce the risks to suitable habitat 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 263

within the Draft Carnivore Network, OFEAs and Old Forest CWHR types compared to Alternative 1 

(No-action), and 3) higher amounts of suitable habitat would be maintained under these alternatives. 

3.7.17 Riparian Associated Species

The Riparian group includes both terrestrial and aquatic species that spend a part or their entire life 

cycle within or adjacent to riparian habitats. These include a large number of special status species on 

the PNF (Table 61 and Table 62). This section will provide general information on route and trailassociated impacts to bald eagles, willow flycatchers, great gray owls and general riparian habitats 

that may be associated with this group. Species not included in detail here (e.g. greater sandhill crane) 

will be addressed in the Biological Evaluation or Management Indicator Species reports and are 

hereby incorporated by reference. 

3.7.17.1 Effects Common to All Riparian Associated Bird Species

Changes in Class of Vehicles: Responses to motor vehicle use varies by species and depends upon 

the type of vehicle, the intensity, timing, speeds and amount of motorized vehicle use. For this 

analysis, it is assumed that all vehicle types result in the same disturbance to riparian associated bird 

species. Therefore, changes in the class of vehicles would not vary in their effects to riparian 

associated bird species for all of the alternatives.

3.7.18 Bald Eagle: Affected Environment

On July 9, 2007, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service in a Final Rule announced that the bald eagle would 

be removed (delisted) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 

states. Official delisting of the bald eagle occurred 30 days from the date of the Final Rule. The bald 

eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. Upon delisting, the bald eagle was placed on the Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive 

Species. 

Bald eagles nest near or adjacent to large bodies of water. Within the Plumas National Forest, 

twenty three bald eagle breeding territories have been identified within the PNF boundary including 

NFS lands and private land in recent years (Table 91). Sixteen bald eagle territories with recent 

nesting activity are located on NFS lands. Two territories occur partially or entirely on private land at

Round Valley Reservoir (eagle nest on NF Lands) and Poe Powerhouse on the North Fork of the 

Feather River.

Table 91. Known bald eagle nest territories on the Plumas National Forest and private land within the 

Forest boundary.

Territory Name Ranger District Ownership

Antelope Lake Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Antelope Lake II Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Antelope Lake III Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Bucks lake Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Butt Valley Dam Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Butt Valley Dam II Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Cool Springs Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

264 – Plumas National Forest

Territory Name Ranger District Ownership

Gravel Island Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Grizzly Forebay Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Rocky Point Complex Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Round Valley Mt. Hough Ranger District Private

Snake Lake Mt. Hough Ranger District PNF

Cow Creek Beckwourth Ranger District PNF

Frenchman Reservoir Beckwourth Ranger District PNF

Bagley Pass Beckwourth Ranger District PNF

Mosquito Slough Beckwourth Ranger District PNF

French Creek Feather River Ranger District PNF

Little Butte Creek Feather River Ranger District PNF

Little Grass Valley Feather River Ranger District PNF

Little Grass Valley Reservoir Feather River Ranger District PNF

Sly/Lost Creek Reservoir Feather River Ranger District PNF

Poe Powerhouse Feather River Ranger District Private

Feather Falls Feather River Ranger District PNF

The motorized trail-associated factors that have been identified for the bald eagle are summarized 

in Table 63. The response of bald eagles to human activities is variable. Individual bald eagles show 

different thresholds of tolerance for disturbance. A good example on the Plumas NF are the Antelope 

Lake territories that have eagle use and presence on a fairly consistent level, whereas the Snake Lake 

territory has been vacant for several years. The distance at which a disturbance causes bald eagles to 

modify their behavior also is affected by the site distance of the motorized use. For example, forested 

habitat can reduce the noise generated by motorized activity. In addition, if the noise-generating 

activity is hidden from the nest site due to topographic or landscape features, disturbance thresholds 

may be reduced. Some studies report that bald eagles seem to be more sensitive to humans afoot than 

to vehicular traffic (Grubb and King 1991, Hamann 1999). Anthony et al. (1989) found that the mean 

productivity of bald eagle nests was negatively correlated with their proximity to main logging roads 

and the most recently used nests were located in areas farther from all types of roads and recreational 

facilities when compared to older nests in the same territory. However, in 2005, a new bald eagle nest 

was discovered at Grass Valley reservoir which is used for recreational activities including fishing 

and boating. In addition, other studies indicate bald eagles can tolerate a certain amount of human 

disturbance (Harmata and Oakleaf 1992 In Gaines et al. 2003). Disturbance is most critical during: 

nest building, courtship, egg laying and incubation (Dietrich 1990). In general, recommended buffer 

distances to reduce potential disturbance to bald eagles during the breeding season have ranged from 

300 to 800 meters (Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Fraser et al. 1985, McGarigal 1988, Stalmaster 1987, 

Mathisen et al. 1997). Grubb et al. (1992) found that eagles are disturbed by most activities that occur 

within 1,500 feet; and they take flight when activities occur within 600 feet. Grubb and King (1991) 

assessed pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic on bald eagle nesting activities and recommended 

buffers of 550 meters for pedestrians and 450 meters for vehicles. The USDA Forest Service routinely 

institutes a Limited Operating Period for ground disturbing projects within 0.25 mile (400 meters) of 

bald eagle nest sites.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 265

Nest site protection through area closures is one of the primary ways that the Forest Service has

implemented measures to prevent the potential for nest failure and/or abandonment due to human 

disturbances (USFWS 1986). There is currently one seasonal area closure for a bald eagle nest site 

protection at Little Grass Valley Reservoir on the Feather River Ranger District.

Routes and trails have the potential to indirectly affect bald eagles by degrading water quality, 

which may impact the distribution and abundance of fisheries upon which bald eagles prey.

3.7.19 Bald Eagle: Environmental Consequences

3.7.19.1 Analysis Measures 

Disturbance at a Specific Site (Motorized Route Miles): Motorized route miles within a 1⁄4-mile 

(400 meters) and a 1⁄2-mile (800 meters) of known bald eagle nest sites were determined to be 

sufficient enough to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Effects to Bald Eagle wintering 

habitat are expected to be negligible, since motorized use is extremely limited due to route closures 

from snow accumulation or inaccessibility of routes during the winter months.

3.7.19.2 Direct and Indirect Effects to Nesting Bald Eagles

Cross-country Travel: Cross-country travel will be prohibited within bald eagle habitat for all action 

alternatives. The prohibition of cross-country travel will prevent the proliferation of new unauthorized 

routes and will reduce disturbance associated with motorized use on these routes within foraging and 

nesting habitat for bald eagles. The prohibition of cross-country travel also results in a reduction of 

the total amount of roads and trails available for motorized use by closing all of the unauthorized 

routes in all of the action alternatives. The prohibition of cross-country travel will reduce the potential 

for disturbance to nesting bald eagles that may be vulnerable to activities associated with motorized 

cross-country travel. Alternative 1 does not prohibit cross-country motorized use and may result in 

increased disturbance to nesting bald eagles.

3.7.19.2.1 Additions to the National Forest System

3.7.19.2.2 Miles of Unauthorized Routes (Alternative 1) and Proposed Trails (Alternatives 2, 4, 5) within 0 to 

400 Meters of Nest Sites

The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives contribute to two of the four risk factors 

described above - degradation of breeding habitat through human development or habitat alteration

and disturbance at nest and roost sites. Disturbance to bald eagle nest sites from project alternatives is 

analyzed by determining the number of miles of unauthorized routes occurring between 0 and 400 

meters and between 400 and 800 meters for nest sites within each bald eagle territory. Factors 

associated with motorized routes at a distance between 0 to 400 meters of bald eagle nest sites will 

likely cause the greatest potential disturbance to nesting bald eagles during the nesting season. 

Disturbance from motorized routes between 400 and 800 meters away from nest sites will likely have 

a lesser effect since noise associated with vehicles diminishes at greater distances, but may still 

modify behavior of nesting eagles, particularly for foraging eagles. 

Under Alternative 1, cross-country travel would continue, including travel on approximately 3.3 

miles of unauthorized routes within 0 to 400 meters of bald eagle nest sites, which would potentially 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

266 – Plumas National Forest

result in direct disturbance to nesting bald eagles at three eagle territories (Little Grass Valley, Snake 

Lake, Rocky Point). At 400 to 800 meters, Alternative 1 would allow travel on an additional 4.51 

miles of unauthorized routes resulting in a potential direct disturbance to nesting bald eagles at five 

eagle territories (Snake Lake, Rocky Point, Frenchman, Butt II and Antelope Lake I). Because 

Alternative 1 does not prohibit motor vehicle cross-country travel, it is highly likely that future route 

proliferation and associated cumulative impacts would likely increase. Therefore the effects of 

Alternative 1, when combined with the effects of current and future recreation activity, may result in 

significant adverse cumulative effects to nesting bald eagles.

Action alternatives 2, 4 and 5 are expected to result in less direct and indirect effects to bald 

eagles than Alternative 1 since the cross country travel would be prohibited, and four less territories 

would be affected in total. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 add 1.41 miles between 0-400 meters and 1.07 

(Alternative 4) and 1.24 miles (Alternatives 2 and 5) of proposed trails within distance category 400-

800 meters that would contribute to direct and indirect impacts to nesting bald eagles at two eagle 

territories (Snake Lake and Rocky Point). Mixed use under Alternatives 4 and 5 does not affect 

nesting bald eagles nor does mixed use occur within any bald eagle territory.

Alternative 3 would not add trails to the NFTS, therefore no direct and indirect impacts to bald 

eagles would occur under Alternative 3.

3.7.19.2.3 Cumulative Effects Boundary

The cumulative effects for the bald eagle include all of the bald eagle nest territories and surrounding 

bald eagle habitat that occur within the boundary of the PNF including both NFS lands and private 

lands. This geographic boundary is sufficiently large enough to analyze cumulative effects to bald 

eagles since their home ranges lie entirely within the boundary of the PNF. The spatial timeframe for 

analyzing cumulative effects incorporates past actions from 2000 to present and approximately 20 

years into the future.

3.7.19.3 Cumulative Effects to Nesting Bald Eagles

Cumulative effects to the bald eagle analyzes unauthorized routes, proposed trails and the existing 

motorized NFS trails that occur on the PNF. Under Alternative 3, existing NFTS trails contribute very 

small cumulative impacts from existing motorized use by contributed 0 miles within the 0 to 400 

meters of bald eagle nest sites and only 0.33 miles within 400 to 800 meters of bald eagle nest sites. 

The existing 0.33 miles occur within the Snake Lake bald eagle territory. No other territory is affected 

by existing authorized use under Alternative 3. The past authorized use at Snake Lake when added to 

the proliferation of unauthorized routes under Alternative 1 (3.52 mi) within the Snake Lake territory

may be contributing factors to the absence of nesting bald eagles in that territory since the late 1980s. 

However, Alternative 3 as a standalone alternative would also prohibit cross country travel which 

would benefit bald eagles by ultimately preventing additional disturbance to nesting bald eagles on 

the PNF.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 267

3.7.19.3.1 Summary of Cumulative Effects Summary of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of 

their project location and the actions involved that may be occurring on NFS lands within the PNF 

boundary. The development of reservoirs across the Forest on both NFS and non-NFS lands have 

created bald eagle foraging habitat. Cumulative effects to the bald eagle habitat around these 

reservoirs include disturbance from a variety of recreational activities including developed and 

dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, boating, motor vehicle use and others. A seasonal closure at Little 

Grass Valley Reservoir has been instituted to minimize potential adverse recreational disturbance to 

nesting bald eagles in that territory. Bald eagles appear to be able to adapt to a certain amount of 

human disturbance and appear to be increasing on the Forest. The loss of nesting and foraging habitat 

from high levels of disease and drought-related bark beetle infestations has also affected the quality 

and quantity of bald eagle habitat. Present and future fuels and vegetation management prescriptions 

are designed to retain the larger tree component, so that bald eagle nest tree components should be 

available in the future. In addition, large snags used for roost trees would also be retained where 

public health and safety is not a factor. Forest thinning and fuels treatment projects are designed to 

prevent loss of bald eagle habitat over the long term.

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to nesting bald eagles on the Plumas NF. Alternative 1 would 

potentially impact up to six bald eagle territories in total. Three territories (Snake Lake, Rocky Point, 

and Little Grass Valley) would be impacted cumulatively by 3.3 miles of unauthorized routes that 

would be within 400 meters of bald eagle nest sites. At a distance of 400 to 800 meters, five territories 

(Snake Lake, Rocky Point, Frenchman, Butt II and Antelope Lake I) would be impacted cumulatively 

by 4.84 miles (4.51 miles direct and indirect and 0.33 mile cumulative).

Alternatives 2, 4, 5 are similar in the amount of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to nesting 

eagles, where only two (Snake Lake and Rocky Point) of the PNF’s 16 territories, respectively, would 

be impacted by proposed trails in the range of 1.41 mi (1.41 direct and indirect, and 0 cumulative) at 

0-400 meters and up to 1.57 miles (1.24 direct and indirect , plus 0.33 cumulative) at 400 to 800 

meters. The proposed trail (9M44) within the Snake Lake territory that lies within 0-400 meters 

(<0.25mi) will not be subject to a limited operating period or a season of use since the main factor 

affecting bald eagles at Snake Lake is a lack of foraging base (i.e. trout/fish) within the lake. A limited 

operating period or a season of use is applied to the sole route (8M52) within the Rocky Point 

Territory in order to minimize impacts to nesting bald eagles (see Appendix A – Route List).

Alternative 3 would pose the least impact (0.33 miles to one territory), since it does not contain or 

add any proposed trails. All action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) also prohibit cross-country travel 

within nesting and foraging Bald Eagle habitat which further reduces the risk to nesting bald eagles 

over Alternative 1.

3.7.19.3.2 Bald Eagle Determination 

Based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS 

made a determination for the Bald Eagle.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

268 – Plumas National Forest

Alternative 1 – This alternative may adversely affect, and is likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing and a loss of viability for the Bald Eagle. This determination is based on the rationale 

that cross country travel would continue in the future and lead to additional impacts to nesting bald 

eagles over time. Based on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an average of 48

miles of unauthorized routes per year were established. When this rate is applied over the next 20 

years, an additional 960 miles could be added under Alternative 1, resulting in increased cumulative 

effects (e.g. disturbance during reproduction period, abandonment of territories, etc.) over time.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the Bald Eagle within the planning area 

of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale that the action alternatives 

would prohibit current and future cross-country travel across the PNF, and that risks to Bald Eagles 

and eagle nest sites would be significantly reduced compared to Alternative 1 (No-action). 

3.7.20 Willow Flycatcher: Affected Environment

On the PNF, the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii ssp. trailii and E.t. brewsteri) is designated by 

the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species. In California, the willow flycatcher is a rare to locally 

uncommon, summer resident in wet meadow and montane riparian habitats at 600-2,500 meters

(2,000-8,000 feet) in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range (CWHR 2005). Willow flycatcher 

populations in the Sierra Nevada are considered to be at risk (USDA Forest Service 2001). 

Historically, willow flycatchers were once common throughout the Sierra Nevada. The current 

distribution of the willow flycatcher has been drastically reduced compared to historic distributions. A 

ten year demographic analysis indicate the Sierra Nevada willow flycatcher populations are 

continuing to decline. With the exception of a few sites, the majority of areas where willow 

flycatchers have been located support low numbers of breeding territories and some as low as 1 to 2 

pairs of breeding individuals.

Willow flycatcher breeding habitat is characterized as montane wetland shrub habitat where there 

is a prevalence of willows and montane meadows with standing or flowing water, or highly saturated 

soils throughout the nesting season (Green, et al. 2003). A study by Cain (2001) indicated that 

meadow wetness may assist in successful nesting by willow flycatcher, by inhibiting potential forest 

and edge predators from accessing willow flycatcher nests. Meadow wetness may also be important 

for willow flycatcher insect prey species.

The Willow Flycatcher Conservation Assessment (Green, et al. 2003) identified roads as one of 

the leading contributing factors responsible for the loss and degradation of willow flycatcher habitat. 

Specifically, roads (dirt-surfaced or paved), intercept surface and subsurface hydrologic flow. 

Meadow desiccation takes place when hydrologic flows become intercepted and redirected resulting

in long-term habitat loss or degradation. Roads may have a negative impact on meadow hydrology, 

especially when roads bisect meadows and have associated drainage structures to maintain road 

conditions. Human disturbance associated with motorized trail motorized use may also affect willow

flycatcher nesting success. Roads also provide increased access to humans, which may directly and 

indirectly affect willow flycatcher productivity. Roads provide access for livestock grazing and often 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 269

meadows occupied by willow flycatchers are key forage areas for livestock. Livestock grazing has 

long been identified as contributing to the decline in willow flycatcher populations as it relates to 

grazing impacts on willow and meadow habitat, as well as potential direct impacts from cattle coming 

in direct contact or destroying nest sites. Furthermore, brown-headed cowbirds are strongly associated 

with cattle. Cowbirds are known to parasitize willow flycatcher nests and ultimately may reduce 

overall willow flycatcher nesting success. Several grazing allotments on the PNF overlap “Occupied”

and “Emphasis” willow flycatcher sites.

3.7.21 Willow Flycatcher: Environmental Consequences

3.7.21.1 Analysis Measures

Number of “Occupied” and “Emphasis” Willow Flycatcher Sites with Routes: To evaluate the 

effects of motorized routes on willow flycatcher habitat, the number of willow flycatcher “Occupied”

and “Emphasis” habitat sites intersected by motorized routes was determined. The Sierra Nevada 

Framework Plan Amendment ROD (2004) designated “Occupied” and “Emphasis” habitats for 

willow flycatcher. “Occupied” habitat is defined by the presence or suspected presence of willow 

flycatcher(s) during the breeding season (between 15 June and August 1) (See SNFPA ROD 2004 for 

more detailed definition). “Emphasis” habitat are currently not occupied by breeding willow 

flycatchers, but are considered suitable nesting habitat, defined by meadows larger than 15 acres that 

have standing water on them June 1 and a deciduous shrub component. “Emphasis” habitats are 

particularly important so that willow flycatchers may have future refugia where their population can 

be distributed and expanded in the future.

3.7.21.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects of the alternatives are evaluated by determining the number of proposed 

trails that intersect delineated willow flycatcher habitat sites on the PNF. Table 92 displays the direct 

and indirect effects to willow flycatcher “Occupied” and “Emphasis” habitat sites on the PNF that are 

potentially affected by the five project alternatives. Mixed use on Forest Road 24N28 does not affect 

willow flycatcher occupied or emphasis habitat on the PNF.

Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes (7.46 miles) would intersect 68 (25%) willow flycatcher 

habitat sites, resulting in both direct and indirect disturbance. Of these sites, 10 out of 28 habitats

(36%) have been identified as “Occupied” willow flycatcher sites, where approximately 1.4 miles of 

unauthorized routes have the potential to adversely affect breeding willow flycatchers, including both 

direct disturbance to nesting willow flycatchers and indirect impacts to willow flycatcher habitat 

alteration and/or degradation where routes potentially affect vegetation and hydrology.

The action alternatives significantly reduce impacts to Occupied and Emphasis habitat sites 

compared to Alternative 1. Implementation of Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would have no direct and 

indirect impacts to breeding willow flycatchers at “Occupied” sites. Within “Emphasis” habitat sites. 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 affect from 7 to 17 willow flycatcher “Emphasis” sites (3% and 8%). This 

represents a reduction of impacts from Alternative 1 that range from 41 to 51 less emphasis sites 

impacted by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Alternative 3 would not affect any willow flycatcher habitat 

sites. This alternative does not add any trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

270 – Plumas National Forest

Table 92. Number of willow flycatcher habitat sites intersected by proposed trails and unauthorized 

routes1 on the Plumas National Forest. 

# of 

Sites

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

“Occupied” Habitat Sites

(Miles of Unauthorized 

route and proposed trail)

28 10

(1.40)

0 0 0 0

“Emphasis” Habitat Sites

(Miles of Unauthorized 

route and proposed trail)

242 58

(6.06)

17

(1.95)

0 7

(0.46)

10

(1.74)

Total 270 68

(7.46)

17

(1.95)

0 7

(0.46)

10

(1.74)

1

3.7.21.3 Cumulative Effects Boundary for Willow Flycatcher

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for the willow flycatcher includes all willow 

flycatcher sites occurring within the PNF boundary, within NFS lands. The temporal scale for 

analyzing cumulative effects to willow flycatcher is from 2000 for past actions (updated status based 

on HFQLG EIS, 1999) and 20 years out into the future.

3.7.21.4 General Cumulative Effects to Willow Flycatcher Meadows

Cumulative impacts to the willow flycatcher include past, present and future impacts from livestock 

grazing, roads and recreational activities. The Forest Service has completed a Conservation 

Assessment of the Willow Flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada (Green et al. 2003), which identified 

meadow drying, loss of nesting and foraging substrates (riparian shrubs), increased predator access to 

meadow interiors and potential cowbird parasitism as among the key factors likely to be responsible 

for the decline of the willow flycatcher. Livestock management, recreation, water developments and

roads are described as causative factors.

Historic livestock grazing has impacted montane meadows and is considered to be a primary 

factor that has influenced the suitability of willow flycatcher habitat and meadow habitat for birds in 

the Sierra Nevada (Graber 1996, Green et al. 2003, Menke et al. 1996). Many of the landbird species 

utilizing these meadows feed upon insects that decline in response to removal of this herbaceous 

growth (Graber 1996). Poorly managed grazing in riparian areas can impact nesting densities of many 

bird species and particularly of habitat specialists such as the willow flycatcher, Lincoln’s sparrow 

and white-crowned sparrow (RHJV 2004). 

3.7.21.4.1 Cumulative Effects from Motorized Routes to Willow Flycatcher Meadows

Factors responsible for the decline of willow flycatcher populations in the Sierra Nevada are 

primarily thought to be the result of habitat change, particularly the alteration of riparian habitat

hydrology, specifically caused by roads (Green et al. 2003). Table 93 displays the cumulative impacts 

of existing trails, proposed trails and unauthorized routes within habitats that are designated as either 

willow flycatcher “Occupied” or “Emphasis” habitat. Routes or trails intersecting “Occupied” habitat 

have the highest potential to impact breeding willow flycatchers.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 271

3.7.21.5 “Occupied” Habitat

Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative impact to breeding willow flycatchers. Alternative 1 

directly affects 10 occupied habitat sites with 1.4 miles of unauthorized routes. Existing routes 

cumulatively add an additional 0.45 miles that affect 2 additional occupied habitat sites where direct 

impacts to meadow vegetation and hydrology could occur. Hydrologic condition is an important 

habitat component to consider for successful willow flycatcher breeding. Given the uncertainty of 

future route proliferation under Alternative 1, the future habitat alteration within “Occupied” habitat

sites is potentially at risk and may ultimately affect willow flycatcher breeding success within 

“Occupied” habitats.

All of the action alternatives significantly reduce cumulative impacts to Occupied habitat sites. 

None of the remaining action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) add direct or indirect impacts to 

“Occupied” willow flycatcher sites. However, existing trails under Alternative 3 will affect 2 

Occupied habitat sites with 0.45 miles. The significant benefit to Occupied habitat under these 

alternatives is that cross country travel would be prohibited and future effects to occupied habitat 

would be precluded. 

3.7.21.6 “Emphasis” Habitat 

Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative impact to the future colonization by willow flycatcher 

within “Emphasis” habitats, since unauthorized routes would intersect a total of 62 “Emphasis” sites 

for a total of about 6.7 miles.

All the remaining action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) would result in substantially less 

cumulative impacts to willow flycatcher “Emphasis” habitats. The action alternatives (Alternatives 2-

5) propose trail additions and would add that existing trails that would cumulatively affect from 4 

(Alternative 3) to 21 (Alternative 2) willow flycatcher “Emphasis” habitat sites with 0.60 (Alternative

3) to 2.55 (Alternative 2) miles of proposed and existing trails. The significant benefit to Emphasis 

habitat sites under these alternatives is that cross-country travel would be prohibited.

3.7.21.7 Summary of Cumulative Effects to Willow Flycatcher Habitat: “Occupied” and “Emphasis”

Meadows

Appendix C provides a list of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of 

their project location and the actions involved that may be occurring on NFS lands within the PNF 

boundary. Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative effects and the greatest overall risk to known 

nesting sites (Occupied) and potentially suitable nesting sites (Emphasis) from unauthorized routes 

and existing motorized NFS trails. Alternative 1 results in willow flycatcher habitat being intersected 

74 times for a total of about 8.5 miles of routes. Over 42% of habitats identified as “Occupied” are 

impacted by unauthorized routes, which could substantially alter the willow flycatcher habitat 

vegetation and hydrology and reduce breeding success at known nesting sites of a species that is at 

risk of extirpation. Alternative 1 would also allow cross country travel and the potential for additional 

routes to be added to Occupied and Emphasis habitat sites. 

All the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) result in significantly less cumulative impacts to 

occupied and emphasis habitat sites, plus have the added benefit of prohibiting cross country travel. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

272 – Plumas National Forest

Overall cumulative impacts to “Occupied” and “Emphasis” habitats result in a proposed or existing 

trail intersecting a site 6 to 23 times for a total of between 1.05 and 3.0 miles.

Table 93. Willow Flycatcher Habitat Sites - Number of “Occupied” and “Emphasis” Habitats Intersected 

by Unauthorized Routes (Alt. 1), Proposed Trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5) and Existing Trails (Alt. 3).

Alt.1 Alt. 2 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives (Alts. 1, 2, 4, 5)

# “Occupied” Sites 10 0 0 0 0

Miles within “Occupied” 1.40 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

# “Emphasis” Sites 58 17 0 7 10

Miles within “Emphasis” 6.06 1.95 0 0.46 1.74

Total Number of Willow Flycatcher Sites 

Intersected by Unauthorized routes or 

proposed trail additions 

68 17 0 7 10

Total Miles (Alts. 1, 2, 4, 5) 7.46 1.95 0 0.46 1.74

Cumulative effects from Existing NFTS trails (Alt. 3) 

# “Occupied” Sites 2 2 2 2 2

Miles within “Occupied” 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

# “Emphasis” Sites 4 4 4 4 4

Miles within “Emphasis” 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

Total Number of Willow Flycatcher Sites 

Intersected by Existing NFS motorized trails 6 6 6 6 6

Total Miles (Alt. 3) 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05

Grand Total Miles (total miles under Direct, 

Indirect and Cumulative for all Alts.)

8.51 3.00 1.05 1.51 2.79

1

3.7.21.8 Willow Flycatcher Determination

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS 

made a determination for the Willow Flycatcher.

Alternative 1 – This alternative may adversely affect, and is likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing and a loss of viability for the Willow Flycatcher. This determination is based on the 

rationale that cross country travel would continue in the future and lead to additional impacts to 

Occupied and Emphasis habitat sites, loss of habitat, and result in high risk to Willow Flycatcher 

viability. Based on route proliferation since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an average of 48 miles

of unauthorized routes per year were established. At this rate over the next 20 years, an additional 960 

miles could be added under Alternative 1, resulting in increased cumulative effects (e.g. disturbance 

during reproduction period, abandonment of territories, etc.) over time.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the Willow Flycatcher within the 

planning area of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale that 1) the 

action alternatives would prohibit current and future cross-country travel across the PNF, 2) risks to 

Flycatcher Occupied and Emphasis habitat sites would be significantly reduced compared to 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 273

Alternative 1 (No-action), and 3) a higher amount of nesting and foraging habitat would be 

maintained for the flycatcher into the future. 

3.7.22 Great Gray Owl: Affected Environment

The great gray owl is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA 

Forest Service 1998). In the Sierra Nevada, great gray owls are found in mixed coniferous forest from 

2,400 to 9,000 feet elevation where such forests occur in combination with meadows or other 

vegetated openings. Nesting usually occurs within 600 feet of the forest edge and adjacent open 

foraging habitat. Most nests are made in broken top snags (generally firs), but platforms such as old 

hawk nests, mistletoe infected limbs, etc. are also used. Nest trees or snags are generally greater than 

21 inches dbh and 20 feet tall.

In the Sierra Nevada, pocket gophers and voles appear to be important prey species (Winter 1982, 

Reid 1989). Meadows appear to be the most important hunting habitat for great gray owls, where 

approximately 93% of their prey is taken (Winter 1981).

Recent great gray owl sightings in our area include several detections from 2004 to 2007 on the 

west side of Lake Davis on the Beckwourth Ranger District. A total of 45 great gray owl detections 

were recorded by contract survey crew Klamath Wildlife Resources, Inc. which included 14 pair 

detections. There were also two adults found on the Feather River Ranger District of the Plumas 

(August 1997).

Roads and trails can potentially affect great gray owl habitat by affecting the condition of suitable 

great gray owl habitat in similar ways that affect willow flycatcher habitat, primarily through changes 

in meadow hydrology or when damage to meadow vegetation occurs. Compaction and meadow 

drying can cause changes in vegetation composition which can lead to changes in prey species 

abundance and distribution. Changes in prey availability and abundance can affect the reproductive 

success of great gray owls.

3.7.23 Great Gray Owl: Environmental Consequences

3.7.23.1 Analysis Measures

Great gray owl nesting habitat: miles of proposed, existing and unauthorized routes within great 

gray owl nesting habitat, using a 600 foot zone of influence from the forest edge of adjacent owl 

Meadows: Since nesting usually occurs within 600 feet of forest/meadow edge, a ZOI was applied to 

forested habitat to determine impacts to GGO nesting habitat. The number of route miles were 

analyzed within this 600 foot ZOI to determine potential disturbance to nesting habitat by alternative.

Number of Great Gray Owl Meadows Intersected by Miles of Proposed Trails and 

Unauthorized Routes: meadows identified as suitable for great gray owl foraging that are adjacent to 

suitable breeding habitat were assessed to determine the potential impact from unauthorized routes or 

trails. The number of great gray owl meadows intersected by unauthorized routes or trails were 

assessed for the alternatives.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

274 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.23.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.7.23.2.1 Addition of Proposed Trails

Currently, great gray owls are not known to breed on the PNF. Although great gray owl sightings have 

been reported on the Forest, no confirmation of nesting has been identified at this time. Therefore, the 

action alternatives would have no direct impacts to breeding great gray owls, since great gray owls 

are not currently known to breed on the PNF. This analysis focuses on effects to nesting and foraging 

habitat of great gray owls by unauthorized routes and proposed trails. Mixed use does not affect GGO 

nesting or foraging habitat on the PNF.

Potential great gray owl habitat has been identified on the PNF. A total of 200 meadow sites on 

the Forest are considered suitable foraging habitat areas for the great gray owl. These 200 meadow 

sites were buffered using a 600 foot zone of influence to determine effects to nesting great gray owl 

habitat . Potential foraging and nesting areas were evaluated to determine the potential direct and 

indirect effects to meadow vegetation and hydrology and forested habitat which may affect the 

suitability of potential great gray owl foraging and nesting habitat.

Alternative 1 poses the highest direct and indirect effects to potential great gray owl meadows 

where 38 meadows (19%) are intersected by unauthorized routes totaling approximately 8 miles. This 

amount of motorized routes could alter meadow vegetation and hydrology that would indirectly affect 

great gray owl breeding habitat where great gray owls forage, and where the potential for future 

occupancy of these areas may be limited. Nesting habitat would also be affected to the greatest extent 

under Alternative 1 as 31.7 miles of route would fall within the 600-foot zone of influence. Potential 

future nesting opportunities would be at greater risk with this alternative. 

Under the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) the direct and indirect effects to meadows and 

nesting habitat are significantly reduced. The number of meadows affected are reduced by 29 when 

Alternatives 2-5 are compared to Alternative 1 (Table 94). In addition the number of proposed trail 

miles within great gray owl meadows fall significantly as well. Alternatives 2-5 have 6.7 miles less of 

trail intersecting meadows than Alternative 1. For nesting habitat, Alternatives 2-5 represent 

significant reductions in the miles of routes affecting nesting habitat (Table 95). Over a 23 mile

reduction in routes are provided with Alternatives 2-5, posing lower risk to potential future nesting 

opportunities. 

Table 94. Number of Great Gray Owl Meadows Intersected by Unauthorized routes or Proposed Trails

Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Number of Meadows with Intersections 38 7 0 3 9

Number of Meadows without 

Intersections

162 193 200 197 191

Unauthorized route or proposed trail 

miles

8.0 1.0 0 0.4 1.3

1

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 275

Table 95. Miles of proposed trail or unauthorized routes within GGO Nesting habitat (using a 600’ Zone 

of Influence from the forest/meadow edge adjacent to GGO Meadows).

Alt 1 Alt 2 1 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed 

trails

31.7 8.0 0 4.7 6.9

1

3.7.23.3 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

The geographic boundary for analyzing great gray owl cumulative effects of the alternatives are the 

suitable great gray owl meadow habitat sites and a corresponding 600-foot buffer for nesting within 

the boundary of the PNF. Approximately 200 meadow sites have been identified as being suitable 

foraging habitat for the great gray owl that are adjacent to suitable great gray owl nesting habitat 

(600-foot ZOI), which would provide a sufficient area to analyze impacts to great gray owls on the 

PNF. These meadows and adjoining nesting habitat encompass a wide geographic distribution from 

eastside to westside and encompass a variety of vegetation diversity. The adjacent forest habitat 

(nesting) surrounding these great gray owl meadow areas range from eastside pine, eastside mixed 

conifer, true fir types and, westside mixed conifer forests. Appendix C provides a list of present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions and descriptions of their project location and the actions 

involved that may be occurring on NFS lands within the PNF boundary.

Great gray owls currently are not known to breed on the PNF; however, recent sightings on the 

Forest, indicate that the potential for breeding great gray owls is a reasonable expectation. Surveys are 

currently ongoing on the Plumas NF. The action alternatives, do not currently pose adverse direct or 

indirect effects to known breeding great gray owls and therefore, no cumulative impacts to great gray 

owls would occur. However, the project alternatives are analyzed for cumulative effects of motorized 

routes to suitable great gray owl foraging and nesting habitat that may affect the ability for great gray 

owls to occupy these sites in the future. 

Alternative 1 poses the highest cumulative risk to suitable great gray owl foraging habitat where 

these suitable great gray owl meadows are intersected by unauthorized routes or existing motorized 

NFS trails on NFS lands 41 times for a total of 9 miles, and where nesting habitat is affected by 34.8 

miles of unauthorized routes and existing trails. The uncertainty of future motorized route 

proliferation could alter meadow vegetation and hydrology and additional nesting habitat that would 

impact habitat conditions for great gray owl prey species in the long term. Considering the rate at 

which OHV activities occur on the PNF, and the potential for future route proliferation, this 

alternative could adversely affect the potential for great gray owls to occupy these sites in the near 

and distant future. 

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) significantly reduce cumulative impacts to owl 

foraging habitat and meadow areas by having 29 to 38 less meadows intersected and 6.7 to 8 less trail 

miles (Table 96). Impacts to owl nesting habitat are also significantly reduced under the action 

alternatives which range from 3.1 (Alternative 3) to 11.1 (Alternative 2) miles. In addition, these 

alternative have the added benefit that they prohibit cross country travel and reduce the potential of 

route proliferation to add additional routes to the PNF. For example, Alternative 2 contributes to 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

276 – Plumas National Forest

cumulative impacts to suitable great gray owl meadow sites, where these sites would be intersected 

by proposed and existing trails 10 times for a total of about 2 miles, and nesting habitat would be 

affected by 11.1 miles of routes. Alternatives 4 and 5 add cumulative impacts to great gray owl 

meadows where intersection by a proposed and existing trail occurs 6 and 12 times, respectively, to 

great gray owl habitat, impacting 1.4 and 2.3 miles, respectively. Impacts to nesting habitat under 

Alternatives 4 and 5 would range between 7.8 and 10 miles, which is a reduction from Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect effects to great gray owl meadows or nesting habitat as 

there are no proposed trail additions to the NFTS. Alternative 3 would only impact great gray owl 

meadows with existing routes where 1 mile intersects 3 meadows, and nesting habitat with a total of 

3.1 miles. 

Table 96. Great gray owl suitable sites—number of meadows/meadow complexes intersected by 

unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), existing trails (Alt. 3) and proposed trails (Alts. 2, 4, 5)1

. 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Direct and Indirect effects of the alternatives

Unauthorized routes or proposed trail additions 

Number of Potential GGO Meadow Sites Intersected by Routes

1

38 7 0 3 9

Miles 8 1 0 0.4 1.3

Cumulative effects of past, present and proposed actions

Existing motorized routes - NFS lands 

Number of Potential GGO Meadow Sites Intersected by Routes 3 3 3 3 3

Miles 1 1 1 1 1

Total Cumulative Effects 

Number of Times GGO Meadows Intersected by Unauthorized Routes 41 10 3 6 12

Total Miles 9 2 1 1.4 2.3

1

Table 97. Cumulative miles of proposed trail (Alts. 2, 4, 5), unauthorized routes (Alt. 1), and existing 

trails (Alt. 3) within GGO Nesting habitat (using a 600’ Zone of Influence from the forest/meadow edge 

adjacent to GGO Meadows). 

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed 

trails

31.7 1 8.0 0 4.7 6.9

Existing motorized routes – NFS lands 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

Total Cumulative miles within nesting habitat 34.8 11.1 3.1 7.8 10.0

1

3.7.23.3.1 Great Gray Owl Determination

Alternative 1 includes the unauthorized routes, while alternatives 2,4, 5 include proposed trails.

Based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the Biological Evaluation for this EIS 

made a determination for the great gray owl.

Alternative 1 – This alternative may adversely affect, and is likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing and a loss of viability for the great gray owl. This determination is based on the 

rationale that cross country travel would continue in the future and lead to additional impacts to owl 

meadow sites, loss of habitat, and result in high risk to owl occupancy. Based on route proliferation 

since 1988 (Forest Plan development), an average of 48 miles of unauthorized routes per year were 

established. At this rate over the next 20 years, an additional 960 miles could be added under 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 277

Alternative 1, resulting in increased cumulative effects (e.g. disturbance during reproduction period, 

abandonment of territories, etc.) over time.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 - These alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect or 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the great gray owl within the planning 

area of the Plumas National Forest. This determination is based on the rationale that 1) the action 

alternatives would prohibit current and future cross-country travel across the PNF, 2) risks to meadow 

sites and nesting habitat would be significantly reduced compared to Alternative 1 (No-action), and 3) 

a higher amounts of suitable meadow and adjacent forested habitat would be maintained for the owl 

in the long term. 

3.7.24 Migratory Landbird Conservation on the Plumas National Forest

Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of 

habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when 

planning for land management activities.

As part of the Travel Management process, the Plumas National Forest has conducted an 

assessment of existing roads and trails within Forest boundaries. Any new construction, 

reconstruction and maintenance of system roads or trails will be conducted under a separate NEPA 

analysis and decision. Because current travel management efforts are directed at identifying which 

existing unauthorized routes will be formally added to the National Forest Transportation System 

while prohibiting cross-country travel (Alternatives 2-5), and because there is no expectation of new 

construction or development, no changes in the distribution or abundance of habitats available to 

migratory birds are anticipated. Changes in authorization are not anticipated to contribute to 

measurable increase in use levels, but the prohibition of cross-country travel is expected to result in 

less use across the landscape. Therefore habitat functionality and levels of disturbance related to use 

are expected to remain similar to or less than pre-decisional levels.

Protection of both bald and golden eagles is currently governed by the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act which prohibits take of bald and golden eagles without authorization by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. None of the alternatives analyzed as part of the Travel Management process are 

expected to result in the take of a bald or golden eagle on the Plumas National Forest. This 

expectation is based on the fact that changes in authorization are not anticipated to contribute to

increase in use levels, but the prohibition of cross-country travel is expected to result in less use 

across the PNF landscape. Since no take has been documented as a result of ongoing OHV activities, 

and less use across the PNF landscape is expected, no future take of a bald or golden eagle is 

anticipated to occur under the alternatives analyzed.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

278 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.25 Summary of Species Determinations

Table 98. Comparison of Species Determinations for the Alternatives

Species Alternative 1

No-action

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Threatened and Endangered 

valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle 

MALAA NE NE NE NE

Sensitive Species

American marten MAI-LT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

Pacific fisher MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

California wolverine MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

Sierra Nevada red fox MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

bald eagle MAI-LT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

California spotted owl MAI-LT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

great gray owl MAI-LT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

greater sandhill crane MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

Swainson’s hawk WNA WNA WNA WNA WNA

northern goshawk MAI-LT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

willow flycatcher MAI-LT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

western red bat MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

Townsend’s big eared 

bat

MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

pallid bat MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT MAI-NLT

Determinations

3.7.26 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives

: Sensitive Species: WNA = Will Not Affect; MAI-NLT = May Affect Individuals, but is Not Likely to result in a 

Trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability, MAI-LT = May Affect Individuals, and is Likely to result in a Trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability. Threatened and Endangered Species: NE = No Effect, MALAA = May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect, MANLAA = May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect. 

Table 99: Comparison of Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife.

Indicators – Terrestrial Wildlife Rankings of Alternatives for Each 

Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Number of sensitive sites for TES species within 1⁄4 mile of an 

added route or area. (Disturbance to a Specific Site)

1 2 5 4 3

The proportion of a species (or species group’s) habitat that is 

affected by motor vehicle routes. (Zone of Influence, Density of 

Routes @ 7th

1

field watershed level)

2 5 4 3

Average for Terrestrial Wildlife 1 2 5 4 3

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial wildlife related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates 

the alternative has the most impact for terrestrial wildlife related to the indicator.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 279

3.7.27 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction.

Table 100. Comparison of alternatives in relation to compliance with Forest Plan, Forest Service Manual, 

Migratory Bird Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Endangered Species Act.

Direction for Terrestrial Wildlife Alternative Compliance 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Endangered Species Act (VELB) No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Forest Service Manual Direction (Sensitive Species) No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines

Management Standard and Guideline #82 (Disturbance to a 

Specific Site – Nest Site/Nest Stand)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Management Standards and Guideline #87 (fisher) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Management Standards and Guideline #89 (marten) No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Management Standards and Guidelines #116 (Riparian Species) No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

280 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.28 Deer Herd Analysis

The PNF has four main deer herds within its administrative boundaries: Sloat, Bucks Mountain, 

Mooretown and Doyle. Two other deer herds that occur on the Plumas NF have relatively small 

amounts of their boundaries that overlap the Forest. The Eastern Tehama and Loyalton/Truckee deer 

herds overlap small portions of the PNF in the extreme north and south ends of the Forest. Deer herd 

habitat types are displayed in Table 101.

Table 101. Acreage of deer habitat by type and property ownership on the Plumas National Forest.

Deer Habitat Type National Forest System 

Land 

Non-National 

Forest System 

Land

Total within the 

Forest Boundary

Critical Winter 13,221 3,188 16,409

Fawning 21,658 2,780 24,438

Holding Area 1,187 2,355 3,542

Summer 1,037,427 167,821 1,205,248

Critical Summer 5,665 7,053 12,718

Winter 115,151 53,916 169,067

Total 1,194,309 237,113 1,431,422

Table 102 shows deer habitat acreage on NFS lands within deer habitat types for each of the deer 

herds (Sloat, Bucks Mountain, Mooretown, Eastern Tehama, Loyalton/Truckee and Doyle) occurring 

within the boundary of the PNF.

Table 102. Acreage of deer habitat by type for each deer herd on the Plumas National Forest.

Deer Herd Habitat Type Acres

Sloat Critical Winter 13,221

Holding Area 1,187

Summer 284,563

Winter 42,943

Bucks Mountain Summer 231,992

Winter 72,208

Mooretown Summer 145,089

Eastern Tehama Summer 10,529

Critical Summer 5,665

Loyalton/Truckee Summer 3,386

Doyle Fawning 21,658

Summer 361,868

Many studies have been conducted on the interaction of motorized trail-associated activities. 

Mule deer have shown that motorized trail-associated factors have the potential to impact mule deer 

populations directly and indirectly, including mortality from vehicle-collisions, modification of 

behavior (avoidance or flight), mortality from hunting and poaching, habitat fragmentation, edge 

effects of roads and trails and others. Roads and trails can result in the disturbance or disruption of 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 281

individuals in a deer population. Deer inhabiting areas near roads and trails may move away from the 

area when disturbed by humans. Several factors affect the degree to which trail and road associated 

human activities disrupt deer. This section will highlight some examples of the way in which roads 

and trails can affect individual deer and deer populations. Although white-tailed deer do not occur on 

the Plumas NF, studies on both white-tailed deer and mule deer are included in the summaries to 

illustrate the general nature of expected responses of deer to roads and trails.

3.7.28.1.1 Displacement or Avoidance

In general, mule deer will move away from, or flush, from an approaching person and will usually 

allow a person in or on a vehicle to get closer than a person on foot (Freddy et al. 1986, Wisdom et al. 

2004). Wisdom et al. (2004) found that mule deer showed little measurable flight response to 

experimental OHV treatments but cautioned that deer may well be responding with fine-scale changes 

in habitat use (i.e. avoidance), rather than substantial increases in movement rates and flight 

responses. Several studies have found that mule deer avoid areas in proximity to roads. Deer avoid 

primary roads more than secondary or tertiary roads and also avoid roads more in open habitats as 

opposed to areas with vegetative or topographic cover (deVos et al. 2003).

Various studies have shown that mule deer have displacement distances that vary between 200 

and 800 meters, depending upon the road type and traffic level and the surrounding habitat (Perry and 

Overly 1977, Rost and Bailey 1979, Johnson et al. 2000). One study showed that if habitat was 

available away from a linear road or trail, then deer avoided the disturbance corridor (Jalkotzy et al. 

1997). However, when no suitable deer habitat was available away from the road or trail, then deer 

used the habitat adjacent to the road or trail. Rost and Bailey (1979) reported that deer and elk in 

Colorado avoided roads, especially within 200 meters of a road. Perry and Overly (1977) reported 

that deer were displaced up to 800 meters from roads.

Main roads were found to reduce deer use up to 0.5 miles (800 meters), whereas secondary and 

primitive roads reduced deer densities from between 200 to 400 meters in these studies. Additional 

variables such as the amount and frequency of traffic and the spatial distribution of roads in relation 

to deer use, influence the degree of negative effects that roads have on deer use in forested habitats 

(Perry and Overly 1977, Johnson et al. 2000, deVos et al. 2003). Where disturbance causes deer to 

avoid areas within preferred habitats, animals may be forced into less preferred or lower quality 

habitats. Such shifts, particularly if repeated, can result in adverse impacts to the energy balance of 

individual deer and ultimately can decrease population productivity, especially on winter ranges 

(deVos et al. 2003).

Comments received during issuance of the draft EIS raised the issue of noxious weed spread as a 

result of motorized use which may result in loss of habitat or displacement of deer from certain areas 

that contain noxious weeds. Although noxious weeds are an important management concern and will 

be monitored as part this travel management project, the Plumas NF has a relatively low occurrence 

of noxious weed compared to other areas throughout the west. Levels of infestation and management 

prescriptions on the Plumas NF are similar to those represented in low category by the Mule Deer 

Working Group (Hayden et. al 2008). Based on noxious weed occurrence forest-wide and the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

282 – Plumas National Forest

monitoring proposed under this project, noxious weeds are not considered a limiting factor to deer on 

the Plumas NF. 

3.7.28.1.2 Hunting and Poaching

Greater human access can increase opportunities for hunting as well as poaching of deer. During the 

hunting season, deer may become more wary of humans and disturbance to deer is greater when being 

hunted. In New York State, antlered deer were found to have longer flight distances than deer that

were not hunted (Jalkotzky et al. 1997). Hunted deer populations tend to have stronger reactions to 

people on foot than motor vehicles. This may be due to the fact the deer can detect a vehicle from 

greater distances rather than getting surprised by humans on foot. Roads and trails can facilitate deer 

harvest success. A study using 143 radio-collared deer in Minnesota revealed that deer mortality 

during the hunting season was 2 to 4 times higher for deer that lived 0.2 km from a road versus those 

that were at >0.3 km from a road. Major access routes radiating from urban centers into deer range 

provide increased opportunities for hunters.

Since hunting levels for deer are controlled through hunting zone quotas and tag limits 

established by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), an increase in hunting 

opportunity or hunter success is unlikely to impact deer populations (deVos 2003). Hunting limits also 

take into account estimates of the amount of illegal kill and road kill occurring. Levels of illegal 

harvest are not presently described as a significant source of mortality for deer herds on the PNF 

(CDFG 2003, CDFG 1998). 

Thomas et al. (1979) used Perry and Overly’s data to develop a habitat effectiveness model based 

on road densities. The model indicated that a 20% loss in habitat effectiveness occurred when road 

densities were about 2 miles per square mile for summer range habitat. At road densities of 6 miles 

per square mile, habitat effectiveness declined by 50% to 95% depending on the type of road. The 

habitat guidelines for mule deer within the Northern Forest Ecoregion (includes the Plumas NF), 

developed by the Mule Deer Working Group recommend minimizing open road densities as much as 

possible and maintaining an average of less than or equal to 1.9 miles of open road per square mile of 

forest land, less on winter range (Hayden et al. 2008). 

One study found that all terrain vehicles altered deer feeding and use patterns and these deer 

produced fewer young the following year (Yarmaloy 1988). An Arizona study using deer and elk 

decoys reported that illegal road hunting was widespread (Bancroft in Watson 2005). Eleven of 19 

archery elk and deer hunters and 41 of 53 firearm hunters committed violations by attempting illegal 

take after observing a decoy from their vehicle. 

3.7.28.1.3 Collisions

Vehicle collisions with deer can contribute considerably to direct deer mortality. Deer are probably 

the most frequently killed large mammal along North America’s roads. The Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety commissioned a study which estimated that more than 1.5 million deer/vehicle 

collisions occur annually, resulting in more than 29,000 human injuries and 150 deaths. Romin and 

Bissonette (1996), conservatively estimated that the US national deer road kill in 1991 totaled at least 

500,000 deer. Deer road kills vary considerably by region and by season. In California, mule deer 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 283

road kill along a 3-mile stretch of secondary highway was estimated at 3.7 and 4.8 per kilometer per 

year during spring and fall migrations, respectively (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). 

Deer and vehicle collisions probably differ by the type of road or trail, so care must be given 

when considering deer-vehicle collisions. The majority of deer-vehicle collisions occur in the early 

morning or late afternoon and evening hours, around dawn and sunset, when the deer are most active 

and when visibility is poor. More deer-vehicle collisions occur during the spring and fall when deer 

are migrating. In the fall, hunting may cause deer to be more wary and increase movement of deer. In 

the spring, vegetation tends to green up along roadsides and attract deer to roads. Several studies 

indicated that mortality from deer-vehicle collisions differed by sex and age. In Pennsylvania, 

vehicle-caused mortality was significantly higher for fawns and yearlings than adults; and more adult 

females were killed than adult males (Jakotzy et al. 1997). Jakotzy et al. (1997) also cited that female 

deer in South Dakota were killed more often, except during the fall when male deer mortality was 

higher. Deer herd management plans for deer herds in Plumas County (e.g. Bucks, Mooretown, etc.) 

indicate that deer fatalities along highways, such as Hwy 70, 89 and 395 contribute to loss of 

individuals and are a factor affecting deer. There are little to no data on deer road kills along Forest 

roads. Deer-vehicle collisions on roads and trails which are maintained for high clearance vehicles 

(maintenance level 2 roads) are probably not appreciable in number due to the lower speeds and the 

amount of use received on these roads. Forest roads maintained at a higher standard for passenger 

vehicle (maintenance levels (ML) 3, 4 and 5) travel, where vehicle speeds are greater, have the most 

potential to contribute to a deer-vehicle collision. However, the motorized trails analyzed under the 

action alternatives are not expected to equal the fatality rates of the higher speed paved roads (ML 3, 

4, 5) and much less that of highways, such as Highways 70, 89 or 395.

For a summary of trail and road associated impacts to mule deer, see the terrestrial wildlife 

section.

3.7.28.2 Mule Deer: Environmental Consequences

3.7.28.2.1 Analysis Measures

3.7.28.2.1.1 Proposed Trail and Unauthorized Route Density

Road density has traditionally been used as an indicator for habitat effectiveness models (Overly and 

Perry 1977, Thomas, et al. 1979). These models indicate that as open road density increases deer use 

declines (Thomas et al. 1979, Witmer et al 1985). Factors such as hunting pressure, poaching and

other human disturbances are also likely to relate to open road densities. Critical winter range, 

summer range and fawning habitats represent key habitats for deer where heavier use and higher 

quality habitats for wintering and summer use are expected to occur. The route densities within 

critical winter range, summer range and fawning habitat for each deer herd within the PNF was 

determined.

3.7.28.2.1.2 Miles of Proposed Trail and Unauthorized Routes

To assess the potential direct and indirect impacts to deer from motorized route associated disturbance 

including noise, hunting, poaching, etc., the miles of motorized routes to be added to National Forest 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

284 – Plumas National Forest

Transportation System (NFTS) were determined for each alternative by key deer habitat type

(summer, fawning, winter and critical winter) within each of the deer herds—Sloat, Bucks Mountain, 

Mooretown, Eastern Tehama, Loyalton/Truckee and Doyle.

3.7.28.2.1.3 Seasonal Restrictions for Motor Vehicles

The 1988 Forest Plan recognizes that the restriction of motorized vehicle access within certain deer 

habitat areas is important to deer. Seasonal vehicle restrictions have occurred in the Diamond 

Mountain area since 1984. A portion of the Diamond Mountain area is closed to motorized vehicles 

before and during deer hunting season within Hunt Zone X-6A. Selected roads within the Diamond 

Mountain Area are closed and vehicles are prohibited both on and off roads and trails. The closure has 

been implemented due to the high volume of vehicles in the Diamond Mountain area during deer 

season. This closure has been an ongoing cooperative effort between the California Department of 

Fish and Game, Plumas County Fish and Game Commission and the Plumas National Forest. This 

closure within the Diamond Mountain area would continue under all of the action alternatives in the 

future.

Range herd areas (e.g. critical winter range, holding areas, etc.) were reviewed under this deer 

herd analysis and limited operating periods or seasons of use were applied on routes in order to 

minimize impacts to deer (see Appendix A – Route list).

3.7.28.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects—Class of Vehicles

Mule deer responses to motor vehicle use vary depending upon the type of vehicle, the intensity, 

timing, speeds and amount of motor vehicle use. For this analysis, it is assumed that all vehicle types 

result in the same disturbance to mule deer. Therefore, changes in the class of vehicles would not vary 

in their effects to mule deer for all of the proposed alternatives.

3.7.28.2.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects— Proposed Trail and Unauthorized Route Miles and Route 

Density

Table 103 displays miles of unauthorized routes, existing trails and proposed trails (including mixed 

use) for each deer herd, which provides a way to compare alternatives to assess the direct and indirect 

impacts to deer from motorized trails where access for hunting and poaching and disturbance and 

avoidance may occur. Existing trail, proposed trail and unauthorized route miles in key deer habitat

(summer, fawning, critical winter, winter ranges) by deer herd are discussed below. In addition,

motorized route density was calculated by deer herd and range type (i.e. summer, winter, etc.) Table 

103 shows the average unauthorized route (Alternative 1), existing motorized trail (Alternative 3) and 

proposed trail (Alternatives 2, 4 and 5) densities within deer herd ranges under each alternative 

(calculated by dividing the total route, existing and proposed trail miles within deer ranges by the 

square miles of deer ranges on NFS land).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 285

Table 103. Miles of unauthorized route (Alt 1), existing trails (Alt 3) and proposed trails (Alt 2, 4, 5) and 

corresponding route densities (miles/square mile) on NFS lands within deer herd ranges on the PNF. 

Deer Herd Range Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Sloat Summer1 219 mi

(0.49 

mi/mi2)

83 mi

(0.18 

mi/mi2)

53 mi

(0.12 

mi/mi2)

40 mi

(0.08 

mi/mi2)

68 mi

(0.15

mi/mi2)

Holding Area 0 0 0 0 0

Critical Winter 27 mi

1.31 

(mi/mi2)

8 mi

0.39 

(mi/mi2)

3 mi

0.14 

(mi/mi2)

2 mi

0.10 

(mi/mi2)

6 mi

0.29 

(mi/mi2)

Winter 88 mi

1.31 

(mi/mi2)

26 mi

0.39 

(mi/mi2)

3 mi

0.04 

(mi/mi2)

15 mi

0.22 

(mi/mi2)

19 mi

0.28 

(mi/mi2)

Bucks Mountain Summer1 227 mi

0.63 

(mi/mi2)

101 mi

0.28 

(mi/mi2)

27 mi

0.07 

(mi/mi2)

33 mi

0.08 

(mi/mi2)

63 mi

0.17 

(mi/mi2)

Winter 50 mi

0.44 

(mi/mi2)

14 mi

0.12 

(mi/mi2)

21 mi

0.18 

(mi/mi2)

2 mi

0.02 

(mi/mi2)

6 mi

0.05 

(mi/mi2)

Mooretown Summer 78 mi

0.34 

(mi/mi2)

28 mi

0.12 

(mi/mi2)

9 mi

0.04 

(mi/mi2)

11 mi

0.05 

(mi/mi2)

16 mi

0.07 

(mi/mi2)

Eastern Tehama Critical Summer 17 mi

1.89 

(mi/mi2)

8 mi

0.89 

(mi/mi2)

0 6 mi

0.67 

(mi/mi2)

7 mi

0.77 

(mi/mi2)

Summer 10 mi

0.62 

(mi/mi2)

1 mi

0.06 

(mi/mi2)

1 mi

0.06 

(mi/mi2)

1 mi

0.06 

(mi/mi2)

1 mi

0.06 

(mi/mi2)

Loyalton/Truckee Summer 5 mi

1.00

1 mi

0.20

0 2 mi

0.40

2 mi

0.40

Doyle Summer 349 mi

0.62 

(mi/mi2)

81 mi

0.14 

(mi/mi2)

11 mi

0.02 

(mi/mi2)

28 mi

0.05 

(mi/mi2)

46 mi

0.08 

(mi/mi2)

Fawning 18 mi

0.53 

(mi/mi2)

6 mi

0.17 

(mi/mi2)

0.4 mi

0.01 

(mi/mi2)

2 mi

0.06 

(mi/mi2)

2 mi

0.06 

(mi/mi2)

* Alt 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails.1 Includes mixed use on FR 24N28.

3.7.28.2.3.1 Sloat Deer Herd – Direct and Indirect Effects

Within summer range, implementing Alternative 1 would have unauthorized route miles that exceed 

Alternative 2 by a two to one margin and exceed Alternatives 2 and 4 by nearly 150 miles for the 

Sloat Deer Herd. There are no unauthorized route or trail miles within the Holding Area for the Sloat 

herd under any of the five alternatives, therefore no impacts are anticipated for this herd range.

Within critical winter range, Alternative 1 has the most unauthorized route miles at 27 miles, 

followed by Alternative 2 with 8 miles of proposed trail. Alternatives 4 and 5 range from 2 to 6 miles

and would have less of an impact on deer using this critical winter range. For winter range, 

Alternative 1 (88 miles) exceeds all other alternatives by a three to one margin. Alternatives 2, 4 and 

5 represent significantly less trails miles (15 to 26 miles) than Alternative 1 and would pose less risk 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

286 – Plumas National Forest

to deer. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the Sloat Deer Herd on the summer and both winter 

ranges, followed next by Alternative 2, 5 and 4.

The route and trail miles discussed can be converted to route or trail densities for each deer herd 

range category. The results indicate that implementing Alternative 1 would have unauthorized route 

densities that exceed trail densities proposed under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 by about two to one within 

both summer, critical winter and winter range for the Sloat Deer Herd. Alternative 2 has the next 

highest level of proposed trail densities for all deer herd range categories; summer, critical winter and 

winter. Alternative 5 exhibits slightly less direct and indirect effects than Alternative 2, but represents 

higher trail densities than Alternative 4 in all range type categories. Alternative 4 has the least 

proposed trail densities of the alternatives with trails in all ranges: summer, critical winter and winter. 

A holding area occurs within the PNF boundary for the Sloat Deer Herd. For all alternatives, there 

were no existing trails, unauthorized routes or proposed trails in this deer holding area. For the Sloat 

Deer Herd, Alternative 1 has the most direct and indirect effects to the herd, risk to habitat and habitat 

use. Alternative 4 has the least direct and indirect effects to the herd, habitat and habitat use based on 

trail miles and densities.

3.7.28.2.3.2 Sloat Deer Herd - Cumulative Effects

Routes miles and densities under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 are increased when Alternative 3 densities 

are added. Alternative 3 does not add any routes, but represents the 130 miles of existing motorized. 

Therefore, these routes currently exist on the landscape, and route densities represented by 

Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 would be additive. Cumulative effects would then be increased for all 

alternatives. Alternative 1 route miles and densities for Sloat summer range would increase from 219 

miles (0.49 mile per square mile) to 272 miles (0.61 mile per square mile), an increase of 53 miles 

(0.12 mile per square mile) by adding existing routes (Alternative 3). A similar increase of 53 miles 

(0.12 mile per square mile) would occur with Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 in the Sloat summer range. 

Therefore route densities in critical winter range would increase for all alternatives by 3 miles (0.14 

mile per square mile), and for winter range by 3 miles (0.04 mile per square mile). Existing motorized 

trails, existing open road densities across the Plumas NF also contribute to cumulative effects to mule 

deer and their use of summer or winter ranges. Decrease in habitat effectiveness for deer becomes a 

factor when road densities exceed 2 miles per square mile. Habitat effectiveness for deer has been 

reduced on the Plumas NF based on existing road densities forest wide. Currently 65% to 79% of the 

forest contains densities greater than 2 miles per square mile (see Table 66, TES Wildlife Section). 

Therefore existing road densities when added to existing motorized trails (Alternative 3) would range 

between 2.04 and 2.14 miles per square mile and exceed the road densities recommended by the Mule 

Deer Working Group of 1.9 miles per square mile. Motorized trails that would be added under 

Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 5 would add cumulatively to the existing density of roads and existing trails 

(Alternative 3) by a range of 0.08 (Alternative 4) to 1.31 (Alternative 1) miles per square mile for the 

Sloat Deer Herd. Therefore, since all alternatives would maintain existing road, trails and proposed 

trail densities above 2 miles per square mile, it would be expected that habitat effectiveness for deer 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 287

would decline on within the Sloat Deer Herd across all range types, with exception of the Holding 

Area (no direct, indirect or cumulative effects).

3.7.28.2.3.3 Bucks Mountain Deer Herd – Direct and Indirect Effects

For the Bucks Deer Herd, summer range is impacted the most by route miles and route densities. 

Within summer range, Alternative 1 has 227 miles (0.63 mile per square mile) of unauthorized routes 

with Alternatives 2 and 5 ranging from 101 miles (0.28 mile per square mile) to 63 miles (0.17 mile 

per square mile) of proposed trails. Alternative 4 has the least amount of proposed trails with 33 miles 

(.08 mile per square mile). 

Within winter range, Alternative 1 has 50 miles (0.44 mile per square mile) of unauthorized route, 

almost three times as much as Alternative 2, with 14 miles (0.12 mile per square mile) of proposed 

trails. Alternatives 4 and 5 are significantly less with a range of 2 (.02 mile per square mile) to 6 miles 

(.05 mile per square mile). Within winter range, Alternative 1 has the highest number of route miles,

where direct and indirect disturbance associated with motorized routes could occur when deer are 

stressed during the winter. In summary, Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the Bucks Deer Herd 

on winter ranges where resources may be scarce and deer may be stressed during the winter months.

Alternative 4 presents the least risk to deer.

Implementing Alternative 1 would have existing trail and unauthorized route densities that exceed

proposed trail densities under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 by about two to one within both summer and

winter range for the Bucks Mountain Deer Herd. Alternative 2 has the next highest level of trail 

densities for all deer herd range categories; summer and winter. Alternative 4 has the second lowest 

proposed trail densities in summer and winter range of all of the alternatives. Alternative 5 falls 

within the range of route densities of Alternatives 2 (higher) and 4 (lower) (see Table 103). For the 

Bucks Deer Herd, Alternative 1 has the most impact to the herd and Alternative 4 would have the 

least impact as a result of trail densities in both summer and winter range. Of the action alternatives 

with proposed trails, Alternative 4 presents the least risk to habitat and habitat use followed by 

Alternative 5 and Alternative 2.

Overall, Alternative 1 has the greatest risk to both summer and winter range, while Alternative 4 

has the least risk when trail miles and route densities in both summer and winter ranges are combined.

3.7.28.2.3.4 Bucks Mountain Deer Herd - Cumulative Effects

Route miles and densities under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 are increased when Alternative 3 trail miles 

densities are added. Alternative 3 does not add any routes, but represents the 130 miles of existing 

motorized trials. Therefore, these routes currently exist on the landscape, and route densities 

represented by Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 would be additive. Cumulative effects would then be 

increased for all alternatives. For example, Alternative 1 route miles and densities for Bucks summer 

range would increase from 227 miles (0.63 mile per square mile) to 254 miles (0.70 mile per square 

mile), an increase of 27 miles (0.07 mile per square mile) (see Table 103). A similar increase to Bucks 

summer range would occur with Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. Therefore route miles and densities in winter 

range would increase for all alternatives by 21 miles (0.18 mile per square mile). Existing motorized 

trails, existing open road densities across the Plumas NF also contribute to cumulative effects to mule 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

288 – Plumas National Forest

deer and their use of summer or winter ranges. Decrease in habitat effectiveness for deer becomes a 

factor when road densities exceed 2 miles per square mile. Habitat effectiveness for deer has been 

reduced on the Plumas NF based on existing road densities forest wide. Currently 65% to 79% of the 

forest contains densities greater than 2 miles per square mile mi/sq mi (see Table 66, TES Wildlife 

Section). Therefore existing road densities when added to existing motorized trails (Alternative 3) 

would range from 2.07 to 2.18 miles per square mile and appear to exceed the road densities 

recommended by the Mule Deer Working Group (1.9 mile per square mile). Motorized trails that 

would be added under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 5 would add cumulatively to the existing density of 

roads and existing trails by a range of 0.02 (Alternative 4) to 0.63 (Alternative 1) miles/square mile 

for the Bucks Mountain Deer Herd. Therefore, since all alternatives would maintain existing road, 

trails and proposed trail densities above 2 miles per square mile, it would be expected that habitat 

effectiveness for deer would decline within the Bucks Mountain Deer Herd across both summer and 

winter ranges.

3.7.28.2.3.5 Mooretown Deer Herd – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 unauthorized route miles exceed those proposed under Alternative 2 by a two-to-one

ratio (78 miles vs. 28 miles) in summer range for the Mooretown Deer Herd. The remaining action 

alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) propose significantly less with a range between 11 and 16 proposed 

trail miles. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the Mooretown Deer Herd on summer range, where 

Alternative 4 poses the least risk to summer range habitat for deer. 

Implementing Alternative 1 would have unauthorized route densities that exceed proposed trail

densities under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 by about three-to-one ratio within summer range for the 

Mooretown Deer Herd. Alternative 2 has the second highest level of trail densities (0.12 mile per 

square mile) for summer range. Alternative 4 has less trail density (0.05 mile per square mile) than 

Alternatives 1, 2 and 5. Alternative 5 has route densities that fall between the range of Alternatives 4 

and 2 with 0.07 mile per square mile. For the Mooretown Deer Herd, Alternative 1 has the most 

impact to the herd, habitat and habitat use and Alternative 4 would have the least impact.

3.7.28.2.3.6 Mooretown Deer Herd - Cumulative Effects

Route miles and densities under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 are increased when Alternative 3 densities 

are added. Alternative 3 does not add any routes, but represents the 130 miles of existing motorized 

trails. Therefore, these routes currently exist on the landscape, and route densities represented by 

Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 would be additive. Cumulative effects would then be increased for all 

alternatives. Alternative 1 route miles and densities for Mooretown summer range would increase 

from 78 miles (0.34 mile per square mile) to 87 miles (0.38 mile per square mile), an increase of 9 

miles and 0.04 mile per square mile (see Table 103). A similar increase would occur with Alternatives 

2, 4 and 5. Existing motorized trails, existing open road densities across the Plumas NF also 

contribute to cumulative effects to mule deer and their use of summer ranges. Decrease in habitat 

effectiveness for deer becomes a factor when road densities exceed 2 miles per square mile. Habitat 

effectiveness for deer has been reduced on most the Plumas NF based on existing road densities 

forest-wide. Currently 65% to 79% of the forest contains densities greater than 2 miles per square 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 289

mile (see Table 66, TES Wildlife Section). Therefore existing road densities when added to existing 

motorized trails (Alternative 3) would equal 2.04 miles per square mile and appear to narrowly 

exceed the road densities recommended by the Mule Deer Working Group (1.9 miles per square 

mile). Motorized trails that would be added under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 5 would add cumulatively to 

the existing density of existing roads and trails by a range of 0.05 (Alternative 4) to 0.34 (Alternative 

1) mile per square mile for the Mooretown Deer Herd. Therefore, since all alternatives would 

maintain existing road, trails and proposed trail densities above 2 miles per square mile, it would be 

expected that habitat effectiveness for deer would decline within summer range for the Mooretown 

Deer Herd.

3.7.28.2.3.7 Eastern Tehama Deer Herd – Direct and Indirect Effects

For the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd, critical summer range is impacted the most by route miles and 

route densities. Within critical summer range, Alternative 1 adds 17 miles (1.89 miles per square 

mile) of unauthorized routes with Alternatives 2 and 5 ranging from 8 miles (0.89 mile per square 

mile) to 7 miles (0.77 mile per square mile) of proposed trails. Alternative 4 has the least amount of 

proposed trails with 6 miles (.67 mile per square mile). Although route and trail miles appear small, 

the route densities are relatively high, indicating that the miles of route and trails occur within a 

relatively small area of critical summer range for the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd.

Within summer range, Alternative 1 has 10 miles (0.62 mile per square mile) of unauthorized 

routes, while Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 add only 1 mile (0.06 mile per square mile) of proposed trail. 

Within summer range, Alternative 1 has the highest number of route miles, where direct and indirect 

disturbance associated with motorized routes could occur. In summary, Alternative 1 poses the 

greatest risk to the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd on both types of summer ranges. Alternatives, 2, 4 and 

5 present an equal and least risk to deer.

Implementing Alternative 1 would have unauthorized route densities of 1.89 miles per square 

mile in critical summer range that approach the level of 1.9 miles per square mile that is 

recommended by the Mule Deer Working Group. In summer range, Alternative 1 route densities drop 

to 0.62 mile per square mile. All other alternatives have lower densities in both critical summer and 

summer ranges within the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd. Alternative 2 has the next highest level of trail 

densities for critical summer range at 0.89 mile per square mile, followed by Alternative 5 at 0.77 

mile per square mile and Alternative 4 at 0.67 mile per square mile. For summer range Alternatives 2, 

4 and 5 have equal densities at 0.06 mile per square mile. For the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd, 

Alternative 1 has the most impact to the herd and Alternative 4 would have the least impact as a result 

of trail densities proposed to be added in both critical summer and summer range. Of the action 

alternatives that propose adding trails, Alternative 4 presents the least risk to habitat and habitat use 

followed by Alternative 5 and Alternative 2.

3.7.28.2.3.8 Eastern Tehama Deer Herd - Cumulative Effects

For critical summer range category, cumulative route miles and densities under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 

and 5 do not change since Alternative 3 does not contribute any existing motorized trail miles or 

densities. There are no existing motorized trails within critical summer range for the Eastern Tehama 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

290 – Plumas National Forest

Deer Herd. However for the summer range category, Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 route miles and 

densities would be additive to the 1 mile of an existing motorized trails that occur in this range 

category. Therefore, Alternative 1 route miles and densities for the Eastern Tehama summer range 

would increase slightly from 10 miles (0.62 mile per square mile) to 11 miles (0.68 mile per square 

mile), an increase of just the one mile (0.06 mile per square mile) (see Table 103). A similar increase 

to Eastern Tehama summer range would occur with Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. Therefore route miles and 

densities in summer range would increase for all alternatives by 1 mile (0.06 mile per square mile). 

Existing motorized trails, existing open road densities across the Plumas NF also contribute to 

cumulative effects to mule deer and their use of summer or winter ranges. Decrease in habitat 

effectiveness for deer becomes a factor when road densities exceed 2 miles per square mile. Habitat 

effectiveness for deer has been reduced on the Plumas NF based on existing road densities forest 

wide. Currently 65% to 79% of the forest contains densities greater than 2 miles per square mile (see

Table 66, TES Wildlife Section). Therefore existing road densities when added to existing trails 

(Alternative 3) would range from 2.0 to 2.06 miles per square mile and appear to slightly exceed the 

road densities recommended by the Mule Deer Working Group (1.9 miles per square mile). Motorized

trails that would be added under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 5 would add cumulatively to the existing 

density of roads and existing trails by a range of 0.06 (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 summer range) to 1.89 

(Alternative 1 critical summer range) miles per square mile for the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd. 

Therefore, since all alternatives would maintain existing road, trails and proposed trail densities above 

2 miles per square mile, it would be expected that habitat effectiveness for deer would decline within 

the Eastern Tehama Deer Herd across critical summer and summer ranges. Critical summer range 

would be impacted to a higher level than summer ranges since densities are higher for critical summer 

range across all alternatives.

3.7.28.2.3.9 Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 unauthorized route miles exceed those proposed under Alternatives 4 and 5 by a two-toone ratio (5 miles vs. 2 miles) in summer range for the Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd. Alternative 2 

proposes only 1 mile of trail. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to the Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd 

on summer range where Alternative 2 poses the least risk to summer range habitat for deer. 

Implementing Alternative 1 would have unauthorized route densities that exceed proposed trail

densities under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 by about two to one ratio within summer range for the 

Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd. Alternatives 4 and 5 have the second highest level of trail densities 

(0.40 mile per square mile) for summer range. Alternative 2 has less trail density (0.20 mile per 

square mile) than Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. For the Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd, Alternative 1 has the 

most impact to the herd, habitat and habitat use and Alternative 2 would have the least impact.

3.7.28.2.3.10 Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd - Cumulative Effects

Routes miles and densities under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 do not change since Alternative 3 does not 

have existing motorized trails within the Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd. Since Alternative 3 does not 

contribute to cumulative effects, existing open road densities across the Plumas NF do contribute to 

cumulative effects to mule deer and their use of summer ranges. Decrease in habitat effectiveness for 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 291

deer becomes a factor when road densities exceed 2 miles per square mile. Habitat effectiveness for 

deer has been reduced on most of the Plumas NF based on existing road densities forest wide. 

Currently 65% to 79% of the Forest contains densities greater than 2 miles per square mile (see Table 

66, TES Wildlife Section). Therefore existing road densities combined with unauthorized routes in 

Alternative 1 or proposed trail additions under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would range between 2.20 

miles per square mile (Alternative 2) and 3.0 miles per square mile (Alternative 1) and appear to 

exceed the road densities recommended by the Mule Deer Working Group (1.9 miles per square 

mile). Motorized trails that would be added under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 5 would add cumulatively to 

the existing density of existing roads within the Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd. Therefore, since all 

alternatives would maintain existing road and proposed trail densities above 2 miles per square mile, 

it would be expected that habitat effectiveness for deer would decline within summer range for the 

Loyalton/Truckee Deer Herd.

3.7.28.2.3.11 Doyle Deer Herd – Direct and Indirect Effects

Route miles for the Doyle Deer Herd are greatest under Alternative 1, where unauthorized route miles 

exceed all of the action alternatives by at least 268 miles within summer ranges. Within fawning 

habitat, trail miles are similar for Alternatives 4 and 5 with Alternative 1 exceeding the remaining 

alternatives by at least 12 miles. Alternative 1 poses the greatest concern and risk to the Doyle Deer 

Herd on both summer ranges and fawning habitat that are important to reproduction and rearing of 

young during the summer months.

Implementing Alternative 1 would have unauthorized route densities that exceeded existing and 

proposed trail densities within Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 by about three to one within both summer and 

fawning habitat for the Doyle Deer Herd. Alternative 2 has the second highest level of trail densities 

for all deer herd range categories; summer and fawning. Alternative 4 has the least impact to summer 

range of the action alternatives that add trails to the NFTS and is similar to Alternative 5 in proposed 

trail densities (0.06 mile per square mile) in fawning habitat. For the Doyle Deer Herd, Alternative 1 

has the most impact to the herd and Alternative 4 would have the least impacts as a result of route 

miles and trail densities proposed to be added in both summer range and fawning habitat.

3.7.28.2.3.12 Doyle Deer Herd - Cumulative Effects

Route miles and densities under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 are increased when trail miles and densities

are added. Alternative 3 does not add any routes, but represents the existing NFTS motorized trail 

network. Therefore, these trails currently exist on the landscape, and unauthorized route (Alternative 

1) and proposed trail densities represented by Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would be additive. For example, 

Alternative 1 route miles and densities for Doyle summer range would increase from 349 miles (0.62 

mile per square mile) to 360 miles (0.64 mile per square mile), an increase of 11 miles (0.02 mile per 

square mile) (see Table 103). A similar increase to Doyle summer range would occur with 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. In fawning habitat, all alternatives (1, 2, 4 and 5) would contribute to the 0.4 

miles (0.01 mi/sq mi) of existing route miles and densities. Existing motorized trails, existing open 

road densities across the Plumas NF also contribute to cumulative effects to mule deer and their use 

of summer or winter ranges. Decrease in habitat effectiveness for deer becomes a factor when road 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

292 – Plumas National Forest

densities exceed 2 miles per square mile. Habitat effectiveness for deer has been reduced on the 

Plumas NF based on existing road densities forest wide. Currently 65% to 79% of the forest contains 

densities greater than 2 miles per square mile (see Table 66, TES Wildlife Section). Therefore existing 

road densities when added to existing NFTS motorized trails (Alternative 3) would range from 2.01 

(fawning) to 2.02 (summer) miles per square mile and appear to slightly exceed the road densities 

recommended by the Mule Deer Working Group (1.9 miles per square mile). Motorized trails that 

would be added under Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 5 would add cumulatively to the existing density of 

roads and existing trails by a range of 0.05 (Alternative 4, summer range) to 0.62 (Alternative 1, 

summer range) miles per square mile for the Doyle Deer Herd. Therefore, since all alternatives would 

maintain existing road, trails and proposed trail densities above 2 miles per square mile, it would be 

expected that habitat effectiveness for deer would decline within the Doyle Deer Herd across both 

summer and fawning ranges.

3.7.28.2.3.13 Trail and Unauthorized Route Miles and Density Summary

For all major deer herds occurring within the boundaries of the PNF, Alternative 1 would have the 

greatest existing trail and unauthorized route miles and densities compared to all of the action 

alternatives within essential summer (fawning) and winter (critical winter and winter) ranges.

Alternative 2 would have the next highest level of trail densities within the deer ranges for all the deer 

herds. Within critical summer and fawning areas, Alternative 1 poses a somewhat higher risk to all 

deer herds on the PNF and may therefore pose a greater risk in the ability for these deer herds to 

successfully reproduce and rear fawns, as compared to all of the action alternatives. Alternatives 3 

and 4 have the least impacts to the Plumas deer herds within summer and winter ranges. Alternative 1 

also has the greatest direct and indirect effects to winter ranges, especially within the Sloat Deer 

Herd, where Alternative 1 unauthorized route densities exceed the action alternatives by almost 1 mile 

per square mile. Habitat effectiveness would be reduced to the greatest extent under Alternative 1, to 

the least extent under Alternatives 3 and 4, with Alternatives 2 and 5 having a moderate impact on 

habitat effectiveness.

3.7.29 Selection of Project level Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Plumas National Forest (PNF) are identified in the 2007 

Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest Service 

2007a), which is incorporated by reference. The habitats and ecosystem components and associated 

MIS analyzed for this project were selected from this list of MIS, as indicated in Table 104. In 

addition to identifying the habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), the CWHR type(s) defining 

each habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column) and the associated MIS (3rd column), the table 

discloses whether or not the habitat of the MIS is potentially affected by this project (4th column).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 293

Table 104. Selection of Management Indicator Species for project-level habitat analysis for this Project.

Habitat or Ecosystem 

Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the 

habitat or ecosystem 

component

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator 

Species

Scientific Name

Category for 

Project 

Analysis 

Riverine and Lacustrine

1

lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) aquatic macroinvertebrates 3

Shrubland (west-slope 

chaparral types)

montane chaparral (MCP), mixed 

chaparral (MCH), chamiseredshank chaparral (CRC)

fox sparrow

Passerella iliaca

3

Oak-associated Hardwood 

and Hardwood/conifer

montane hardwood (MHW), 

montane hardwood-conifer (MHC)

mule deer

Odocoileus hemionus

3

Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley 

foothill riparian (VRI)

yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia

3

Wet Meadow wet meadow (WTM), freshwater 

emergent wetland (FEW)

Pacific tree frog

Pseudacris regilla

3

Early Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside 

pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2 and 3, 

all canopy closures

mountain quail

Oreortyx pictus

3

Mid Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside 

pine (EPN), tree size 4, all canopy 

closures

mountain quail

Oreortyx pictus

3

Late Seral Open Canopy 

Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside 

pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy 

closures S and P

sooty (blue) grouse

Dendragapus obscurus

3

Late Seral Closed Canopy 

Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 

(canopy closures M and D) and 

tree size 6.

California spotted owl

Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis

3

northern flying squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus

3

Snags in Green Forest medium and large snags in green 

forest

hairy woodpecker

Picoides villosus

2

Snags in Burned Forest medium and large snags in burned 

forest (stand-replacing fire)

black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus

2

1 

Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the 

project.

Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project.

Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Black-backed Woodpecker (Category 2)–This Project is within a burned forest or within a portion 

of a recent wildland fire area; however, no burnt snags will be affected as a part of the proposed 

action or alternatives. No removal of snags in burnt forests is proposed or planned under this project 

as an action. In addition, Gaines et al. 2003 did not identify motorized trails as a factor affecting snags 

for primary excavators such as the black-backed woodpecker. No effects to black-backed woodpecker 

habitat (burnt snags) as defined in Table 104 would occur as a result of this project.

Hairy Woodpecker (Category 2)–This Project does contain snags in green forests; however, this 

habitat or ecosystem component will not be affected as a part of the proposed action or alternatives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

294 – Plumas National Forest

No removal of snags in green forests is proposed or planned under this project as an action. In 

addition, Gaines et al. 2003 did not identify motorized trails as a factor affecting snags for primary 

excavators such as the hairy woodpecker. No effects to hairy woodpecker habitat as defined in Table 

104 would occur as a result of this project.

The MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the actions being 

evaluated as part of this project, identified as Category 3 in Table 104, are carried forward in this 

analysis. This analysis will evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives on the habitat of these MIS. The MIS selected for project-level MIS analysis for this

project are: aquatic macroinvertebrates, fox sparrow, mule deer, yellow warbler, Pacific tree frog, 

mountain quail, sooty grouse, California spotted owl and northern flying squirrel. The project level 

MIS analysis is incorporated by reference.

3.7.29.1 Oak Associated Hardwood and Hardwood Conifer – Mule Deer – Affected Environment

The mule deer is the only species in the Ungulate Group. Mule deer is selected as MIS on the PNF 

and the rest of the Sierra Nevada. The Plumas Land Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 

Forest Service 1988) and subsequent amendments indicate that mule deer use a mix of all 

successional stages, but the defining habitat or ecosystem component for mule deer habitat includes 

oak-associated montane hardwood and montane hardwood-conifer (MHW and MHC). Most deer on 

the PNF migrate seasonally between higher elevation summer range and low elevation winter range.

Although not required under the MIS analysis, a deer herd analysis is incorporated into the EIS since 

it responds to an internal issue of concern. In general, critical winter range, summer range and

fawning habitats represent key habitats for deer where heavier use and higher quality habitats for 

wintering and summer use are expected to occur.

Zone of Influence - Mule deer were selected as a MIS for oak associated hardwood and hardwoodconifer. The defining CWHR habitat types or ecosystem component is montane hardwood (MHW) 

and montane hardwood-conifer (MHC). These habitat types will be evaluated to determine the 

amount of habitat influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence. This zone of influence is based 

upon the Rost and Bailey’s study in Colorado, which indicated that deer were displaced within a 200-

meter distance of secondary roads. A distance of 200 meters was applied to represent the zone of 

influence related to motorized trails, since the majority of PNF roads and trails are likely most similar 

to those roads addressed in the Colorado study area. The proportion of MHW and MHC habitat 

occurring within this zone of influence was determined for each alternative. Thresholds associated 

with this measure have not been established, but relative changes in affected habitat can be evaluated 

and compared between the alternatives.

3.7.29.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects—Zone of Influence (Oak Associated Hardwood and Hardwood Conifer)

As stated above, deer were found to respond to disturbance associated with secondary motorized 

roads and trails within a 200-meter distance. Although, because deer may respond differently, 

depending on the type of route and the type of surrounding vegetation, analyzing for these variables 

can be complex. The amount of disturbance to deer depends upon the type of route, the intensity of 

use and the degree to which motorized activities overlap with deer use. The project alternatives only 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 295

consider the addition of motorized trails and mixed use to the National Forest Transportation System

(NFTS) that are native surface, which have less volume of traffic and receive lower rates of speed. 

Therefore, a zone of influence within 200 meters of proposed trails (includes mixed use) and 

unauthorized routes was used by to compare differences in the direct and indirect impacts between 

alternatives for oak associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat used by deer as represented by 

CWHR types MHW and MHC. Habitat influenced was then compared to the amount of habitat 

available Sierra Nevada wide. Although major roads (i.e., paved and surfaced roads used by 

passenger vehicles which may receive higher use levels and rates of speed, including county roads, 

state highways, etc.) may have a greater zone of influence to deer than secondary motorized routes, a 

200-meter zone of influence was used to analyze all existing motorized trails and routes consistently 

because using a greater zone of influence may result in excessive overlap in habitat when considering 

all motorized routes and therefore, overstate the effects of motorized routes. In addition, regardless of 

the amount of impact from a particular type of route (major or secondary), the impacts from existing 

trails and routes remain constant across all of the alternatives and therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of adding new routes to the NFTS is demonstrated by the relative difference between each of 

the project alternatives.

Areas that are less influenced by motorized routes are considered “security habitat,” whereas, 

areas influenced by routes are considered “zones of influence” where deer are less secure. For 

alternative comparison purposes, a simple ranking system, such as the one developed by Gaines et al. 

(2003), is used. For this purpose, less than 5 percent of MHW and MHC habitat influenced was 

ranked as a low level of road or trail influence, 5 to 10 percent of MHW and MHC habitat influenced

was ranked as a moderate level of influence and greater than 10 percent of MHW and MHC habitat 

influenced was ranked as a high level of influence. Using this ranking system, all alternatives ranked 

low in the level of motorized trail and route influence on deer’s use of MHW and MHC habitat,

where the effectiveness of MHW and MHC habitat would be minimally affected. The section below 

describes how the alternatives rank in their influence on MHW and MHC habitats. 

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to MHW and MHC habitats by affecting 1.5% (11,883 acres 

on the PNF) of the habitat type Sierra Nevada wide. These 11,883 acres will result in reduced habitat 

effectiveness from potential disturbance or avoidance behavior as a result of factors associated with 

motorized routes. Motorized proposed trails under Alternatives 4 and 5 are similar in the level of 

influence MHW and MHC habitats for deer. Within the 200-meter zone of influence MHW and MHC 

habitat are affected from 0.1% (1,127 acres) to 0.5% (3,817 acres). The effects from Alternatives 4 

and 5 represent almost 10,000 acres less of an impact on MHW and MHC habitat than Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 represents the second highest level of impact to MHW and MHC habitats, but 

represents 8,000 acres less of an impact than Alternative 1. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

296 – Plumas National Forest

Table 105. Proportion of Oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat within a 200-meter 

“Zone of Influence” of proposed trails (Alt 2, 4, 5) and Unauthorized Routes (Alt 1) by alternative.

Mule Deer MIS 

Habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Oak-associated Harwood and 

Hardwood/Conifer

809,000 11,883 3,817 2,121 1,127 1,617

Proportion of Habitat 1.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.29.1.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to mule deer include current and historic grazing of mule deer habitat; changes in 

habitat through catastrophic wildfires; timber and fuels management where cover and forage has been 

reduced or removed; and recreational activities including hunting, camping and general recreation 

activities including all forms of motorized use including 4-wheel-drive vehicles, vehicles 50” or less 

and motorcycles.

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to the mule deer within the PNF boundary. Table 106 lists only those 

projects that affect deer habitat. The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments 

including both cattle and sheep. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of 

grazing impacts on rangelands. Since 2000, over 73,345 acres of forest vegetation and fuels projects 

were completed, which consisted primarily of thinning, group selection, mastication and/or burned 

vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. The thinning treatments may result in the 

short-term reduction in cover for deer, though it is expected that in the longer term, habitat will be 

protected by reducing wildfire risk. These treatments generally do not increase forage condition for 

deer because they do not usually result in reducing the canopy cover below 40%, except for group 

selection harvest treatments on the Forest. Group selection harvests are expected to increase foraging 

habitat for mule deer. Many recent, current and future vegetation and fuels reduction projects are 

emphasizing habitat improvement for deer by removing competing conifers within oak habitats and 

aspen habitats which are designed to enhance mule deer foraging condition. Since 2000, 

approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, some of which have removed mule deer habitat 

initially, but in the long term created habitat for deer as natural succession progresses post fire. 

Currently, there is a high demand for recreational use on the PNF due to its close proximity to 

urban centers (e.g. Oroville, Chico, and Reno). The PNF provides a wide variety of recreational 

experiences including developed and dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

winter sports activities (e.g. downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling), summer OHV use 

and a variety of other non-motorized use (e.g. equestrian use, mountain biking). Recreational use on 

the PNF has significantly increased compared to the past 20 to 30 years. Because of the proximity to 

urban areas and population growth, increased recreational use on the PNF is expected to continue to 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 297

increase in the future including camping, hiking, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting and OHV use. 

This is evident due to planned recreational events (Backcountry Discovery Trail, Dual sport 

Motorcycle Recreation Event) and proposals for campground rehabilitation, trailhead improvements 

and trail projects (see Appendix C) Generally, the increase in recreational use on the PNF has the 

potential to cause an increase in negative interactions between humans and mule deer. Future increase 

in recreational use on the PNF is expected and therefore, increased disturbance to mule deer would be 

expected, particularly during the summer months. Table 106 lists present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions taken after a review of Appendix C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present 

and reasonably foreseeable projects with a description of the potential impact to mule deer and their 

habitat.

Table 106. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to mule deer from present and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects.

Project type Number of Projects Mule Deer Direct and Indirect 

Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Vegetation 

management/fuels 

reduction–

thinning, group 

select, aspen 

enhancement

30 (Empire, Slapjack, 

Basin, Grizz, Snake 

Lake, Webber’s,

Freeman, Mabie, 

Clarks, Hungarian, 

Genesee, Jackson, 

Ingalls, Big Hill, 

LaPorte, Watdog, 

Concow,French, 

Burnt Bridge, OnTop, 

Sugarberry, Meadow 

Valley, Canyon Dam, 

Corridor, Keddie, 

Hopper, Corral, Am 

Valley, Hughes, St. 

Louis)

Short-term disturbance from 

harvest activities, changes in 

cover, foraging habitat 

enhancement in aspen, meadow 

and oak habitats. 

• Short-term adverse impacts 

during harvest.

• Long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects by reduced risk of habitat 

loss from high severity wildfires.

• Beneficial cumulative effects from 

Group selection (increase in 

foraging habitat).

• Improved Oak and Aspen habitat 

for Deer.

Hazard tree 

removal

4 (Moonlight, Camp 

14, Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance/displacement during 

harvest.

None to minimal cumulative impact

Watershed 

Restoration 

21 (Sulphur-Barry, 

Cold Fire, Last 

Chance, Red Clover 

(3),Frenchman, Lake 

Davis, Nelson-Onion, 

Sulphur, Poco, Dotta, 

Meadowview, Lower 

Middle Fork, South 

Fork, Upper Indian, 

Black Gulch, 

Greenhorn, 

Wildcat/Boulder )

Short-term disturbance during 

implementation. Improve riparian 

and meadow habitat quality used 

for forage and fawning. 

Beneficial cumulative impact by 

improving long-term forage and 

fawning habitat quality.

Range Allotment 

permit renewal 

and Allotment 

Changes 

3 (Grizzly Valley, 

Grizzly Valley 

Community, Humbug, 

Dixie Valley Sheep)

Impacts from incidental browsing 

of oak/hardwoods by livestock

Cumulative impact restricted to 

browsing of no more than 20% of 

annual growth of hardwood 

seedlings and advanced 

regeneration.

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance and 

displacement of deer.

Overall benefitted deer by reducing 

level of disturbance from OHV and 

preventing impacts to deer habitat 

within summer, winter and fawning 

fawning habitats 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

298 – Plumas National Forest

Project type Number of Projects Mule Deer Direct and Indirect 

Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Energy Related 

SUP

3 (Plumas-Sierra 

Rural Electric Co-op, 

Horizon Wind Energy 

Site Testing, Pike 

County Peak 

Microwave relay)

Reduction of deer habitat from 

access road construction. 

Reduction of deer habitat on 3 

miles of road and 

disturbance/displacement of deer 

from road use.

Fire Recovery/ 

Restoration

5 (Moonlight Wheeler, 

Antelope, Portwine, 

Canyon Complex, 

Concow)

Temporary 

disturbance/displacement during 

project implementation.

None to minimal. Project will result 

in temporary displacement and 

disturbance. Overall restoration will 

be beneficial in accelerating cover 

for deer.

Private Land 

Timber Activities

Timber harvest plans, 

Coversions, Fire 

Hazard, Public Utility, 

Emergency Ops, 

Dead Fuelwood, 

Other (308,221 acres)

Habitat changes from denser 

forest conditions to more open 

canopies and changes to 

understory.

Anticipated increase in forage 

habitat, reduction in hiding or cover 

habitat. Overall, positive 

improvement in forage to cover 

ratios.

Alternative 3 

Existing OHV 

Routes (Table 

103) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 2,121 

acres of MHW and MHC habitat 

or 0.3% of the habitat Sierra 

Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category.

Open Road 

Densities

Forestwide Decrease in habitat effectiveness 

for road densities in categories of 

> 2mi/Sq Mi.

Habitat effectiveness for Deer is 

reduced based on road densities 

forest wide. 65% to 79% of the 

forest contains densities >2mi/sq 

mi

Wildlife Water 

Developments

4 Guzzlers (Johnson 

Hill, Massack, Will 

Fire, Rich)

Guzzlers provide a reliable year 

around water source for wildlife. 

Overall a benefit to deer. Provides 

a reliable water source and 

increase habitat capacity in vicinity 

of water source.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from grazing, vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and recreation, Alternative 1 poses the 

greatest risk to the 6 major deer herds on the PNF, where impacts from unauthorized route densities 

and the number of miles of unauthorized routes, as well as the impacts to oak-associated hardwood 

and hardwood/conifer are the greatest. Alternative 2 represents the second highest level of impact and 

poses a moderate risk to deer as a result of adding cumulative effects to the effects of proposed trail 

densities, proposed trail miles and impacts to oak-associated hardwood and hardwood conifer. 

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 pose the lowest risk to deer as a result of adding cumulative effects to the 

effects of proposed trail densities, proposed trail miles and impacts to oak-associated hardwood and 

hardwood conifer. 

3.7.29.1.3 Summary of Mule Deer Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the mule deer; hence, the oak-associated 

hardwood and hardwood/conifer effects analysis for this Project must be informed by both habitat and 

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution 

population status and trend data for the mule deer. This information is drawn from the detailed 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 299

information on habitat and population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report 

(USDA Forest Service 2008.

3.7.29.1.3.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 809,000 acres of oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/mixed conifer habitat 

on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Sierra Nevada. The trend is slightly increasing (within 

the last decade, changing from 5% to 7% of the acres on NFS lands). 

3.7.29.1.3.2 Population Status and Trend

The mule deer has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by herd 

monitoring (spring and fall) and hunter survey and associated modeling (CDFG 2007). California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducts surveys of deer herds in early spring to determine 

the proportion of fawns that have survived the winter and conducts fall counts to determine herd 

composition (CDFG 2007). This information, along with prior year harvest information, is used to 

estimate overall herd size, sex and age rations and the predicted number of bucks available to hunt 

(ibid). These data indicate that mule deer continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada and current 

data at the range-wide, California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although there may be 

localized declines in some herds or Deer Assessment Units (DAU), the distribution of mule deer 

populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

3.7.29.1.3.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mule Deer Trend

The cumulative range of habitat influenced consists of a low of 2,121 acres (Alternative 3) to a high 

of 14,004 acres (Alternative 1) of oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat. The other 

three alternatives fall within this range. This amount of habitat influenced equals 0.3% to 1.8% of the 

habitat available Sierra Nevada wide. Based on the small percentage of habitat influenced, this project

will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of mule 

deer across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.30 Spotted Owl: MIS Analysis

Aside from its listing as a Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species, the California spotted owl is 

designated as an MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment defined Late Seral Closed 

Canopy Coniferous Forest as the habitat component for the spotted owl. The corresponding CWHR 

types that define the habitat component are ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), 

white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), with tree and canopy cover classes 5M, 5D and 6. Pure eastside pine 

types are not considered suitable for California spotted owls. Currently, there are 994,000 acres of 

these CWHR types on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2007a). These habitat 

types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, will be analyzed based on the amount of habitat 

influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence.

3.7.30.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Late seral closed canopy coniferous forest do occur in close proximity to unauthorized routes, 

existing motorized trails and proposed trails (Table 107). Of the five alternatives analyzed for impacts 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

300 – Plumas National Forest

to this MIS habitat type, Alternative 1 posed the highest level of impact affecting approximately 4.2% 

of the habitat Sierra Nevada wide. Under this alternative, 41,703 acres of late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest habitat occurs within 200 meters of unauthorized routes. The quality and use of this 

habitat type by spotted owls will be affected through increased noise levels, disturbance and 

displacement. Alternative 2 has the second highest level of effects (1.5%) to late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest habitat. Alternative 4 poses the lesser risk than Alternatives 2 and 5 by affecting 

only 0.8% of the habitat. 

Table 107. Proportion of California spotted owl Management Indicator Species habitat within a 200-

meter “Zone of Influence” by motorized unauthorized routes, existing trails and proposed trails.

California spotted 

owl MIS habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Late Seral Closed Canopy 

Coniferous forest

994,000 41,703 14,533 6,214 7,971 9,221

Proportion of Habitat 4.2% 1.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%) 

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.30.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to late seral closed canopy coniferous forests include loss of habitat through 

catastrophic wildfires; timber and fuels management where canopy cover and nesting and foraging 

habitat has been reduced or removed.

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to late seral closed canopy coniferous forests within the PNF boundary.

Projects of a small isolated scale found in Appendix C, such as hazard tree removal, trail 

maintenance, recreation improvements or special uses, are not included due the fact that they are 

insignificant and discountable and do not present a risk to spotted owls. Since 2000, over 73,345 acres 

of forest vegetation and fuels projects were completed, which consisted of group selection, understory 

thinning, mastication and/or burned vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. 

These treatments affect less than 10% of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest. These thinning 

treatments may result in the short-term reduction of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest, though 

it is expected that in the longer term, habitat will be protected by reducing wildfire risk. Since 2000, 

approximately 266,963 acres have burned on the PNF, some of which has removed late seral closed 

canopy coniferous forest for the next 50 to 70 years. 

Table 108 lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken after a review of Appendix 

C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects and a 

description of the potential impact to late seral closed canopy coniferous forests.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 301

Table 108. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to spotted owls from present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

Project type Number of Projects spotted owl Direct and 

Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Vegetation 

management/fuels 

reduction–

thinning, group 

select, aspen 

enhancement

30 (Empire, Slapjack, 

Basin, Grizz, Snake 

Lake, Webber’s,

Freeman, Mabie, 

Clarks, Hungarian, 

Genesee, Jackson, 

Ingalls, Big Hill, 

LaPorte, Watdog, 

Concow,French, Burnt

Bridge, OnTop, 

Sugarberry, Meadow 

Valley, Canyon Dam, 

Corridor, Keddie, 

Hopper, Corral, Am 

Valley, Hughes, St 

Louis)

Small decreases (<10%) in 

late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest outside of 

PACs/SOHAs. 

Short-term adverse impacts during 

harvest.

Long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects by reduced risk of habitat 

loss from high severity wildfires.

Hazard tree 

removal

4 (Moonlight, Camp 14, 

Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact or disturbance 

during harvest.

No impact to late seral closed 

canopy coniferous forest

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to crosscountry travel. Lessened 

disturbance and displacement 

of owls.

Overall benefit to late seral closed 

canopy coniferous forest by 

eliminating effects to habitat quality.

Private Land 

Timber Activities

Timber harvest plans, 

Coversions, Fire 

Hazard, Public Utility, 

Emergency Ops, Dead 

Fuelwood, Other 

(308,221 acres)

Habitat changes from denser 

forest conditions to more 

open canopies and changes 

to understory.

Anticipated decrease in nesting 

habitat, and increases towards 

foraging habitat or non-suitable 

habitat.

Alternative 3 

Existing OHV 

Routes (Table 108) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 6,214 

acres of Late Seral Closed 

Canopy habitat or 0.6% of the 

habitat Sierra Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category for all 

alternatives.

Fire Recovery/ 

Restoration

5 (Moonlight Wheeler, 

Antelope, Portwine, 

Canyon Complex, 

Concow)

Short term impacts limited to 

presence of planting crews. 

Direct and indirect impacts 

non-detectable.

None to minimal. Overall 

restoration will be beneficial in 

accelerating future habitat for owl.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and miscellaneous projects, Alternative 1 poses the 

greatest risk to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, 5M, 5D and 6) by 

affecting more of this habitat type within the 200-meter zone of influence than any other alternative 

(47,917 acres). Alternative 3 poses the least risk when all cumulative effects are considered. All other 

action alternatives (2, 4 and 5) pose a moderate to low risk to late seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest, with cumulative effects ranging from 14,185 acres under Alternative 4 to 20,747 acres under 

Alternative 2.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

302 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.30.2.1 Summary of California spotted owl Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the California spotted owl; hence, the late 

seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir and red fir) 

habitat effects analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population 

monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and 

trend data. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends 

in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008).

3.7.30.2.1.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 994,000 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, 

Sierran mixed conifer, white fir and red fir) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. The trend is 

slightly increasing (from 7% to 9% within the last decade on NFS lands).

3.7.30.2.1.2 Population Status and Trend

California spotted owl has been monitored in California and throughout the Sierra Nevada through 

general surveys, monitoring of nests and territorial birds and demography studies (Verner et al. 1992; 

USDA Forest Service 2001, 2004, 2006; USFWS 2006; Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007). 

Current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although there may 

be localized declines in population trend (i.e. localized decreases in “lambda” the estimated annual 

rate of population change), the distribution of California spotted owl populations in the Sierra Nevada 

is stable.

3.7.30.2.1.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trends

This project will have a total cumulative effect of 47,917 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest habitat under Alternative 1 (high) and 6,214 acres under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres 

affected within the 200-meter zone of influence, which range from 0.6% to 4.8% of the total habitat 

Sierra Nevada wide, this project area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of California spotted owl across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.31 Northern Flying Squirrel: MIS Analysis

The northern flying squirrel is designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment 

defined late seral closed canopy coniferous forest as the habitat component for the northern flying 

squirrel. The corresponding CWHR types that define the habitat component are ponderosa pine 

(PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), with tree and canopy cover 

classes 5M, 5D and 6. Currently, there are 994,000 acres of these CWHR types across NFS lands in 

the Sierra Nevada. These habitat types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, will be analyzed based

on the amount of habitat influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence. 

3.7.31.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Late seral closed canopy coniferous forest occurs in close proximity to unauthorized routes, existing 

motorized trails and proposed trails. Of the five alternatives analyzed for impacts to this MIS habitat 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 303

type, Alternative 1 posed the highest level of impact affecting approximately 4.2% of the habitat 

Sierra Nevada wide (Table 109). Under this alternative, 41,703 acres of late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest habitat occurs within 200 meters of unauthorized routes. The quality and use of this 

habitat type by spotted owls would be affected through increased noise levels, disturbance and 

displacement. Alternative 2 has the second highest level of effects (1.5%) to late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest habitat. Alternative 4 poses the lesser risk than Alternatives 2 and 5 by affecting 

only 0.8% of the habitat. 

Table 109. Proportion of Northern Flying Squirrel MIS habitat within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” 

of unauthorized routes, existing motorized trails and proposed trails.

Northern flying 

squirrel MIS 

habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Late Seral Closed Canopy 

Coniferous Forest

994,000 41,703 14,533 6,214 7,971 9,221

Proportion of Habitat 4.2% 1.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.31.1.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to late seral closed canopy coniferous forests include loss of habitat through 

catastrophic wildfires; timber and fuels management where canopy cover and nesting and foraging 

habitat has been reduced or removed.

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to late seral closed canopy coniferous forests within the PNF boundary. 

Projects of a small isolated scale found in Appendix C, such as hazard tree removal, trail 

maintenance, recreation improvements or special uses, are not included due the fact that they are 

insignificant and discountable and do not present a risk to flying squirrels.

Since 2000, over 73,345 acres of forest vegetation and fuels projects were completed, which 

consisted of group selection, understory thinning, mastication and/or burned vegetation to reduce the 

potential for catastrophic wildfires. These treatments affect less than 10% of late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest. These thinning treatments may result in the short-term reduction in late seral closed 

canopy coniferous forest, though it is expected that in the longer term, habitat will be protected by 

reducing wildfire risk. Since 2000, approximately 266,963 acres have burned on the PNF, some of 

which has removed late seral closed canopy coniferous forest for the next 50-70 years. 

Table 110 lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken after a review of Appendix 

C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects and a 

description of the potential impact to late seral closed canopy coniferous forests.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

304 – Plumas National Forest

Table 110. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to Northern flying squirrel from present and 

reasonably foreseeable projects.

Project type Number of Projects Northern Flying Squirrel

Direct and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Vegetation 

management/fuels 

reduction–thinning, 

group select, 

aspen 

enhancement

30 (Empire, Slapjack, 

Basin, Grizz, Snake 

Lake, Webber’s,

Freeman, Mabie, 

Clarks, Hungarian, 

Genesee, Jackson, 

Ingalls, Big Hill, 

LaPorte, Watdog, 

Concow,French, Burnt 

Bridge, OnTop, 

Sugarberry, Meadow 

Valley, Canyon Dam, 

Corridor, Keddie, 

Hopper, Corral, Am 

Valley, Hughes, St. 

Louis)

Small decreases (<10%) in late 

seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest outside of PACs/SOHAs. 

Short-term adverse impacts during 

harvest.

Long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects by reduced risk of habitat 

loss from high severity wildfires.

Hazard tree 

removal

4 (Moonlight, Camp 

14, Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact or disturbance 

during harvest.

No impact to late seral closed 

canopy coniferous forest

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance 

and displacement of squirrels.

Overall benefit to late seral closed 

canopy coniferous forest by 

eliminating effects to habitat quality.

Private Land 

Timber Activities

Timber harvest plans, 

Coversions, Fire 

Hazard, Public Utility, 

Emergency Ops, Dead 

Fuelwood, Other. 

(308,221 acres)

Habitat changes from denser 

forest conditions to more open 

canopies and changes to 

understory.

Anticipated decrease in nesting 

habitat, and increases towards 

foraging habitat or non-suitable 

habitat.

Alternative 3 

Existing OHV 

Routes (Table 

109) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 6,214 

acres of Late Seral Closed 

Canopy habitat or 0.6% of the 

habitat Sierra Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category for all 

alternatives.

Fire Recovery/ 

Restoration

5 (Moonlight Wheeler, 

Antelope, Portwine, 

Canyon Complex, 

Concow)

Short term impacts limited to 

presence of planting crews. 

Direct and indirect impacts nondetectable.

None to minimal. Overall 

restoration will be beneficial in 

accelerating future habitat for 

Northern Flying Squirrel.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and miscellaneous projects, Alternative 1 poses the 

greatest risk to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, 5M, 5D and 6) by 

affecting more of this habitat type within the 200-meter zone of influence than any other alternative 

(47,917 acres). Alternative 3 poses the least risk when all cumulative effects are considered. All other 

action alternatives (2, 4 and 5) pose a moderate to low risk to late seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest, with cumulative effects ranging from 14,185 acres under Alternative 4 to 20,747 acres under 

Alternative 2.

3.7.31.1.3 Summary of Northern Flying Squirrel Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the northern flying squirrel; hence, the late 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 305

seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir and red fir) 

habitat effects analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population 

monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and 

trend data. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends 

in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008).

3.7.31.1.3.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 994,000 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, 

Sierran mixed conifer, white fir and red fir) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. The trend is 

slightly increasing (from 7% to 9% within the last decade on NFS lands).

3.7.31.1.3.2 Population Status and Trend Northern Flying Squirrel

The northern flying squirrel has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by 

live-trapping, ear-tagging, camera surveys, snap-trapping and radio telemetry: 2002-present on the 

Plumas and Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007) and 1958-2004 

throughout the Sierra Nevada in various monitoring efforts and studies (see USDA Forest Service 

2008, Table NOFLS-IV-1). These data indicate that northern flying squirrels continue to be present at 

these sample sites and current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate 

that the distribution of northern flying squirrel populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

3.7.31.1.3.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trends. 

This project will have a total cumulative effect of 47,917 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest habitat under Alternative 1 (high) and 6,214 acres under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres 

affected within the 200-meter zone of influence, which range from 0.6% to 4.8 % of the total habitat 

Sierra Nevada wide, this project will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of northern flying squirrel cross the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.31.2 Sooty (Blue) Grouse: MIS Analysis

The sooty grouse is designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment defined 

late seral open canopy coniferous forest as the habitat component for the sooty grouse. The 

corresponding CWHR types that define the habitat component are ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), with tree and canopy 

cover classes 5S and 5P. Currently, there are 75,000 acres of these CWHR types on NFS lands across 

the Sierra Nevada. These habitat types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, will be analyzed based 

on the amount of habitat influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence. 

3.7.31.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 affects the most late seral open canopy coniferous 

forest within the 200-meter zone of influence (Table 111). Alternative 1 affects approximately 1,541 

acres or 2.0% of the habitat available Sierra Nevada wide. Effects will be displayed in the form of 

disturbance, displacement or through avoidance of available late seral open canopy coniferous forest. 

Alternative 2 has the second highest effect with 499 acres (0.6%) of late seral open canopy coniferous 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

306 – Plumas National Forest

forest being influenced by proposed trails. Alternatives 4 and 5 appear to have similar effects that 

range from 220 acres (0.3%) to 314 acres (0.4%).

Table 111. Proportion of sooty grouse MIS habitat within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” of 

Unauthorized Routes, Existing Motorized Trails and Proposed Trails

Sooty Grouse 

MIS habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Late Seral Open Canopy 

Coniferous Forest

75,000 1,541 499 508 220 314

Proportion of Habitat 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.31.2.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to sooty grouse include loss of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; timber and 

fuels management where cover and forage have been reduced or removed.

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to sooty grouse within the PNF boundary. Projects of a small isolated scale 

found in Appendix C, such as hazard tree removal, trail maintenance, recreation improvements or 

special uses, are not included due the fact that they are insignificant and discountable and do not 

present a risk to sooty grouse. Since 2000, over 73,345 acres of forest vegetation and fuels projects 

were completed, which consisted of group selection, thinning, mastication and/or burned vegetation 

to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. These vegetation treatments may have resulted in 

some limited increases in late seral open canopy coniferous forest since canopy cover is generally not 

reduced below 40%, except in group selection units where at least 10% of the canopy cover has been 

retained. However, these treatments are expected in the longer term to benefit this habitat type by 

reducing wildfire risk. Since 2000, approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, some of which 

has removed late seral open canopy coniferous forest. Table 112 lists present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions taken after a review of Appendix C and summarizes cumulative impacts 

from present and reasonably foreseeable projects with a description of the potential impact to sooty 

grouse and their habitat.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 307

Table 112. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to sooty grouse from present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

Project type Number of Projects Sooty Grouse Direct and 

Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Vegetation 

management/fuels 

reduction – thinning, 

group select and aspen 

enhancement

30 (Empire, Slapjack, 

Basin, Grizz, Snake 

Lake, Webber’s,

Freeman, Mabie, 

Clarks, Hungarian, 

Genesee, Jackson, 

Ingalls, Big Hill, 

LaPorte, Watdog, 

Concow,French, Burnt 

Bridge, OnTop, 

Sugarberry, Meadow 

Valley, Canyon Dam, 

Corridor, Keddie, 

Hopper, Corral, Am 

Valley, Hughes, St. 

Louis)

Direct and Indirect impacts 

limited due to treatments 

not reducing habitat below 

40% canopy cover. 

• Short-term adverse impacts 

during harvest.

• Long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects by reduced risk of habitat 

loss from high severity wildfires.

Hazard tree removal 4 (Moonlight, Camp 

14, Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance during harvest.

None to minimal cumulative impact

Temporary OHV Forest 

Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to crosscountry travel. Lessened 

disturbance and 

displacement of Grouse.

Overall benefit to late seral open 

canopy coniferous forest by 

eliminating effects to habitat quality.

Private Land Timber 

Activities

Timber harvest plans, 

Conversions, Fire 

Hazard, Public Utility, 

Emergency Ops, Dead 

Fuelwood, Other 

(308,221 acres)

Habitat changes from 

denser forest conditions to 

more open canopies and 

changes to understory.

Anticipated increase in open forest 

habitat conditions that would 

benefit the Sooty Grouse.

Alternative 3 Existing 

OHV Routes (Table 

111) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 508 

acres of late seral open 

canopy habitat or 0.6% of 

the habitat Sierra Nevada 

wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category.

Fire Recovery/ 

Restoration

5 (Moonlight Wheeler, 

Antelope, Portwine, 

Canyon Complex, 

Concow)

Short term impacts limited 

to presence of planting 

crews. Direct and indirect 

impacts non-detectable.

None to minimal. Overall 

restoration will be beneficial in 

accelerating hiding cover and 

promoting future habitat.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and miscellaneous resource projects, Alternative 1 

poses the greatest risk to late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat on the PNF, when direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects are considered. Alternative 2 poses a slightly higher risk than 

Alternatives 4 and 5 to late seral open canopy coniferous forest, but all three are considered to pose a 

moderate risk when direct, indirect and cumulative effects are considered. Alternative 3 has the least 

risk to this habitat type when direct, indirect and cumulative effects are considered.

3.7.31.2.3 Summary of Sooty Grouse Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the sooty grouse; hence, the late seral open 

canopy coniferous forest effects analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

308 – Plumas National Forest

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution 

population status and trend data for the sooty grouse. This information is drawn from the detailed 

information on habitat and population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report

(USDA Forest Service 2008).

3.7.31.2.3.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 75,000 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran 

mixed conifer, white fir, red fir and eastside pine) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. The 

trend is slightly decreasing (from 3% to 1% within the last decade on NFS lands).

3.7.31.2.3.2 Population Status and Trend

The sooty grouse has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter 

survey, modeling, point counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including California Department 

of Fish and Game Blue (Sooty) Grouse Surveys (Bland 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006); California 

Department of Fish and Game hunter survey, modeling and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG 

2004a, CDFG 2004b); multi-species inventory and monitoring on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit (LTBMU 2007); and from 1968 to present–BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et 

al. 2007). These data indicate that sooty grouse continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada, 

except in the area south of the Kern Gap and current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra 

Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of sooty grouse populations in the Sierra Nevada north of 

the Kern Gap is stable.

3.7.31.2.3.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trend

This project will have a total cumulative effect of 2,049 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous 

forest habitat under Alternative 1 (high) and 508 acres under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres 

affected, which range from 0.6% to 2.6% of the total habitat Sierra Nevada wide, this project area will 

not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of sooty grouse 

across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.32 Mountain Quail: MIS Analysis

The mountain quail is designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment defined 

two habitat components; early seral coniferous forest and mid seral coniferous forest for the mountain 

quail. The corresponding CWHR types that define the habitat component for early seral are ponderosa 

pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR) and eastside pine (EPN) 

with tree sizes 1, 2 and 3 and all canopy closures. The corresponding CWHR types that define the 

habitat component for mid seral are ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR) and eastside pine (EPN) with tree size 4 and all canopy closures. Currently, 

there are 546,000 acres of early seral coniferous forest habitat and 2,766,000 acres of mid seral 

coniferous forest on NFS lands Sierra Nevada wide. These habitat types, for the purpose of this MIS 

analysis, will be analyzed based on the amount of habitat influenced within a 200-meter zone of 

influence. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 309

3.7.32.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on the amount of habitat influenced within the 200-meter zone of influence, Alternative 1 

affects the most habitat for both early seral (15,087 acres) and mid seral (74,616 acres) coniferous

forest (Table 113 and Table 114). For early seral coniferous forest habitat, Alternative 2 affects 4,962 

acres (0.9%), the second most habitat of all of the action alternatives. Alternatives 4 and 5 have a 

similar level of effects to early seral coniferous forest that range from 2,864 acres (0.5%) to 3,914 

acres (0.7%). For mid seral coniferous forest, Alternative 2 has the second highest effect on this 

habitat type with 22,355 acres (0.8%). Alternatives 4 and 5 have less of an effect on mid seral habitats 

than Alternative 2 and range from 12,910 acres (0.5 %) to 15,600 (0.5%). 

Table 113. Proportion of mountain quail MIS habitat (early seral) within a 200-meter “Zone of 

Influence” of unauthorized routes, existing motorized trails and proposed trails.

Mountain quail 

MIS habitat 

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Early Seral Coniferous Forest 546,000 15,087 4,962 1,414 2,864 3,914

Proportion of Habitat 2.7% 0.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

Table 114. Proportion of mountain quail MIS habitat (mid seral) within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” 

of unauthorized routes, existing motorized trails and proposed trails.

Mountain quail 

MIS habitat 

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Mid Seral Coniferous Forest 2,766,000 74,616 22,355 5,843 12,910 15,600

Proportion of Habitat 2.7% 0.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.32.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to early and mid seral coniferous forest includes loss of habitat through 

catastrophic wildfires; timber and fuels management where habitat has been reduced or removed.

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Projects of a small isolated scale 

found in Appendix C, such as hazard tree removal, trail maintenance, recreation improvements or 

special uses, are not included due the fact that they are insignificant and discountable and do not 

present a risk to mountain quail. Since 2000, over 73,345 acres of forest vegetation and fuels projects 

were completed, which consisted of group selection, thinning, mastication and/or burned vegetation 

to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. These treatments generally modified some early or 

mid seral habitat for quail either through group selection or thinning. Group selection harvests 

generally increase the early seral habitat for quail. After group selection, the units or acres harvested 

result in a tree size 1 condition (early seral). Thinning treatments overall, modify some size class 4 

stands to size class 3 stands, essentially moving mid seral habitat to early seral habitat. The burning 

and mastication treatments may result in the short-term reduction in cover for quail, though it is 

expected that in the longer term, early seral habitat will be created and protected by reducing wildfire 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

310 – Plumas National Forest

risk. Since 2000 approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, most of which has created early 

seral conditions that have benefited quail. 

Table 115 lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken after a review of Appendix 

C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects with a 

description of the potential impact to mountain quail and their habitat.

Table 115. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to mountain quail from present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

Project type Number of Projects Mountain Quail Direct and 

Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Vegetation 

management/fuels 

reduction – thinning, 

group select and 

aspen enhancement

30 (Empire, Slapjack, 

Basin, Grizz, Snake 

Lake, Webber’s,

Freeman, Mabie, 

Clarks, Hungarian, 

Genesee, Jackson, 

Ingalls, Big Hill, 

LaPorte, Watdog, 

Concow,French, 

Burnt Bridge, OnTop, 

Sugarberry, Meadow 

Valley, Canyon Dam, 

Corridor, Keddie, 

Hopper, Corral, Am 

Valley, Hughes, St. 

Louis)

Short-term disturbance from 

harvest activities, increases in 

early seral habitat from group 

selection harvest and shifts in 

mid seral habitat toward early 

seral. 

Short-term adverse impacts during 

harvest.

Long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects by reduced risk of habitat 

loss from high severity wildfires.

Hazard tree removal 4 (Moonlight, Camp 

14, Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance during harvest.

None to minimal cumulative impact

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance 

and displacement of quail.

Overall benefit to early and mid 

seral coniferous forest by 

eliminating effects to habitat quality.

Private Land Timber 

Activities

Timber harvest plans, 

Coversions, Fire 

Hazard, Public Utility, 

Emergency Ops, 

Dead Fuelwood, 

Other (308,221 acres)

Habitat changes from denser 

forest conditions to more open 

canopies and changes to 

understory.

Anticipated increases in foraging 

habitat. 

Alternative 3 Existing 

OHV Routes (Table 

113) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 1,414 

acres of early seral habitat or 

0.2% of the habitat Sierra 

Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category.

Alternative 3 Existing 

OHV Routes (

Table 114) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 5,843 

acres of mid seral habitat or 

0.2% of the habitat Sierra 

Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category.

Wildlife Water 

Developments

4 Guzzlers (Johnson 

Hill, Massack, Will 

Fire, Rich)

Guzzlers provide a reliable 

year around water source for 

wildlife. 

Overall a benefit to Mt. Quail. 

Provides a reliable water source 

and increases habitat capacity in 

vicinity of water source for quail

Fire Recovery/ 

Restoration

5 (Moonlight Wheeler, 

Antelope, Portwine, 

Canyon Complex, 

Concow)

Short term impacts limited to 

presence of planting crews. 

Direct and indirect impacts 

non-detectable.

MIS most benefitted by reovery and 

restoration actions since early and 

mid seral haibtats will be 

accelerated.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and miscellaneous resource projects, Alternative 1 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 311

poses the greatest risk to early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat, where 2.9% of early and mid 

seral coniferous forest habitat is affected and added with cumulative effects. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 

are similar in their effects to early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat when direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects are combined. Alternative 3 poses the least risk to early and mid seral habitat when 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects are combined. 

3.7.32.2.1 Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the mountain quail; hence, the early and mid 

seral coniferous forest effects analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and 

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution 

population status and trend data for the mountain quail. This information is drawn from the detailed 

information on habitat and population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report

(USDA Forest Service 2008).

3.7.32.2.1.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 546,000 acres of early seral and 2,766,000 acres of mid seral coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir and red fir) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra 

Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend for early seral is slightly decreasing (from 9% to 5% of the 

acres on NFS lands) and the trend for mid seral is slightly increasing (from 21% to 25% of the acres 

on NFS lands). 

3.7.32.2.1.2 Population Status and Trend

The mountain quail has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter 

survey, modeling and breeding bird survey protocols, including California Department of Fish and 

Game hunter survey, modeling and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG 2004a, CDFG 2004b) and 

1968 to present–BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that 

mountain quail continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada and current data at the range-wide, 

California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of mountain quail populations in the 

Sierra Nevada is stable.

3.7.32.2.1.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mountain Quail 

Trend

This project will have a total cumulative effect of 96,960 acres of early and mid seral coniferous 

forest habitat under Alternative 1 (high) and 7,257 acres under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres 

affected, which range from 0.4% to 5.8% of the total early and mid seral habitat Sierra Nevada wide, 

this project would not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the 

distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.32.3 Pacific Tree Frog: MIS Analysis

The Pacific tree frog is designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment defined 

wet meadow as the habitat component for the Pacific tree frog. The corresponding CWHR types that 

define the habitat component are wet meadow (WTM) and freshwater emergent wetland (FEW).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

312 – Plumas National Forest

Currently, there are 66,000 acres of these CWHR types on NFS lands throughout the Sierra Nevada.

These habitat types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, will be analyzed based on the amount of 

habitat influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence on unauthorized routes, existing motorized 

trails and proposed trails. 

3.7.32.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on the analysis conducted, direct and indirect effects in the form of disturbance, displacement 

and/or decrease in habitat quality based on the proximity of unauthorized routes is greatest under 

Alternative 1, which results in effects to 1,469 acres of wet meadow or 2.2% of the habitat Sierra 

Nevada wide (Table 116). Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 all pose a similar level of effects to wet meadow 

habitat by affecting 390 acres (0.6%) to 71 acres (0.1%) of wet meadow habitat available Sierra 

Nevada wide. 

Table 116. Proportion of Pacific tree frog MIS habitat that lies within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” of 

unauthorized routes, existing motorized trails and proposed trails.

Pacific tree frog 

MIS habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Wet Meadow 66,000 1,469 390 28 71 132

Proportion of Habitat 2.2% 0.6% 0.04% 0.1% 0.2%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.32.3.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to Pacific tree frog habitat include current and historic livestock grazing; 

watershed/stream restoration projects and recreational activities including hunting, camping and 

general recreation activities including all forms of motorized use including 4-wheel-drive vehicles, 

vehicles 50” or less and motorcycles.

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to wet meadows within the PNF boundary. Miscellaneous resource projects, 

such as watershed restoration or fish passage projects have a beneficial impact to wet meadow habitat 

and to Pacific tree frogs.

The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments including both cattle and sheep. 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of grazing impacts on rangelands. Wet 

meadows that are grazed are often maintained in the lower herbaceous height levels (i.e. 4 to 6 

inches) affecting habitat quality in wet meadows.

Currently, there is a high demand for recreational use on the PNF due to its close proximity to 

urban centers (e.g. Oroville, Chico, and Reno). The PNF provides a wide variety of recreational 

experiences including developed and dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

winter sports activities (e.g. downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling), summer OHV use 

and a variety of other non-motorized use (e.g. equestrian use and mountain biking). Recreational use 

on the PNF has significantly increased compared to the past 20 to 30 years. Because of the proximity 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 313

to urban areas and population growth, increased recreational use on the PNF is expected to continue 

to increase in the future including camping, hiking, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting and OHV use. 

This is evident due to planned recreational events (Backcountry Discovery Trail, Dual sport 

Motorcycle Recreation Event) and proposals for campground rehabilitation, trailhead improvements 

and trail projects (see Appendix C). This increase is expected to affect wet meadows through 

encroachment of recreational use, dispersed camping and general public use.

Table 117 lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken after a review of Appendix 

C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects and a 

description of the potential impact to wet meadow habitat.

Table 117. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to Pacific tree frogs from present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

Project type Number of Projects Pacific tree frog Direct and 

Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Watershed 

Restoration 

21 (Sulphur-Barry, 

Cold Fire, Last 

Chance, Red Clover 

(3),Frenchman, Lake 

Davis, NelsonOnion, Sulphur, 

Poco, Dotta, 

Meadowview, Lower 

Middle Fork, South 

Fork, Upper Indian, 

Black Gulch, 

Greenhorn, 

Wildcat/Boulder )

Short-term disturbance during 

implementation. Improved 

riparian and meadow habitat 

quality. 

Beneficial watershed and habitat 

quality.

Range Allotment 

permit renewal and 

Allotment Changes

4 (Grizzly Valley, 

Grizzly Valley 

Community, 

Humbug, Dixie 

Valley Sheep)

Maintenance of lower 

herbaceous height levels (4-6 

inches) 

Wet meadow habitat maintained at 

lower habitat quality.

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance 

and displacement of Pacific tree 

frogs.

Overall benefit to wet meadow 

habitat by eliminating effects to 

habitat quality.

Alternative 3 Existing 

OHV Routes (Table 

116) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 28 acres 

of wet meadow habitat or 0.04% 

of the habitat Sierra Nevada 

wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from grazing, recreation and miscellaneous resource projects and adding those effects to 

direct and indirect effects, Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to wet meadow habitats (1,497 acres). 

Alternative 3 poses the least risk to wet meadow habitat, as it maintains only those routes authorized 

under the Plumas NF Plan. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 have a slightly higher impact than Alternative 3, 

since the effects of Alternative 3 are added to each of the three alternatives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

314 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.32.3.3 Summary of Pacific tree frog Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Pacific tree frog; hence, the wet meadow 

effects analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population 

monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and 

trend data for the Pacific tree frog. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat 

and population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 

2008).

3.7.32.3.3.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 66,000 acres of wet meadow habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within 

the last decade, the trend is stable. 

3.7.32.3.3.2 Population Status and Trend

Since 2002, the Pacific tree frog has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada Forests as part of the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan (USDA Forest Service 2006, 2007b; 

Brown 2008). These data indicate that Pacific tree frog continues to be present at these sample sites 

and current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution 

of Pacific tree frog populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

3.7.32.3.3.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Pacific tree frog 

Trend

This project will have a total cumulative effect of 1,497 acres of wet meadow habitat (WTM and 

FEW) under Alternative 1 (high) and 28 acres under Alternative 3 (low) that lie within a 200 meter 

zone of influence from proposed, existing and unauthorized routes. Based on the acres affected, 

which range between 0.04% and 2.24% of the total habitat Sierra Nevada wide, this project would not 

alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of Pacific tree 

frogs across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.33 Yellow Warbler: MIS Analysis

The yellow warbler is designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment defined 

Riparian as the habitat component for the yellow warbler. The corresponding CWHR types that define 

the habitat component are montane riparian (MRI) and valley foothill riparian (VRI). Currently, there 

are 29,000 acres of these CWHR types on NFS lands throughout the Sierra Nevada. These habitat 

types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, will be analyzed based on the amount of habitat 

influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence on unauthorized routes, existing motorized trails and 

proposed trails.

3.7.33.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on the analysis conducted of riparian habitat and the amount of habitat influenced directly and 

indirectly as a result of habitat disturbance, displacement and/or reduced habitat quality, Alternative 1 

affects 1,818 acres of riparian habitat or 6.3% of the habitat available Sierra Nevada wide (Table 118). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 315

Alternatives 2 and 5 are similar in their effects to riparian habitat, were direct and indirect effects 

range from 427 acres (1.5%) to 351 acres (1.2%). Alternative 4 represents the least risk to riparian 

habitat by affecting only 195 acres (0.7%).

Table 118. Proportion of yellow warbler MIS habitat within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” on 

unauthorized routes, existing motorized trails and proposed trails.

Yellow warbler 

MIS habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Riparian 29,000 1,818 427 274 195 351

Proportion of Habitat 6.3% 1.5% 0.9% 0.7% 1.2%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Moderate Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.33.1.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to yellow warbler include current and historic livestock grazing; loss of habitat 

through catastrophic wildfires; recreational activities including hunting, camping and general 

recreation activities including all forms of motorized use including 4-wheel- drive vehicles, vehicles 

50 inches or less and motorcycles.

The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments including both cattle and sheep. 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of grazing impacts on rangelands. 

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to riparian habitat within the PNF boundary. Since 2000 approximately 

266,963 acres have burned on the PNF, some of which have temporarily removed or set back riparian 

habitat to earlier seral stages. 

Currently, there is a high demand for recreational use on the PNF due to its close proximity to 

urban centers (e.g. Oroville, Chico, and Reno). The PNF provides a wide variety of recreational 

experiences including developed and dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

winter sports activities (e.g. downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling), summer OHV use 

and a variety of other non-motorized use (e.g. equestrian use, mountain biking). Recreational use on 

the PNF has significantly increased compared to the past 20 to 30 years. Because of the proximity to 

urban areas and population growth, increased recreational use on the PNF is expected to continue to 

increase in the future including camping, hiking, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting and OHV use. 

Generally, the increase in recreational use on the PNF has the potential to cause an increase in 

negative interactions between humans and riparian habitats. Future increase in recreational use on the 

PNF is expected and therefore, increased disturbance to riparian habitat would be expected, 

particularly during the summer months. The following table lists present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions taken after a review of Appendix C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present 

and reasonably foreseeable projects with a description of the potential impact to the yellow warbler 

and riparian habitat.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

316 – Plumas National Forest

Table 119. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to yellow warbler riparian habitat from present and 

reasonably foreseeable projects

Project type Number of Projects Yellow Warbler Riparian Habitat 

Direct and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Watershed 

Restoration 

21 (Sulphur-Barry, 

Cold Fire, Last 

Chance, Red Clover 

(3),Frenchman, Lake 

Davis, NelsonOnion, Sulphur, 

Poco, Dotta, 

Meadowview, Lower 

Middle Fork, South 

Fork, Upper Indian, 

Black Gulch, 

Greenhorn, 

Wildcat/Boulder)

Short-term disturbance during 

implementation. Improved riparian 

and meadow habitat quality. 

Beneficial cumulative impact by 

improving long-term riparian 

habitat quality.

Range Allotment 

permit renewal and 

Allotment Changes

4 (Grizzly Valley, 

Grizzly Valley 

Community, 

Humbug, Dixie 

Valley Sheep)

Impacts to riparian shrubs and 

seedlings from livestock browsing. 

Reduction in available habitat.

Cumulative impact from 

livestock grazing on riparian 

shrubs and seedlings up to 20% 

(2004 SNFPA Standard and 

Guideline)

Tall Whitetop 

Treatments

2 (Tall Whitetop 

Herbicide and Goat 

Grazing)

Short term impacts during 

treatments, but long term benefits 

to riparian habitat from eradication 

of Tall Whitetop.

Cumulative impact should be 

minimal and short term. Long 

term benefits outweigh any 

short term impacts.

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance and 

displacement of yellow warblers.

Overall benefit to wet meadow 

habitat by eliminating effects to 

riparian habitat quality.

Alternative 3 Existing 

OHV Routes (Table 

118) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 274 acres 

of riparian habitat or 0.9% of the 

habitat Sierra Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those 

shown for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 

and 5. Habitat rankings remain 

Moderate for Alternative 1 and 

Low for Alternatives 2, 4 and 5.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from grazing, wildfires, recreation and watershed/stream projects, Alternative 1 poses the 

greatest risk to riparian habitat where 2,092 acres are impacted directly, indirectly and cumulatively. 

Alternatives 2 and 5 are all similar in impacts when direct, indirect and cumulative effects are 

considered. Alternative 4 is the lowest risk of the action alternatives, while Alternative 3 represents 

the least risk to riparian habitats when direct, indirect and cumulative effects are considered since no 

new trails will be added under Alternative 3. 

3.7.33.1.3 Summary of Yellow Warbler Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the yellow warbler; hence, the riparian habitat 

effects analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population 

monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and 

trend data for the yellow warbler. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat 

and population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 

2008).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 317

3.7.33.1.4 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 29,000 acres of riparian habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within the last 

decade, the trend is stable. 

3.7.33.1.5 Population Status and Trend

The yellow warbler has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian 

point counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including Lassen NF (Burnett and Humple 2003, 

Burnett et al. 2005) and Inyo NF (Heath and Ballard 2003) point counts; on-going California Partners 

in Flight monitoring and studies (CPIF 2004); 1992 to 2005 – Sierra Nevada Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) stations (Siegel and Kaschube 2007); and 1968 to present–

BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that yellow warblers 

continue to be present at these sample sites and current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra 

Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the Sierra Nevada is 

stable.

3.7.33.1.6 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Yellow Warbler Trend

This project will affect a cumulative total of 2,092 acres of riparian habitat under Alternative 1 (high) 

and 274 acres under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres affected, which range from 0.9% to 7.2% 

of the total habitat Sierra Nevada wide, this Project Area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, 

nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of yellow warbler across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.33.2 Fox Sparrow: MIS Analysis

The fox sparrow is designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS Amendment defined 

shrubland (west-slope chaparral types) as the habitat component for the fox sparrow. The 

corresponding CWHR types that define the habitat component are montane chaparral (MCP), 

montane hardwood-conifer (MCH) and chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC). There is no chamiseredshank chaparral on the PNF. Currently, there are 922,000 acres of these CWHR types on NFS

lands across the Sierra Nevada. These habitat types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, will be 

analyzed based on the amount of habitat influenced within a 200-meter zone of influence on existing 

and proposed motorized trails and unauthorized routes. 

3.7.33.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on the analysis conducted for shrubland habitat, Alternative 1 affects the most habitat within 

the 200-meter zone of influence (Table 120). Direct and Indirect effects from unauthorized routes 

include decrease in habitat quality from disturbance, displacement and/or avoidance of habitat as a 

result of motor vehicle use. Approximately 7,504 acres of shrubland habitat or 0.8% of the habitat 

Sierra Nevada wide will be affected by existing trails and unauthorized routes. Alternative 2 has the 

second highest effect on shrubland habitat, resulting in direct and indirect effects to habitat on 2,441 

acres. Alternatives 4 and 5 have less effects on shrubland habitat than Alternative 2 with 1,056 acres 

and 1,631 acres of shrubland habitat influenced Sierra Nevada wide. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

318 – Plumas National Forest

Table 120. Proportion of fox sparrow MIS habitat within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” of existing and 

proposed trails and unauthorized routes.

Fox sparrow MIS 

habitat

Habitat Type SN Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

Shrubland (west-slope 

chaparral types)

922,000 7,504 2,441 834 1,056 1,631

Proportion of Habitat 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Overall Habitat Ranking

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

Low Low Low Low Low

* Alt. 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails. Alts. 4 and 5 include mixed use on Forest Road 24N28.

3.7.33.2.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to shrubland include current and historic livestock grazing; loss of habitat through 

catastrophic wildfires; timber and fuels management where shrubland habitat has been reduced or 

removed.

The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments including both cattle and sheep. 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of grazing impacts on rangelands. 

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Forest and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to shrubland habitat within the PNF boundary. Since 2000, over 73,345 

acres of forest vegetation and fuels projects were completed, which primarily included group 

selection, thinning, mastication and/or burned vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic 

wildfires. These treatments generally affect shrubland habitat through prescribed burning of the DFPZ 

understory and mastication of shrubland for fuels reduction. With the exception of group selection 

silviculture treatments do not usually result in an increase in shrubland habitat since canopy cover is 

not reduced below 40%. Group selection harvests are expected to increase shrubland habitat on a 

small scale across the landscape. These vegetation treatments may result in the short-term reduction 

in isolated pockets of shrubland, though it is expected that in the longer term, habitat will be protected 

by reducing wildfire risk. Since 2000, approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, some of 

which removed shrubland habitat initially, but over time shrubland habitat is expected to increase as 

post fire succession progresses. 

The table below lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken after a review of 

Appendix C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects 

with a description of the potential impact to shrubland habitat.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 319

Table 121. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to fox sparrow from present and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects.

Project type Number of Projects Fox Sparrow Direct and 

Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Vegetation 

management/fuels

reduction –

thinning, group 

select and aspen 

enhancement

30 (Empire, Slapjack, 

Basin, Grizz, Snake 

Lake, Webber’s,

Freeman, Mabie, 

Clarks, Hungarian, 

Genesee, Jackson, 

Ingalls, Big Hill, 

LaPorte, Watdog, 

Concow,French, Burnt 

Bridge, OnTop, 

Sugarberry, Meadow 

Valley, Canyon Dam, 

Corridor, Keddie, 

Hopper, Corral, Am 

Valley, Hughes, St. 

Louis)

Short-term disturbance from 

harvest activities (mastication, 

prescribed burning) and future 

development of habitat from 

Group Selection. 

Short-term adverse impacts during 

masitication, prescribed burning.

Creation of habitat from Group 

Selection units that are not replanted.

Long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects by reduced risk of habitat 

loss from high severity wildfires.

Hazard tree 

removal

4 (Moonlight, Camp 14, 

Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact, limited to 

disturbance during harvest.

None to minimal cumulative impact

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance 

to habitat and displacement of 

fox sparrows.

Overall benefit to shrubland habitat 

by eliminating effects to habitat 

quality.

Range Allotment 

Permit Renewal

and Allotment 

Changes

4 (Grizzly Valley, Grizzly 

Valley Community, 

Humbug, Dixie Valley 

Sheep)

Impacts from incidental 

browsing of shrubland by 

livestock

Miminal cumulative impact from 

incidental browsing

Private Land 

Timber Activities

Timber harvest plans, 

Coversions, Fire 

Hazard, Public Utility, 

Emergency Ops, Dead 

Fuelwood, Other 

(308,221 acres)

Habitat changes from denser 

forest conditions to more open 

canopies and changes to 

understory.

Anticipated increases in shrubland 

habitat. 

Alternative 3 

Existing OHV 

Routes (

Table 120) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 834 

acres of Shrubland habitat or 

0.1% of the habitat Sierra 

Nevada wide.

Acres are additive to those shown 

for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, 

however habitat ranking remains in 

the Low category.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from grazing, vegetation/fuels projects, wildfires and miscellaneous resource projects, 

Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to shrubland habitat where 8,338 acres are impacted directly, 

indirectly and cumulatively. Alternative 2 poses the second highest impact to shrubland habitat when 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects are considered. Alternatives 4 and 5 pose the lowest risk of the 

action alternatives, while Alternative 3 represents the least risk to shrubland habitats when direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects are considered since no new trails will be added under Alternative 3. 

3.7.33.2.3 Summary of Fox Sparrow Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the fox sparrow; hence, the shrubland effects 

analysis for this project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

320 – Plumas National Forest

The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the fox 

sparrow. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in 

the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008).

3.7.33.2.3.1 Habitat Status and Trend

There are currently 922,000 acres of west-slope chaparral shrubland habitat on NFS lands in the 

Sierra Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend is stable. 

3.7.33.2.3.2 Population Status and Trend

The fox sparrow has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point 

counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including: 1997 to present–Lassen National Forest 

(Burnett and Humple 2003, Burnett et al. 2005); 2002 to present–Plumas and Lassen National Forests 

(Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007); on-going monitoring through California Partners in Flight 

Monitoring Sites (CPIF 2002); 1992 to 2005–Sierra Nevada Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship (MAPS) stations (Siegel and Kaschube 2007); and 1968 to present–BBS routes 

throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that fox sparrows continue to be 

present at these sample sites and current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra Nevada scales 

indicate that, although there may be localized declines in the population trend, the distribution of fox 

sparrow populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

3.7.33.2.3.3 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Fox Sparrow Trend

This project will affect a cumulative total of 8,338 acres of shrubland habitat under Alternative 1 

(high) and 834 acres under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres affected, which range from 0.1% 

to 0.9% of the total habitat Sierra Nevada wide, this project would not alter the existing trend in the 

habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of fox sparrow across the Sierra Nevada

bioregion.

3.7.34 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates: MIS Analysis

The aquatic macroinvertebrates are designated as a MIS on the PNF. The Sierra Nevada MIS 

Amendment defined lacustrine and riverine as the habitat component for macroinvertebrates. The 

corresponding CWHR types that define the habitat component are lacustrine (LAC) and riverine 

(RIV). Currently, there are 658 miles of perennial stream and 341 miles of intermittent stream (RIV) 

and approximately 14,200 acres of lakes, ponds and reservoirs (LAC) with these CWHR types on the 

PNF. These habitat types, for the purpose of this MIS analysis, riverine (RIV) will be analyzed based 

on effects to habitat which is defined as the miles of stream affected by proposed route stream 

crossings on intermittent and perennial streams and the amount of lacustrine habitat influenced within 

a 200-meter zone of influence on proposed routes. Effects to riverine and lacustrine habitat include; 

elevated sediment delivery to aquatic systems that affect water quality (i.e. increases in turbidity) and 

changes in substrate morphology that potentially could influence in-stream primary production and 

macroinvertebrate assemblages that provide forage for trout. Aquatic macroinvertebrates assemblages 

have been shown to be negatively impacted by stream crossings. One study found (Hawkins et al. In: 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 321

Gucinski, et al. 2001) that aquatic insect larvae (mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies) assemblages 

were negatively related to the number of stream crossings above a site. Another study (Newbold et al. 

1980 In: Gucinski, et al. 2001) found that macroinvertebrate assemblages differed significantly above 

and below stream crossings. Landscape analyses suggests that motorized trail associated factors can 

affect the frequency, timing and magnitude of disturbance to habitat, which may influence aquatic 

invertebrate community structure and species diversity.

3.7.34.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

As discussed above, habitat quality will be reduced as a result of increases in sediment and a decrease 

in water quality as a result of stream miles affected by route stream crossings and acres of lacustrine 

habitat that fall within a 200-meter zone of influence. Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 

has the highest level of impact to macroinvertebrate habitat (Table 122). Alternative 1 affects habitat 

on 27.6 miles of perennial stream, 88.2 miles of intermittent stream and 84 acres of lacustrine habitat 

within a 200-meter zone of influence of lakes, ponds and reservoirs. Alternatives 4 and 5 have similar 

effects to riverine habitat, affecting 5.5 to 7.0 miles of perennial stream habitat and 19.7 to 25.5 miles 

of intermittent stream habitat. Alternative 2 represents the second highest scale of effects to riverine 

habitat by affecting 11.4 miles of perennial stream and 34 miles of intermittent stream. Effects to 

lacustrine habitat follow similar trends to riverine habitat in that Alternative 2 represents the second 

highest level of impacts by affecting 33 acres of lacustrine habitat, followed by Alternative 5 (16.5 

acres) and finally Alternative 4 at only 4 acres. Mixed use under Alternatives 4 and 5 does not affect 

riverine or lacustrine habitat.

Table 122. Proportion of aquatic macroinvertebrate MIS habitat intersected by proposed routes 

(riverine) and within a 200-meter “Zone of Influence” (lacustrine) on existing and proposed trails and 

unauthorized routes. 

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrate 

MIS habitat

Habitat Type Stream 

Miles/Acres

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3* Alt 4 Alt 5

RIV – Perennial (miles) 658 27.6 11.4 3.4 5.5 7.0

RIV – Intermittent (miles) 341 88.2 34 11.7 19.7 25.5

LAC –Lacustrine (acres) 14,200 84 33 71 4 16.5

Proportion of Habitat RIV 11.6% 4.5% 1.5% 2.5% 3.2%

LAC 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.03% 0.1%

Overall Habitat Ranking (RIV + LAC)

(High >10%, Moderate 5%-10%, Low < 5%)

High Moderate Low Low Low

* Alt 3 represents PNF’s 130 miles of existing motorized trails.

3.7.34.1.2 Overall Cumulative Effects from Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects to riverine and lacustrine habitats include current and historic livestock grazing; 

reduced suitability of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; mining activities; and recreational 

activities including hunting, camping and general recreation activities including all forms of 

motorized use including 4-wheeled drive vehicles, vehicles 50 inches or less and motorcycles.

The PNF currently has 42 active livestock grazing allotments including both cattle and sheep. 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(USFS 2004), for grazing are generally reducing the amount of grazing impacts on rangelands. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

322 – Plumas National Forest

Appendix C of this EIS provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on NFS land and private lands within the PNF boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to impacts to riverine or lacustrine habitats within the PNF boundary. Mining and 

dredging activities have occurred and continue to occur on the Forest. Mining and dredging activities 

result in sedimentation that affect macroinvertebrate habitat and decreases water quality. Since 2000, 

approximately 266,963 acres burned on the PNF, some of which have affected riverine and lacustrine 

habitat through increased levels of sedimentation. 

Currently, there is a high demand for recreational use on the PNF due to its close proximity to 

urban centers (e.g. Oroville, Chico, Reno). The PNF provides a wide variety of recreational 

experiences including developed and dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

winter sports activities (e.g. downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling), summer OHV use 

and a variety of other non-motorized use (e.g. equestrian use, mountain biking). Recreational use on 

the PNF has significantly increased compared to the past 20 to 30 years. Because of the proximity to 

urban areas and population growth, increased recreational use on the PNF is expected to continue to 

increase in the future including camping, hiking, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting and OHV use. 

This is evident due to planned recreational events (Backcountry Discovery Trial, Dual sport 

Motorcycle Rec Event) and proposals for campground rehabilitation, trailhead improvements and trail 

projects (see Appendix C). Generally, the increase in recreational use on the PNF has the potential to 

cause an increase in negative interactions between humans and riverine and lacustrine habitats since 

most of the recreational facilities are located adjacent to lakes, streams and rivers. Future increase in 

recreational use on the PNF is expected and therefore, increased disturbance to riverine and lacustrine 

habitat would be expected, particularly during the summer months. 

Table 123 lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken after a review of Appendix 

C and summarizes cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects with a 

description of the potential impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat.

Table 123. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact to riverine and lacustrine habitat from present and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Project type Number of Projects Riverine and Lacustrine 

Direct and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Mining/Suction 

Dredging

16 (Cedar, Copper 

Penny, Two Penny, 

Advance Geologic (6), 

Hawkeye, Dutch (2), 

Pioneer, El Rico, 

Dredger’s Delight &High 

Grade)

Impacts from increased 

sediment delivery, decrease in 

water quality.

Mining/sution dredging add to 

cumulative impacts by 

decreasing habitat quality, mainly 

in riverine systems. 

Hazard tree removal 4 (Moonlight, Camp 14, 

Rich, Cold)

Minimal impact. Short-term 

disturbance during harvest.

None to minimal cumulative 

impact
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 323

Project type Number of Projects Riverine and Lacustrine 

Direct and Indirect Impact

Overall Cumulative Impact

Watershed 

Restoration 

21 (Sulphur-Barry, Cold 

Fire, Last Chance, Red 

Clover (3),Frenchman, 

Lake Davis, NelsonOnion, Sulphur, Poco, 

Dotta, Meadowview, 

Lower Middle Fork, 

South Fork, Upper 

Indian, Black Gulch, 

Greenhorn, 

Wildcat/Boulder)

Short-term sediment 

disturbance during project 

implementation. 

Short term cumulative impacts 

from sediment are minor.

Range Allotment 

permit renewal and 

Allotment changes

4 (Grizzly Valley, Grizzly 

Valley Community, 

Humbug, Dixie Valley 

Sheep)

Stream bank trampling from 

livestock resulting in increases 

in sediment and decrease in 

water surface shade from 

browsing riparian shrubs.

Cumulative impacts from 

sediment and water surface 

shade are expected to be within 

Forest Plan Standards (<20%).

Temporary OHV 

Forest Order 

1 (Forest-wide) Closed Forest to cross-country 

travel. Lessened disturbance 

to habitat downstream of 

stream crossings

Overall benefit to 

macroinvertebrate habitat by 

eliminating effects to habitat 

quality.

Tall Whitetop 

Treatments

2 (Tall Whitetop 

Herbicide and Goat 

Grazing)

Short term impacts during 

treatments, but long term 

benefits to riverine habitat from 

eradication of Tall Whitetop.

Cumulative impact should be 

minimal and short term. Long 

term benefits outweigh any short 

term impacts.

Alternative 3 Existing 

OHV Routes (Table 

122) 

130 miles Existing trails influence 15.1 

miles of riverine habitat (1.5%) 

and 71 acres of Lacustrine 

habitat. 

Acres are additive to those 

shown for Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 

5. Therefore, Alt 1 remains in the 

High Category; Alt 2 remains in 

the Moderate Category; Alt 4 

remains in the Low Category and 

Alt 5 moves from the Low 

category to the Moderate 

Category when Alt 3 is added.

When considering all of the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future 

impacts from mining, grazing, wildfires, recreation and watershed/stream projects, Alternative 1 

poses the greatest risk to riverine and lacustrine habitat where 130.9 miles and 155 acres are impacted 

directly, indirectly and cumulatively. Alternatives 2 and 5 are all similar in impacts when direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects are considered as both alternatives remain or are moved to the 

moderate category (5 to 10%). Alternative 4 is the lowest cumulative risk of the action alternatives 

(40.3 miles, 75 acres), while Alternative 3 represents the least risk to riparian habitats when direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects are considered, since no new trails will be added under Alternative 3. 

3.7.34.1.3 Summary of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Forest Plan (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment) requires bioregionalscale Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; hence, the 

lacustrine and riverine effects analysis for this project must be informed by these monitoring data. 

The sections below summarize the biological integrity and habitat status and trend data for aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and 

population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

324 – Plumas National Forest

3.7.34.1.3.1 Habitat and Index of Biological Integrity Status and Trend

Aquatic habitat has been assessed using Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) data collected since 1994 

(Frasier et al. 2005) and habitat status information from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) 

(Moyle and Randall 1996). Index of Biological Integrity is assessed using the River Invertebrate 

Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) and macroinvertebrate data collected since 2000 

(see USDA Forest Service 2008, Table BMI-1). These data indicate that the status and trend in the 

RIVPACS scores is stable.

3.7.34.1.3.2 Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Habitat Trend

This project will have a total cumulative effect of 155 acres of lacustrine habitat (LAC) under 

Alternative 1 (high) and 71 acres under Alternative 3 (low). This project will have a total cumulative 

effect of 130.9 miles of riverine habitat (RIV) under Alternative 1 (high) and 15.1 miles of habitat 

under Alternative 3 (low). Based on the acres of lacustrine habitat influenced and miles of riverine 

habitat influenced, this project area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.7.35 Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Table 124: Comparison of Effects to Management Indicator Species.

Indicators – Terrestrial Wildlife Rankings of Alternatives for Each 

Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

The proportion of a species (or species group’s) habitat that is 

affected by motor vehicle routes. (Zone of Influence, Deer Herd 

Analysis)

1 2 5 4 3

Average for Terrestrial Wildlife 1 2 5 4 3

1

3.7.36 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction.

A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial wildlife related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates 

the alternative has the most impact for terrestrial wildlife related to the indicator.

Table 125. Comparison of alternatives in relation to compliance with Forest Service Manual direction.

Forest Plan Direction for Terrestrial Wildlife Alternative Compliance 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Forest Service Manual Direction (Management Indicator 

Species)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 325

3.8 Botanical Resources

3.8.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to present a summary of the effects of the proposed trails on botanically 

sensitive resources on the PNF. Throughout this section, the term “rare species” is used to refer to 

Federally Endangered, Threatened and Candidate plant species and Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive 

vascular plants, bryophytes and fungi. A complete discussion of effects to these species, as well as to 

PNF special interest species, is provided in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation of Potential Effects 

to Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species located in the project record.

Of the Forest Service Regions, the Pacific Southwest Region contains the largest assemblage of 

sensitive plant species in relation to its land base. Of the more than 8,000 vascular plant species that 

occur in California, well over half have been documented on National Forest System (NFS) lands. In 

addition, over 100 of these plant species are found only on NFS lands and nowhere else in the world 

(Powell 2001). This high level of botanical diversity is due in large part to the wide range of 

environmental conditions (i.e. topography, geology, soils, climate and vegetation) found on National 

Forests in California. 

An important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National 

Forest Management Act of 1976) is the management of rare species and their associated habitats. 

Management activities on NFS lands must be planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize 

the continued existence of Federally Threatened or Endangered species or lead to a trend toward 

listing or loss of viability for Forest Service Sensitive species. In addition, management activities 

should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for rare species and natural plant communities to 

the degree consistent with the multiple-use objectives established in the Forest Plan.

Motor vehicle travel has the potential to affect rare species and their associated habitats. Effects 

include, but are not limited to: death or injury to individuals; habitat modification or fragmentation; 

decreased habitat quality; increased risk of weed introduction and spread; elevated risk to pollinators; 

loss of native vegetation; over collection; and other factors that reduce or eliminate plant growth and 

reproduction (Trombulek and Frissell 2000). It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to soils 

and vegetation and to avoid significant disruption to plant and wildlife habitat while providing for 

motorized use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)); therefore, management decisions related to 

motorized travel on NFS lands must consider the effects to rare species and their habitats.

3.8.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Direction relevant to the alternatives as they affect botanical resources includes:

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999). To prevent and control the 

introduction and spread of invasive species. The Forest Service will not authorize, fund or carry out 

actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species 

unless the agency has determined that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

326 – Plumas National Forest

caused by invasive species and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be 

taken in conjunction with the actions. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670). Forest Service Sensitive species are 

plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The 

Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals 

do not become threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on National Forests. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not 

create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in a 

Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following direction applicable to motorized 

travel management and botanical resources: 

• Noxious weeds management (Standards and Guidelines #36-49). See Noxious Weed 

section.

• Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Standards and Guidelines #70): See Water Resources 

section.

• Riparian Habitat (Standards and Guidelines #92): See Water Resources section.

• Bog and Fen Habitat (Standards and Guidelines #118): Prohibit or mitigate grounddisturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, 

water quality or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant 

species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map and develop 

measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, 

humans and wheeled vehicles. 

• Sensitive Plant Surveys (Corrected Errata, April 19, 2005): Conduct field surveys for 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive plant species early enough in the project planning 

process that the project can be designed to conserve or enhance Threatened, Endangered and

Sensitive plants and their habitat. Conduct surveys according to procedures outlined in the 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2609.25.11). If additional field surveys are to be conducted 

as part of project implementation, survey results must be documented in the project file 

(Standards and Guidelines #125). The standards and guidelines provide direction for 

conducting field surveys, minimizing or eliminating direct and indirect impacts from 

management activities and adherence to the Regional Native Plant Policy (USDA Forest 

Service 2004).

Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988).

The Forest Plan provides management direction for all Plumas National Forest Sensitive plants; that 

direction is to “maintain viable populations of sensitive plant species” (USDA Forest Service 1988, 

page 4-34). The Forest Plan also provides forest-wide standards and guidelines to:

• protect Sensitive and Special Interest plant species as needed to maintain viability; 

• inventory and monitor Sensitive plant populations on an individual project basis; and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 327

• develop species Management Guidelines to identify population goals and compatible 

management activities/prescriptions that will maintain viability.

3.8.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

3.8.3.1 Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts on Botanical Resources

Two geographic areas were chosen to analyze the effects of the proposed trails on botanical resources:

• Direct and indirect effects to rare species under the four action alternatives were assessed 

using the area within 100 feet of proposed trails. In general, direct effects are most likely to 

occur within a zone of 30 feet on either side of the trail due to the need for parking and 

pulling off to allow for another vehicle to pass. Indirect effects are most likely to occur 

within a zone of 100 feet or an additional 70 feet beyond the 30-foot zone. 

• The No-action alternative, which allows for cross-country travel, was assessed using the 

entire PNF. The Forest boundary was also used to analyze cumulative effects to rare species 

for all alternatives.

Those species located within these two geographic areas were considered to have the highest 

potential to be impacted or influenced by adding trails to the NFTS. Conversely, species outside of 

the analysis area (that is, those species that are only considered to have “potential” to occur on the 

PNF) were not considered to have a high likelihood of being impacted by the proposed project either 

directly, indirectly or cumulatively. 

3.8.3.2 Analysis Methodology

The analysis of effects on rare plant species was a three-step process (FSM 2672.43). In the first step, 

all listed or proposed rare species that were known or were believed to have potential to occur in the 

analysis area were identified. This list was developed by reviewing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife List

The second step was field reconnaissance surveys. To date, field surveys have been conducted on 

approximately 287 miles of proposed trails (Vollmar 2007, USDA Forest Service 2007, USDA Forest 

Service 2008 a, b and c). An additional 66 miles of proposed system trail and 10 miles of existing 

system trails (USDA Forest Service 2003a) have also been surveyed under past management projects. 

For those 25 miles of trail that had not been surveyed at the time of this analysis, information from 

the PNF rare plant records and CNDDB were used to analyze the potential effects to known rare 

species occurrences. In addition, potential habitat was estimated for each sensitive species using (a) 

the known range of the species, (b) an estimated potential dispersal distance, (c) broad vegetation 

types and (d) existing available data representing more refined habitat types (i.e. serpentine, fens, 

streams, etc.). 

for 

the Plumas National Forest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), USDA Forest Service Region 5 

Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2006), Plumas National Forest rare plant records and 

vegetation maps and California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB 2008). 

Field surveys were designed around the flowering period and ecology of the rare plant species 

identified in step one. For each rare plant site found, information was collected that described the size 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

328 – Plumas National Forest

of the occurrence and habitat characteristics and identified any existing or potential threats. Location 

information was collected using a Global Positioning System (GPS). 

All of this information was used in step three of the analysis—conflict determination. Data were 

imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) and used to analyze proximity to trails, 

identify detrimental effects and develop protection measures. 

3.8.3.3 Data Sources

1. Route-specific botanical data (e.g. rare species, meadows, special aquatic features, habitats, 

etc.), including results of route-specific surveys of rare species. 

2. Route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management and associated tabular data sets.

3. GIS layers of the following data: routes, habitats, plant communities, soils, geology, 

meadows, etc. 

4. CNDDB records

5. Scientific literature

3.8.3.4 Assumptions Specific to Botanical Resources Analysis

In addition to those listed at the beginning of Chapter 3, the following assumptions were used in the 

analysis of botanical resources: 

1. Vehicle use on and off established trails has affected or has the potential to affect rare plant 

populations, either directly by damage or death to individual plants from motor vehicles 

(stem breaking, crushing, etc.) or indirectly by altering the habitat through soil disturbance, 

changes in hydrologic function or by the introduction of non-native, invasive plant species 

that can out-compete sensitive species for water, sunlight and nutrients. 

2. Motor vehicle use is unlikely to impact certain rare plant habitats due to the steep or rocky 

nature of the surrounding terrain; motor vehicle use is more likely to impact other rare plant 

habitats, such as meadows, which exist on gentle slopes or flat terrain with little or no 

vegetation or natural barriers to motor vehicles.

3. Without specific prevention and/or control measures, invasive non-native plants (weeds) will 

continue to spread along and within surfaced and un-surfaced motor vehicle 

roads/trails/areas. 

4. Motor vehicle use of un-surfaced roads/trails/areas will increase sediment production and 

erosion. As use increases, sediment production and erosion will increase. 

3.8.3.5 Botanical Resources Methodology by Action

1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicator(s): 

• Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to rare plant sites.

• Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of an existing unauthorized route. 

• Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of an existing unauthorized route. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 329

• Miles of unauthorized routes within fen, wet meadow, serpentine, riparian, barren, interior 

forest and open forest habitats.

In addition, the following indicator measures were used to analyze the impacts to Research Natural 

Areas and proposed and existing Special Interest Areas on the Forest:

• Miles of existing unauthorized routes within Research Natural Areas or Special Interest 

Areas.

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes. 

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails and/or 

areas) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest. In general, direct effects are most likely to occur within a 

zone of 30 feet on either side of the trail and indirect effects are most likely to occur within a zone of 

100 feet. 

Indicator(s):

Summary of Indicator Measures

• Number and miles of proposed trails open for public motor vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites.

• Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail. 

• Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail.

In addition, the following indicator measures were used to analyze the impacts to designated Research 

Natural Areas and proposed and existing Special Interest Areas on the Forest:

• Miles of proposed trails open for public motor vehicle use within Research Natural Areas or 

Special Interest Areas.

Methodology: GIS analysis of proposed trails and sensitive plant locations.

3. Changes to the existing NFTS [this can include deletions of facilities and changing the 

vehicle class and season of use].

The timeframe, spatial boundary, indicators and methodology would be the same as those listed 

under number 2 above. 

4. Cumulative Effects

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest. 

Indicator(s):

• The percentage of sensitive species sites impacted by the proposed trails, in comparison to 

the total number of known sites on the Forest. 

• The number of rare plant locations documented along existing motorized NFS trails. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

330 – Plumas National Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis of all trails and sensitive plant sites/habitat.

3.8.4 Affected Environment

The Plumas National Forest is situated at the northern end of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, just 

south of the Cascades. The lower elevation foothills of the Forest are characterized by oak woodlands 

on the south-facing slopes, which are dominated by interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), canyon oak 

(Quercus chrysolepis), manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) and gray pine (Pinus sabiniana). The lower 

elevation north-facing slopes are characterized by mixed conifer forests with a diverse understory of 

tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)

and madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Moving eastward, the elevation increases and the foothills quickly 

give way to montane chaparral and mixed conifer forests that line the deep canyons of the North, 

Middle and South forks of the Feather River and its tributaries. 

Closer to the crest of the Sierra Nevada, the vegetation type transitions to a mixed conifer forest 

characterized by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), white fir (Abies 

concolor), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) in the 

overstory and scattered black oak and dense white fir in the understory. Jeffery pine (Pinus jeffreyi) 

and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) are occasionally found occupying shallower soils. Red fir (Abies 

magnifica) forests occur above 5,500 feet in elevation and are often mixed with sugar pine. In some 

of the higher elevation stands, red fir may co-occur with lodgepole pine, western white pine (Pinus 

monticola) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). On the drier, eastern slope of the Sierra, the 

heavily forested stands give way to broad valleys surrounded by sagebrush scrub, scattered juniper, 

eastside pine and mixed conifer forest. 

Within these broader vegetation types there are a number of other, less geographically defined, 

plant communities that provide important habitat for rare plant species. These include: riparian 

corridors, meadows, seeps, fens, rock outcrops and serpentine soils. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 331

3.8.5 Rare Species

Table 126 lists all Federally Threatened, Candidate and Region 5 Sensitive vascular plant, moss, lichen and fungi species that are known or thought to 

have potential to occur on the Plumas National Forest. Also included are the listing, number of PNF occurrences and habitat grouping for each species. 

Table 126. Federally Threatened, Candidate and Region 5 Sensitive plant and fungi species known or thought to have potential to occur on the Plumas 

National Forest.

Species Common Name PNF Status1 Global Rank/ 

CNPS Rank2

Number of PNF

Occurrences3

Habitat 

Guild

Allium jepsonii

4

Jepson's onion S G1 / 1B.2 15 S

Arabis constancei Constance's rock cress S G3 / 1B.1 55 S

Astragalus lemmonii Lemmon's milkvetch S G2 / 1B.2 P MS

Astragalus lentiformis lens-pod milk-vetch S G2 / 1B.2 67 O

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis Modoc Plateau milk vetch S G4T3 / 4.2 3 O

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae Pulsifer's milk-vetch S G4T2 / 1B.2 12 O

Astragalus webberi Webber's milk-vetch S G1 / 1B.2 12 O

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis big-scale balsamroot S G3G4T2 / 1B.2 HI MS, O, S

Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort S G2G3 / 2.3 P MS, R, F

Botrychium crenulatum scalloped moonwort S G3 / 2.2 P MS, R, F

Botrychium lineare Moonwort S G1 / 1B.3 P MS, R

Botrychium lunaria common moonwort S G5 / 2.3 P MS, R, F

Botrychium minganese Mingan moonwort S G4 / 2.2 4 MS, R

Botrychium montanum western goblin S G3 / 2.1 3 MS, R, F

Botrychium pinnatum northern moonwort S G4 / 2.3 P MS, R

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander's bruchia S G3 / 2.2 10 MS, R

Buxbaumia viridis buxbaumia moss S None 1 R

Calycadenia oppositifolia Butte County calycadenia S G3 / 4.2 7 O, S

Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis Butte County morning-glory S G5T3 / 1B.2 3 O

Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae Brandegee's clarkia S G4G5T2 / 1B.2 1 O

Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis white-stemmed clarkia S G5T2 / 1B.2 2 O
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

332 – Plumas National Forest

Species Common Name PNF Status1 Global Rank/ 

CNPS Rank2

Number of PNF

Occurrences3

Habitat 

Guild

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae

4

Mildred's clarkia S G3T3 / 1B.3 30 O

Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin's clarkia S G1 / 1B.1 45 O

Cudonia monticola large cudonia (fungi) S None P IF

Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper S G3 / 4.2 135 IF

Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper S G4 / 4.2 22 IF, R

Dendrocollybia racemosa branched collybia (fungi) S None P IF

Eleocharis torticulmis California twisted spikerush S G1 / 1B.3 1 F, MS

Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii Ahart's sulphur flower S None 11 S

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius brook pocket-moss S GU / 2.2 P R

Fissidens pauperculus fissidens moss S G3? / 1B.2 2 R

Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary S G3Q / 3.2 69 O

Helodium blandowii Blandow's bog-moss S G5 / 2.3 P F, MS

Hydrothyria venosa hydrothyria lichen S None 20 R

Ivesia aperta var. aperta Sierra Valley ivesia S G2T2 / 1B.2 18 MS

Ivesia sericolueca Plumas ivesia S G2 / 1B.2 14 MS

Ivesia webberi Webber's ivesia FC G2 / 1B.1 HI MS

Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow's lewisia S G3 / 1B.2 27 B

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii Hutchison's lewisia S G4T2T3 / 3.3 5 B, O

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii Kellogg’s lewisia S None P O

Lomatium roseanum adobe parsley S G2G3 / 1B.2 4 B

Lupinus dalesiae Quincy lupine S G3 / 4.2 260 O

Meesia longiseta meesia moss S None P F, MS

Meesia triquetra three-ranked hump-moss S G5 / 4.2 10 F, MS

Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved hump-moss S G4 / 2.2 1 F, MS

Mielichhoferia elongata elongate copper-moss S None P B, S

Monardella follettii Follett's monardella S G1 / 1B.2 34 S

Monardella stebbinsii Stebbin's monardella S G1 / 1B.2 7 S
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 333

Species Common Name PNF Status1 Global Rank/ 

CNPS Rank2

Number of PNF

Occurrences3

Habitat 

Guild

Oreostemma elatum

4

Plumas alpine-aster S G2Q / 1B.2 14 F, MS, R

Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei cut-leaved ragwort S G4T2 / 1B.2 31 S

Packera layneae Layne's ragwort FE G2 / 1B.2 4 S

Penstemon personatus closed-throated beardtongue S G2 / 1B.2 23 O

Penstemon sudans Susanville beardtongue S G2G3 / 1B.3 3 O

Phaecollybia olivacea olive phaeocollybia (fungi) S G2 / None P IF

Pyrrocoma lucida sticky pyrrocoma S G3 / 1B.2 46 MS

Sedum albomarginatum Feather River stonecrop S G2 / 1B.2 15 S

Status: FE – Federally listed Endangered, FC – Federal Candidate species, S – Forest Service Sensitive

Global Rank: G1-Critically Imperiled; G2-Imperiled; G3-Vulnerable; G4-Apparently secure; G5-Secure (NatureServe 2008)/CNPS Rank: 1B- Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California 

and Elsewhere; 2-Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere, 3-About Which We Need More Information, 4-Plants of Limited Distribution (California 

Native Plant Society 2008).

Occurrences are defined as plants of the same species estimated to be separated by less than a quarter mile. HI=Historic Locations. P=Potential species (i.e. it has not been documented 

on the PNF).

4

. Habitat guilds: Fens (F), Meadows and Seeps (MS), Riparian areas (R), Serpentine (S), Barren (B), Interior Forest (IF), Open habitat (O)
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 334

3.8.5.1 Rare Vascular Species

The PNF provides habitat for over 2,000 vascular plant taxa (Clifton 2005), which represents 

approximately 35 percent of the California flora (Hickman 1993). Of these, 43 are on the PNF

Sensitive Species List. 

The only Federally Threatened plant species known to occur on the PNF is Packera layneae

(Layne’s butterweed). This species grows in open rocky areas on gabbro and serpentine-derived soils 

that are between 650 and 3,300 feet in elevation. The PNF has four occurrences, totaling 

approximately 12 acres. In 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed route designation 

design criteria for Packera layneae in order to achieve a “No effect” or “May affect not likely to 

adversely affect” determination. This design criterion stated that no unauthorized or unclassified 

routes or areas would be added to the NFTS that were “within Layne’s butterweed occupied habitat, 

adjacent unoccupied habitat and a 500 foot buffer” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). This 

criterion has been met under all of the action alternatives; none of the proposed trails are within 500 

feet of occupied or adjacent unoccupied habitat. 

Two additional species of federal concern that have the potential to occur on the PNF are the 

Federally Threatened Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass) and the Candidate species Ivesia webberi 

(Webber's ivesia). Orcuttia tenuis is limited to relatively deep vernal pools with clay soil. Ivesia 

webberi is found in open areas of sandy volcanic ash to gravelly soils in sagebrush and eastside pine. 

Based on soil and geology maps and field surveys, no suitable habitat for these two species occurs 

within 100 feet of a proposed trail. 

3.8.5.1.1 Existing Conditions Related to Direct and Indirect Impacts to Rare Vascular Plants

• There are 24 Sensitive vascular plant species (306 locations) documented within 100 feet of 

an existing system trail or unauthorized route on the Forest (Table 127). 

• All of the Sensitive vascular plant species with known occurrences on the PNF (34 of the 43 

rare vascular species) have the potential to be affected by cross-country motorized vehicle 

travel.

Table 127. Number of rare species locations within 100 feet of an unauthorized route or existing system 

trail on the Plumas National Forest. 

Species

Species 

Type1

Habitat 

Grouping2

Number of rare species locations 

within 100’

Unauthorized 

Routes

Existing 

System Trail

Allium jepsonii V S 7

Arabis constancei V S 18

Astragalus lentiformis V O 37

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis V O 3

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae V O 7

Astragalus webberi V O 2

Botrychium sp. V MS, R 1

Calycadenia oppositifolia V S, O 4
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 335

Species

Species 

Type1

Habitat 

Grouping2

Number of rare species locations 

within 100’

Unauthorized 

Routes

Existing 

System Trail

Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis V O 1

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae V O 36 6

Clarkia mosquinii V O 13 1

Cypripedium fasciculatum V IF 17 1

Cypripedium montanum V R, IF 2

Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii V S 7

Fritillaria eastwoodiae V O 9

Hydrothyria venosa B R 4

Ivesia aperta var. aperta V MS 7

Ivesia sericolueca V MS 7

Lewisia cantelovii V B 2

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii V O, B 1 1

Lupinus dalesiae V O 54

Monardella follettii V S 16 1

Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei V S 15

Penstemon personatus V O 11

Pyrrocoma lucida V MS 19

TOTAL 300 10

1Vascular (V); Bryophyte (B)

2 Fens (F), Meadows and Seeps (MS), Riparian areas (R), Serpentine (S), Barren (B), Interior Forest (IF), Open habitat (O)

3.8.5.2 Rare Bryophytes (Mosses and Lichens)

There are currently nine Sensitive mosses known or thought to have potential to occur on the PNF. 

These mosses are generally habitat specific and occur in wetland/riparian areas or in rocks with heavy 

metals (e.g. Mielichhoferia elongata). Lichens are a combination of two different types of organisms 

(fungi and algae) growing together in a symbiotic relationship. One rare lichen Hydrothyria venosa is 

known to occur on the PNF. 

3.8.5.2.1 Existing Conditions Related to Direct and Indirect Impacts to Rare Bryophytes

• There is one Sensitive lichen (4 locations) documented within 100 feet of an unauthorized 

route on the Forest (Table 127). 

• All of the Sensitive bryophyte species with known occurrences on the PNF (six of the 10 

rare bryophyte species) have the potential to be affected by cross-country motorized vehicle 

travel.

3.8.5.3 Rare Fungi

Fungi are organisms without chlorophyll that digest other organic matter. There are three rare fungi 

known to occur on or adjacent to PNF lands; these are Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia racemosa
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

336 – Plumas National Forest

and Phaeocollybia olivacea. Information regarding the distribution and ecology of these fungi on the 

PNF is incomplete. 

3.8.5.3.1 Existing conditions related to direct and indirect impacts to rare bryophytes

• There are no known fungi documented within 100 feet of an existing system trail or 

unauthorized route on the Forest.

• All of the fungi with known occurrences on the PNF (one of the three rare fungi species) 

have the potential to be affected by cross-country motorized vehicle travel.

3.8.6 Aggregating Rare Species for Analysis of Effects

While the 56 rare species on the PNF vary widely in their ecological requirements and life history 

characteristics, many occur in similar broad habitat types where the effects of motor vehicle use are 

comparable. For purpose of this analysis, PNF rare species were assigned to plant-habitat groupings 

or “guilds” (USDA Forest Service 2003b). Rare species often occur in more than one habitat 

grouping; for example a species may occur in a spatially-defined group, such as a riparian forest, 

while also relying on the availability of a temporally brief habitat, such as tree-fall gaps, for seedling 

establishment (USDA Forest Service 2003b). The following groupings have been selected to 

represent the rare species being addressed in this analysis: 

• Fens (F) - includes species found in wetland sites sub-irrigated by cold water, with 

substantial accumulations of peat.

• Meadows and seeps (MS) - includes species growing in openings with more or less dense 

grasses, sedges and herbs that grow under moist or saturated conditions.

• Riparian areas (R) - includes species found along the margins of perennial, intermittent or

ephemeral streams, natural lakes, reservoirs or ponds.

• Serpentine (S) - includes those species restricted to serpentine rocks and soils that contain 

high levels of heavy metals and low availability of plant nutrients. 

• Barren (B) - includes those species found in very open, sparsely vegetated and in some 

cases barren communities, e.g. rock fields, ridge tops, talus slopes and cliffs. 

• Interior Forest (IF) - includes species inhabiting shaded, protected microclimates and 

undisturbed substrates.

• Open Habitats (O) includes species inhabiting open forest types, edge-habitats or light 

gaps. 

3.8.6.1 Habitat Group Descriptions

The following describes the seven habitat groupings and lists the rare plant species assigned to each 

group. 

3.8.6.1.1 Fens (F)

Fens are groundwater-fed wetland ecosystems that develop where perennially saturated soils and cool 

temperatures slow the decomposition of plant material, allowing it to accumulate and form organic 

soils, called peat (Cooper, Chimner and Wolf 2005). Fens are considered significant resources due to 

their unique hydrologic characteristics (USDA Forest Service 2004a); ability to support high levels of 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 337

biodiversity, including rare species (USDA Forest Service 2004a); relative rarity across the Sierra 

Nevada (Bartolome, Erman and Schwarz 1990); and ability to remain relatively stable for long 

periods of time, storing plant and climatic data over millennia (Chimner and Cooper 2002). 

Fens are thought to be one of the most sensitive wet habitats in the Sierra Nevada (Rundel, 

Parsons and Gordon 1977). They are inherently tied to hydrological processes and it has been 

demonstrated that small-scale disturbances caused by water diversions, channels, trails and other 

management actions can have substantial impacts on their hydrologic and biotic integrity (Woods 

2001, Cooper et al. 1998, Weixelman 2007). 

Over seventy fens have been documented on the PNF, ranging in size from 0.04 acre to over 15 

acres. Twenty nine of these (39 percent) are located in the Bucks Lake Wilderness, where motor 

vehicle travel is prohibited. The inventory of fens across the forest is not complete.

Rare species in this guild are: Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium

minganense, Botrychium montanum, Eleocharis torticulmis, Helodium blandowii, Meesia longiseta, 

Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa and Oreostemma elatum. 

3.8.6.1.2 Meadows and Seeps (MS)

Meadows and seeps are characterized by the presence of grasses, rushes, sedges and herbaceous 

plants that thrive, at least seasonally, under moist or saturated conditions. They occur at all elevations, 

are found on many different substrates and may be surrounded by grasslands, forests or shrub lands. 

Meadows and seeps provide valuable habitat for a diversity of plants and wildlife and perform 

essential ecological and hydrological functions. Due to their high levels of biological diversity, these 

habitats are often destination spots for Forest users.

Meadows and seeps are limited in number and distribution and have not been well documented or 

mapped on the PNF; therefore, quantification of the amount (acreage) of this habitat affected by the 

proposed trails is limited. The PNF vegetation maps estimate that there are approximately 2,520 acres 

of meadow habitat across the forest. 

Rare species occurring in the meadow and seep guild are: Astragalus lemmonii, Balsamorhiza 

macrolepis var. macrolepis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lineare, 

Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganese, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium pinnatum, Bruchia 

bolanderi, Eleocharis torticulmis, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia sericolueca, 

Ivesia webberi, Meesia longiseta, Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Oreostemma elatum and

Pyrrocoma lucida.

3.8.6.1.3 Riparian Areas (R)

These are areas immediately bordering the edges of streams, rivers, lakes or other water sources. 

Riparian vegetation is often characterized by species that are intolerant of high moisture stress and 

tolerant of seasonal flooding, such as willow and aspen. It can be found under dense canopies of 

mixed conifer forest, in aspen groves and along the borders of streams in montane meadows. Most 

riparian forest stands are even-aged, reflecting their flood-mediated, episodic reproduction. 

Riparian areas are often hotspots for plant and wildlife diversity. Riparian vegetation plays a vital 

role in the ecological functioning of the riparian system, which includes: stabilization of the stream 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

338 – Plumas National Forest

bank; moderation of stream light intensity and water temperatures; delivery of large woody debris to 

stream habitats; filtration of sediment; and maintenance of water quality. The PNF has over 16,000 

miles of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams. 

Species found in riparian habitats include: Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, 

Botrychium lineare, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, 

Botrychium pinnatum, Bruchia bolanderi, Buxbaumia viridis, Cypripedium montanum, Fissidens 

aphelotaxifolius, Fissidens pauperculus, Hydrothyria venosa and Oreostemma elatum.

3.8.6.1.4 Serpentine Plant Communities (S) 

This guild includes plants that grow on serpentine (ultramafic) rocks and soils. Serpentine soils are 

characterized by low levels of key plant nutrients such as calcium, nitrogen and phosphorous and 

exceptionally high levels of iron, magnesium and toxic trace elements. Serpentine soils are generally 

shallow and rocky, with low water-holding capacity and rooting depths. The vegetation in these plant 

communities tends to be sparse, slow-growing and stunted. 

The harsh conditions in serpentine communities give rise to a unique and diverse assemblage of 

plant species, a high number of which are serpentine-endemics or rare. California’s serpentine flora is 

considered the richest in the temperate zone; it consists of hundreds of species that are largely or 

entirely confined to serpentine substrates (Safford, Viers and Harrison 2005). Motor vehicles 

negatively affect this plant community and the rare species it supports by reducing vegetative cover, 

creating disturbed soils that are vulnerable to increased erosion and by introducing weeds.

On the PNF, serpentine soils occur primarily in bands along the western slopes of the Forest. An 

accurate inventory of the serpentine soils on the PNF has not yet been completed; however, bedrock 

geologic maps for the forest (Elder and Reichert 2005) estimate that the PNF contains approximately 

56,554 acres of serpentine soils. 

Rare species restricted to serpentine rocks or soils are: Allium jepsonii, Arabis constancei, 

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis, Calycadenia oppositifolia, Eriogonum umbellatum var. 

ahartii, Mielichhoferia elongata, Monardella follettii, Monardella stebbinsii, Packera eurycephalus 

var. lewisrosei, Packera layneae and Sedum albomarginatum.

3.8.6.1.5 Barren (B) 

This guild is characterized by open, sparsely vegetated habitats that include rock outcrops, ridge tops, 

cliffs and talus slopes. The plant species that grow in these harsh environments are adapted to little 

soil, limited nutrients and low water availability. Species in this guild are also generally poor 

competitors. In many of these areas, particularly where the terrain is steep, the habitat is highly 

susceptible to erosion. 

Rare species restricted to barren communities are: Lewisia cantelovii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. 

hutchisonii, Lomatium roseanum and Mielichhoferia elongata. 

3.8.6.1.6 Interior Forest (IF)

Plant and fungi species that are dependent on interior or late-seral forest communities rely on shade, 

protected microclimates and infrequently disturbed substrates. Because of mycorrhizal associations, 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 339

species that are dependent on interior forest are generally intolerant of edge effects that change the 

temperature, moisture and other microclimate conditions. Threats to the species in this guild include 

activities that disrupt litter and duff; alter soil characteristics; reduce shade and moisture; and create 

openings and bare soil that increase the risk of weed introduction and spread.

Sensitive species dependent on these habitats include: Cudonia monticola, Cypripedium 

fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Dendrocollybia racemosa and Phaecollybia olivacea.

3.8.6.1.7 Open Habitats (O)

The species in this guild are found in a wide variety of open habitat types that include: open forests 

(i.e. those with less than 40 percent canopy cover); forest margins, such as stabilized roadsides and 

old skid trails; small openings or gaps; and large openings resulting from natural events or 

management activities (i.e. mechanical tree removal or road construction). Species in this guild vary 

in their degree of tolerance to disturbance activities. A number of the species in these habitats tend to 

be disturbance followers that increase with infrequent, small-scale disturbances. 

Species associated with open habitats include: Astragalus lentiformis, Astragalus pulsiferae var.

coronensis, Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae, Astragalus webberi, Balsamorhiza macrolepis var.

macrolepis, Calycadenia oppositifolia, Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis, Clarkia biloba ssp.

brandegeae, Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae, Clarkia mosquinii, 

Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, Lupinus 

dalesiae, Penstemon personatus and Penstemon sudans.

3.8.6.2 Other Botanical Resources

3.8.6.2.1 Research Natural Areas 

Research natural areas are part of a national network of ecological areas designated in perpetuity for 

research, education and to maintain biological diversity on NFS lands (USDA Forest Service 2005c). 

Research natural areas (RNA) provide essential baseline or reference condition information that land 

managers use to evaluate long-term ecological change, ecosystem sustainability and the success of 

land management activities in equivalent systems (Andrews 1994). The guiding principle in 

management of a RNA is the perpetuation of unmodified conditions and the prevention of activities 

that directly or indirectly modify ecological processes (USDA Forest Service 2005c). 

FSM 4063.3 outlines protection and management standards within a RNA. These standards do 

not permit roads, trails, fences or signs on an established RNA unless they contribute to the objectives 

or to the protection of the area. 

There are two RNAs on the PNF, Mud Lake RNA and Mt. Pleasant RNA. The Mud Lake RNA 

was established to preserve two isolated stands of the special interest species Baker cypress 

(Cupressus bakeri). The Mt. Pleasant RNA was established to preserve red fir (Abies magnifica) 

forest and fen ecosystems and is within the Bucks Lake Wilderness where motorized vehicle use is 

prohibited.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

340 – Plumas National Forest

3.8.6.2.1.1 Existing Conditions Related to Direct and Indirect Impacts to Research Natural Areas

There are 0.3 miles of unauthorized routes within the Wheeler Peak unit of the Mud Lake RNA (Table 

128), which contains the world’s largest specimen of Baker Cypress (diameter at breast height of 56 

inches).

3.8.6.2.2 Special Interest Areas 

Special Interest Areas (SIA) have been designated (or proposed for designation) to protect and where 

appropriate foster public use and enjoyment of areas with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, 

zoological, palentological or other special characteristics (Meyer 1991). FSM 2372.4 outlines 

protection and management standards within a SIA. These standards specify that (a) roads and trails 

be located without disturbing the special features of the established area and that (b) roads and trails 

are kept to the minimum necessary for public enjoyment. There are six designated and 12 proposed 

SIAs on the PNF. 

3.8.6.2.2.1 Existing Conditions Related to Direct and Indirect Impacts to Special Interest Areas

There are approximately 41.6 miles of unauthorized routes and existing system trail within designated 

and proposed SIAs (Table 128).

Table 128. Miles of unauthorized routes and existing system trails within Plumas National Forest

Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas.

Special Interest Area

PNF 

Status1

Number of Occurrences within 100’

Unauthorized Routes Existing System Trail

Brady’s Camp P 4.9

Butterfly Valley E 3.5 0.04

Eastern Escarpment P 6.0

Fales Basin P 0.3

Fowler Lake P 0.1

Little Last Chance Canyon E 0.02

Little Volcano P 0.2

McRae Meadow P 10.3 5.6

Mount Fillmore P 1.3 4.0

Red Hill P 4.9

Mud Lake RNA E 0.3

Soda Rock E 0.2

Grand total 32 9.6

1 P = Proposed SIA, E = Existing SIA

3.8.7 Environmental Consequences—General Types of Impacts 

3.8.7.1 Direct Effects

Direct effects occur when plants are physically impacted. Vehicles traveling on or parking off of the 

trail surface can result in death, altered growth or reduced seed set through physically breaking, 

crushing or uprooting plants (Wilshire, Shipley and Nakata 1978, Cole and Bayfield 1993). Offhighway vehicle use on trails can reduce perennial and annual plant cover, plant density and aboveground biomass (Hall 1989). 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 341

Direct effects are dependent upon the intensity and timing of disturbance. For example, direct 

impacts to an annual plant that has already gone to seed would not be as adverse as direct impacts to 

an annual plant that has not set seed (Ouren et al. 2007). Effects are also dependent upon the number 

of plants at a specific location and the proportion of the occurrence impacted. Repeated damage to 

sensitive species and other native plants can lead to the degradation of habitat and eventually to the 

replacement of native plant species, including sensitive plants, with species more adapted to frequent 

disturbance, such as invasive weeds.

3.8.7.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects on rare species are effects that are separated from an action in either time or space. 

Indirect effects from off-highway vehicle use may include changes in vegetation composition by 

creating edge habitats (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999 in Ouren et al. 2007). Adverse indirect effects are 

more likely to occur to those species that are intolerant of disturbance, such as those in the Interior 

Forest habitat group. In contrast, for those species that tolerate or are dependent upon some level of 

disturbance, such as those species in the Open Habitat group that inhabit gaps and forest openings, 

routes and trails may have less detrimental indirect effects. 

Off-highway vehicles have been shown to accelerate plant invasions (von der Lippe and Kowarik 

2007) by reducing native plant vigor and cover (Brooks 1995 in Ouren et al. 2007), creating a 

competition-free habitat open to invasion (Frenkel 1970) and acting as a vector for seed dispersal. 

Once established, noxious weeds have the potential to impact rare species indirectly through 

allelopathy (the production and release of plant compounds that inhibit the growth of other plants) 

(Bais et al. 2003), as well as through direct competition for nutrients, light and water (Bossard, 

Randall and Hoshovsky 2000).

Indirect effects to rare plants and native vegetation from off-highway vehicle use are often tied to 

soil impacts. Soil compaction, erosion and modification of soil properties can affect the distribution, 

abundance, growth rate, reproduction and size of plants (Ouren et al. 2007). For example, studies 

conducted in the Mohave Desert found significantly less plant cover (Davidson and Fox 1974) and 

density (Vollmer and others 1976) in areas frequented by off-highway vehicles. 

Soil compaction, caused by repeated off-highway vehicle use, can result in reduced seed 

germination (Williams 1967 in Davidson and Fox 1974), seedling survival, soil water infiltration 

(Wilshire, Shipley and Nakata 1978), plant and root growth (Phillips and Kirkham in Davidson and 

Fox 1974). The effects of soil erosion on plants can include undercutting of root systems as trails are 

enlarged by erosion; creation of new erosion channels in areas not used by vehicles; wind erosion of 

adjacent destabilized areas; burial of plants by debris eroded from areas of use; and reduction of the 

biological capability of the soil by physical modification and stripping of fertile layers (Wilshire, 

Shipley and Nakata 1978).

Dust from motorized vehicle use has also been shown to decrease native plant cover and vigor by 

reducing rates of photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration (Spellerberg and Morrison 1998 in Ouren 

et al. 2007) and water-use efficiency. On heavily traveled roads, dust impacts have been documented 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

342 – Plumas National Forest

up to 10 meters (32 feet) from the roadside and dust layers of up to 10 cm thick found on mosses and 

other vegetation of low stature (Walker and Everett 1987 in Ouren et al. 2007). 

3.8.7.3 Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect can result from the incremental effect of the current action when added to the 

effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These effects are considered 

regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of land ownership on 

which the other actions occur. An individual action when considered alone may not have a significant 

effect, but when its effects are considered in sum with the effects of other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, the effects may be significant (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8 and FSH 

1909.15 section 15.1).

One crucial step in assessing cumulative impacts on a particular resource is to compare the 

current condition of the resource (rare plants) and the projected changes as a result of management 

activities (such as off-highway vehicle use along a trail) to the natural variability in the resources and 

processes of concern (MacDonald 2000). This assessment is particularly difficult for rare plant 

species because long-term data are often lacking. In addition, the habitats in which many rare plant 

species are presently found have a long history of disturbance, making an undisturbed reference 

difficult to find. For some rare plants, particularly those that do not tolerate disturbance or are found 

under dense canopy conditions, minimizing on-site change is an effective way of reducing the 

potential for larger-scale cumulative impact (MacDonald 2000). If the greatest impact on a rare 

species is both local and immediate, then this is the scale at which the effect is easiest to detect 

(MacDonald 2000). 

The additive effects of past actions (such as off-highway vehicle use, wildfires, wildfire 

suppression, timber harvest, mining, nonnative plant introductions and ranching) have shaped the 

present landscape and corresponding populations of rare plants. However, data describing the past 

distribution and abundance of rare plant species is extremely limited, making it impossible to quantify 

the effects of historic activities on the resources and conditions that are present today. Rare plant 

surveys did not begin until the early 1980s on the PNF. In many cases, even when project-level 

surveys were conducted, there is very little documentation that describes whether past projects 

avoided or protected rare plant species during project implementation. In addition to these unknowns, 

changes have been made to the PNF Sensitive species list. Therefore, in order to incorporate the 

contribution of past activities into the cumulative effects of the proposed trail project, this analysis 

uses the current abundance and distribution of rare plant species as a proxy for the impacts of past 

actions. 

Undeniably, past, present and future activities have and will continue to alter rare plant 

populations and their habitats to various degrees. These activities include off-highway vehicle use, 

grazing, timber harvest, fire suppression, prescribed fire, mining, recreational use, road construction

and noxious weed infestation. However, the approach taken in this analysis is that, if direct and 

indirect adverse effects on rare plant species from motor vehicle routes or trails are minimal or would 

not occur, then they would not contribute substantially to cumulative effects on the species. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 343

Present and future activities that are associated with the proposed trail system could impact rare 

species growing along or in the vicinity of a trail. These activities may include routine maintenance, 

such as brushing, signing, cleaning or clearing of debris or increased levels of dispersed camping or 

recreation along and near trails. Monitoring of road and trail conditions, which is required (see 

Chapter 2), will detect if resource damage is occurring to sensitive species and will instigate the 

development of species-specific protection measure or trail closure. The effects of other types of 

future projects (i.e. vegetation management) would likely be minimal or similar to those described in 

this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare 

species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

Flagging and avoiding rare plants is one of the most frequently used management strategies for 

reducing the cumulative impacts to known occurrences. While flag-and-avoid management can be 

effective in reducing cumulative impacts in most projects, it is not practical for proposed trails; 

therefore, alternatives that minimize adverse effects are preferable to alternatives that do not. 

3.8.8 Environmental Consequence—Effects of Alternatives on Rare Plant Species 

and Botanical Resources

The following sections provide a discussion of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each 

alternative on rare species, rare plant habitats and sensitive botanical resources. It is important to note 

that the analysis below represents what is known about motor vehicle impacts along unauthorized 

routes at this point in time. Adding a trail to the NFTS is expected to increase and concentrate motor 

vehicle use; this has the potential to increase negative impacts to those rare species and habitats found 

along established trails. Trails and rare plant occurrences will need to be re-evaluated on a continual 

basis to assess and address detrimental resource affects.

Only those rare species with the potential to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed 

project (that is, those within 100 feet of a proposed trail) are discussed in detail in this document. The 

number of rare species locations within 100 feet of an existing system trail or unauthorized route is 

displayed in Table 127; the number of locations within 100 feet of a proposed trail is displayed by 

action alternative in Table 131. The remainder of the effects discussion or more specifically the 

analysis presented for Alternative 1, is focused on the more general effects to rare species and habitat 

groupings from motorized vehicle use. The following table summarizes the number of miles within 

each of the rare plant habitat types. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

344 – Plumas National Forest

Table 129. Approximate number of miles of open unauthorized routes, existing system trails and 

proposed trails that occur within rare plant habitat types.

Habitat Type Measure (miles)

Alternative

1 (No-action) 2 3 4 5

Riparian Areas1 Proposed trails 81 27 50

Existing System Trails 34 34 34 34 34

Unauthorized Routes 344

Total Miles 378 115 34 61 84

Wet Meadows2 Proposed trails 0.5 0.4

Existing System Trails 1 1 1 1 1

Unauthorized Routes 1.5

Total Miles 2.5 1.5 1 1 1.4

Serpentine Areas Proposed trails 10 4 6.5

Existing System Trails 3 3 3 3 3

Unauthorized Routes 37

Total miles 40 13 3 7 9.5

Barren Habitats2 Proposed trails 2 0.75 1

Existing System Trails 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4

Unauthorized Routes 11

Total miles 19.4 10.4 8.4 9.15 9.4

Interior Forest3 Proposed trail 207 75 139

Existing System Trail 72 72 72 72 72

Unauthorized Routes 625

Total miles 697 279 72 147 211

Open Habitat Proposed trail 4 112 59 85

Existing System Trail 38 38 38 38 38

Unauthorized Routes 346

Total miles 384 150 38 97 123

1 Riparian Areas are defined here as ephemeral, intermittent or perennial streams. 

2 It is important to note that these numbers are an estimate; this habitat type is not well mapped on the Forest.

3 Interior Forest is defined here as CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6M.

4 Open Forest ecosystems are defined here as CWHR 1-3: M, D, S, P, X and 4P, 4S, 5P, 5S.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 345

In addition to rare plant species and habitats, the affects to two additional botanical resources are 

also discussed in the analysis below; these resources are Research Natural Areas and Special Interest 

Areas. The number of existing and unauthorized route miles within PNF SIAs and RNAs is displayed 

in Table 128; the number of proposed trail miles is displayed by action alternative in Table 132.

3.8.8.1 Alternative 1—No-action

Alternative 1 has the greatest negative effect on rare species and habitats. The largest impact of this

alternative is from cross-country travel, which has the potential to affect all but the most inaccessible 

rare species and habitats.

Under this alternative, it is impossible to quantify when and where rare plant species and habitats 

will be impacted by motorized vehicles; therefore, the analysis below uses the approximately 1,109

miles of unauthorized routes as a representation of current motorized vehicle use on the Forest (Table 

130). Due to the potential scope of these effects, the analysis of this alternative also focuses on a 

discussion of effects to plant groups, rather than to individual species. 

3.8.8.1.1 Direct/Indirect Effects 

Table 130. Summary of rare species indicator measures for Alternative 1 (No-action).

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to rare plant sites 30 miles

Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of an existing unauthorized route 509 acres

Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of an existing unauthorized 

route

304 sites

3.8.8.1.1.1 Fens

Implementation of Alternative 1 has the highest risk of direct and indirect effects to rare species 

dependent upon fen ecosystems, primarily due to the allowance for cross-country travel. At present, 

there are no known rare fen species occurrences within 100 feet of an unauthorized route; however, at 

least one unauthorized route comes within 100 feet of one fen and vehicle tracks have been 

documented in close proximity to another. Motor vehicle use has been listed as a potential threat to 

almost all of the fens outside of the Bucks Lake Wilderness (PNF Fen Inventory files 2008). 

Motor vehicle use within or in close proximity to fen habitats, has the potential to disrupt key 

hydrologic processes essential to maintaining the integrity of the fen system. In situations where the 

hydrologic function of a fen has been disrupted and the water table lowered, the peat quickly oxidizes 

and decomposes. This reduces the peat depth, alters hydrologic patterns, increases the risk of pocket 

gopher invasion and can result in shifts in species diversity and composition (Cooper 1990 in 

Weixelman 2007). All of these factors can have detrimental effects to rare fen species. 

3.8.8.1.1.2 Meadows and seeps

Implementation of Alternative 1 and the allowance for cross-country travel, provides the greatest 

access to meadows (Table 129) and seeps; it also carries the highest risk of direct and indirect effects 

to rare species dependent upon meadow and seep ecosystems. Meadows and seeps often have high 

scenic value, which makes them a destination spot for motorized recreation and tends to concentrate
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

346 – Plumas National Forest

use in these areas. There are currently four rare Meadow and Seep species, with a total of 34 

locations, within 100 feet of an unauthorized route or existing system trail (Table 127). Unauthorized 

routes often lack water bars or other design features that slow water flow, decrease erosion and

prevent sedimentation into the meadows and seeps situated adjacent to routes. Motorized vehicle use 

results in soil disturbance, soil compaction and removal of vegetation in and around routes; all of 

these can have a substantial impact on the hydrologic and biotic integrity of the meadow and seep 

ecosystems. Meadows and seeps are also highly susceptible to invasion from noxious weed species 

that thrive under wet conditions, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and perennial pepperweed 

(Lepidium latifolium). 

3.8.8.1.1.3 Riparian Areas

Alternative 1 has highest number of existing unauthorized routes and system trails (378 miles) within 

riparian ecosystems (Table 129). There are also three rare Riparian species, with a total of seven 

locations, within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes or system trail (Table 127). These factors, in 

combination with the allowance for cross-country travel, result in Alternative 1 carrying the highest 

risk of effects to rare species within riparian systems. Unauthorized routes have not been designed to 

reduce impacts to riparian ecosystems. Motor vehicles traveling on and off of these routes negatively 

impact riparian species and habitats by reducing the vegetative cover in and around trails, compacting 

soils, increasing erosion, altering patterns of water flow and reducing water quality by depositing 

petroleum products and/or sediment into streams. Removal of vegetation can alter the microclimate 

and lead to warmer and drier conditions that are not favored by the rare species in this guild. Riparian 

areas, like meadows and seeps, are highly susceptible to invasion from noxious weed species that 

thrive under wet conditions, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and perennial pepperweed 

(Lepidium latifolium). 

3.8.8.1.1.4 Serpentine areas

Alternative 1 has an estimated 40 miles of unauthorized routes and existing system trail within 

serpentine areas (Table 129). There are also six rare Serpentine species, with a total of 67 locations, 

within 100 feet of an unauthorized or existing system trail (Table 127). Serpentine areas often lack 

natural barriers to motor vehicles (i.e. dense vegetation), which makes this habitat type particularly 

inviting to cross-country travel. All of these factors result in Alternative 1 carrying the highest risk of 

effects to rare species within Serpentine areas.

Serpentine soils are generally shallow and rocky, with low water-holding capacity and rooting 

depths. These conditions inhibit plants from developing deep root systems and also increase the 

vulnerability of serpentine soils to erosion (Whittaker 1954). Motor vehicles negatively affect this 

unique plant community and the rare species that it supports by creating disturbed soils that are highly 

vulnerable to increased erosion. In areas where motor vehicle use has occurred, vegetation and soil 

recovery rates are generally very slow (Harrison et. al 2006). While these nutrient-poor ecosystems 

tend to be less invaded by non-native species than other habitat types (Harrison 1999), motor vehicles 

still increase the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread in these communities. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 347

3.8.8.1.1.5 Barren Habitats

Alternative 1 has the highest estimated number of unauthorized routes (11 miles) on rock outcrops, 

ridge tops, cliffs and talus slope ecosystems (Table 129). Two rare species, with a total of four 

locations, also occur within 100 feet of unauthorized or existing system trail (Table 127). These 

factors, in combination with the allowance for cross-country travel, result in Alternative 1 carrying 

the highest risk of effects to rare species within these “barren” ecosystems.

Some of the species in this group (i.e. Lewisia cantelovii) grow in sites that are inaccessible to 

motor vehicles, such as steep cliffs or rocky habitats. In these areas, where natural barriers to motor

vehicle use exist, the likelihood of direct impacts from this alternative is much lower than it is for rare 

species that grow in more accessible habitat types (i.e. forest openings or serpentine areas). In 

contrast, other species in this group, such as Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, grow in flatter, more 

open terrain, where the risk of direct effects from motor vehicle travel is much higher. 

In many of these ecosystems, particularly where the terrain is steep, disturbance from motor 

vehicles can increase the rates of erosion, causing significant indirect impacts to rare species. In 

addition, plants dependent on Barren habitat types generally do not compete well with other 

vegetation; therefore, weed introduction or spread can be a significant risk in those areas with more 

developed soils. 

3.8.8.1.1.6 Interior Forest Habitats

Implementation of Alternative 1 has the highest risk of direct and indirect effects to rare species 

dependent upon interior forest ecosystems. Alternative 1 has 697 miles of unauthorized routes and 

existing system trail within interior forest habitats (Table 129). There are also two rare Interior forest 

orchid species, with a total of 19 locations, within 100 feet of unauthorized or existing system trail 

(Table 127).

Rare species that are dependent upon interior forest communities often require shade, protected 

microclimates and infrequently disturbed substrates. Many of these species, particularly the 

Cypripedium species, have complex mycorrhizal associations that require sufficient organic matter in 

the duff layer. Motor vehicle use within interior forest habitats can alter the temperature, moisture and

other microclimate conditions; disrupt underground mycorrhizal networks; disturb litter and duff 

layers; change soil characteristics; and create open areas of bare soil that increase the risk of weed 

introduction and spread. Increased route and road density in interior forest habitat also has the 

potential to fragment rare plant populations that are dependent upon closed canopy systems. 

The species in the Interior Forest habitat group may not be as impacted by cross-country travel as 

those in the previously discussed species groups (i.e. meadows or serpentine species) due to the 

higher density and size of trees or other natural barriers to motor vehicle travel that exist in this 

habitat type; however, the Interior Forest species are also highly intolerant of disturbances, such as 

those from motor vehicles. This latter factor greatly increases the risk to these species from 

Alternative 1.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

348 – Plumas National Forest

3.8.8.1.1.7 Open Habitats

The species in this guild are found in a wide variety of open habitat types that include open forests, 

forest margins, stabilized roadsides, old skid trails and forest openings or gaps. Because many of 

these habitats are ephemeral in nature or occur along habitat edges, a quantification of some of these 

habitat types cannot be completed. An estimate of the number of miles within open forest habitat is 

presented in Table 129. In general, these habitats are highly accessible to and utilized by motor 

vehicles. In addition, many of these types (i.e. stabilized roadsides, forest margins) are often created 

as a result of motor vehicle travel. This grouping contains the largest number of species (12) and 

locations (168) within 100 feet of an unauthorized or existing system trail (Table 127).

In general, the rare species in this plant association colonize open areas, multiply rapidly and

persist for a short while. They are often poor competitors and may persist only until stronger 

competitors move in and shade them out. Many are well adapted to take advantage of the high-light 

intensities found along routes. Species in this guild vary in their degree of tolerance to disturbance 

activities; many tend to be disturbance-followers that increase with infrequent, small-scale 

disturbances. 

The edge of routes may provide open habitat for some rare species; however, any beneficial effect 

to these species (i.e. increased light or low levels of competition) could easily be overcome by 

negative direct effects such as repeated trampling or death of individuals; continual soil disturbance, 

which could lead to soil erosion and degradation of the seedbed; and noxious weed introduction and 

spread. Open habitats are highly susceptible to noxious weed invasions, particularly from species 

such as yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), knapweed (Centaurea species) or annual grasses 

such as medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae).

3.8.8.1.2 Cumulative Effects 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not improve conditions for rare species or their habitats. 

Unmanaged motorized vehicle use on the PNF has the potential for negative direct and indirect 

effects to all of the rare species known to occur on the Forest (Table 126); therefore, the potential for 

cumulative effects to these species is high. 

Under this alternative, motor vehicles traveling on and off of unauthorized routes would continue 

to trample, kill and uproot rare species. Indirect effects to rare species and their associated habitats 

could include reduction of native plant cover, creation of edge-habitats, increased rutting, erosion and

soil compaction. One of the largest potential impacts from cross-country motor vehicle travel is the 

increased risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of native 

(including rare plant) habitat by displacing native species, altering nutrient and fire cycles, degrading 

soil structure and decreasing the quality and availability of forage for wildlife (Bossard, Randall and

Hoshovsky 2000). Noxious weeds are spread by roads, motorized trails, recreational activities (such 

as camping, hiking, horseback riding and hunting) and ongoing land management activities. Under 

this alternative, all but the most inaccessible habitats are at risk of noxious weed invasion and spread 

from cross-country motor vehicle travel. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 349

Many of the PNF plant communities (discussed above) have been degraded or altered by historic 

human activities. Riparian areas, fens, meadows, seeps and springs on the PNF have been altered by 

water diversions, habitat type conversion (i.e. meadow to annual grassland), intense grazing by 

domestic livestock and construction of roads and trails. Serpentine areas and barren, rocky habitats 

have been impacted by gold and gravel mining, timber harvest, road construction and recreation. 

Interior or late-successional forests across the Sierra Nevada have been altered by past timber 

management practices, wildfire suppression and road construction. Open or early to mid-successional 

forests, have also been heavily impacted by past timber management practices, which tended to favor 

removal of larger, more dominant trees (i.e. overstory removal). This management practice, as well as 

the suppression of wildfire, has resulted in a greater number of dense forests that are dominated by 

small trees and a reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. Forest openings or edges, 

which are not a specific habitat type, are continually being created as trees or other vegetation die. 

While the specific amount of habitat reduction or alteration is unknown, it can be presumed that these 

activities and others have impacted rare species directly, indirectly and cumulatively by reducing the 

amount of suitable habitat across the PNF.

Past management activities, such as timber harvest, have also created skid trails and temporary 

roads that often contribute to cross-country travel and the creation of unauthorized routes. The 

number of Forest users and subsequently the number of unauthorized routes, continues to grow each 

year with many having negative impacts to rare species and their habitats. Under this alternative, 

these negative impacts would not be addressed or mitigated and would continue to occur at an 

increased rate. These routes and use areas lack the planning and design features that are important for 

limiting disturbance and damage to sensitive botanical resources.

The effects of present and future projects on rare species would likely be minimal or similar to 

those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection 

of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

3.8.8.1.2.1 Cumulative Effects to Other Botanical Resources Under Alternative 1

Under this alternative, motorized vehicle use would continue to occur within the Mud Lake Research 

Natural Area and the 18 PNF Special Interest Areas (Table 129). These areas were designated (or 

proposed for designation) to protect significant geological, botanical and/or historical features. 

Unmanaged motorized vehicle use within these areas has the potential to significantly degrade or 

disturb these special features. 

3.8.9 Action Alternatives (2 thru 5)—Summary of Environmental Consequences for 

Individual Species

The following sections provide a discussion of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each 

alternative on those rare species with the potential to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed 

project (that is, those within 100 feet of a proposed trail). These sections also provide information on 

the abundance, distribution (both on a global and local scale) and habitat specificity for each of the 

rare species (organized by habitat grouping) found within 100 feet of a proposed trail. Sections of the 

PNF rare species management prescriptions (USDA Forest Service 2007) that are relevant to trails are 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

350 – Plumas National Forest

also provided. The PNF species management prescriptions are based on field visits, monitoring and

professional observations; individual species conservation assessments and guides; and known 

species ecology. 

In general, the types of impacts to rare species would be similar to those described under 

Alternative 1 (No-action); however, due to the prohibition of cross-country travel, the action 

alternatives would negatively affect far fewer rare species (Table 131), rare plant habitats (Table 129)

and Special Interest Areas (Table 132). In general, the greater the number of motorized vehicle trails 

(and miles) proposed, the higher the risk and severity of negative impacts to rare species and their 

associated habitats. 

Table 131. The number of rare plant locations within 100’ of a proposed trail displayed by action 

alternative. 

Species

Habitat 

Grouping1

Action Alternatives

2 4 5

Allium jepsonii S 2 2

Arabis constancei S 2 1 1

Astragalus lentiformis O 9 1 4

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae O 3

Botrychium sp. MS, R 1

Calycadenia oppositifolia S, O 2 2

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae O 10 1 2

Clarkia mosquinii O 1

Cypripedium fasciculatum IF 6 4 4

Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii S 7

Hydrothyria venosa R 2 1

Ivesia aperta var. aperta MS 2 2

Ivesia sericolueca MS 2

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii O, B 1

Lupinus dalesiae O 22 12 18

Monardella follettii S 3 1 1

Penstemon personatus O 2 1 1

Pyrrocoma lucida MS 2 2

TOTAL 78 21 40

1Fens (F), Meadows and Seeps (MS), Riparian areas (R), Serpentine (S), Barren (B), Interior Forest (IF), Open habitat (O)
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 351

Table 132. Miles of proposed trails within Plumas National Forest Special Interest Areas displayed by 

action alternative.

Special Interest Area

PNF 

Status1

Action Alternative

2 4 5

Brady’s Camp P 3.1 2.1

Butterfly Valley E 0.2 0.2

Fowler Lake P 0.1

McRae Meadow P 1.2 1.2 1.2

Grand total 4.4 1.2 3

1 P = Proposed SIA, E = Existing SIA

3.8.9.1 Meadows and Seeps

The following four meadow and seep species occur within 100 feet of a proposed trail: Botrychium 

sp., Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia sericolueca and Pyrrocoma lucida. 

Botrychium (moonworts) Botrychium are small, inconspicuous, perennial ferns that are commonly 

referred to as moonworts. Some of these species are widely distributed across North America. In 

California, Botrychium have been reported from the Oregon border as far south as the San Bernardino 

mountain range (Laeger 2002). Despite this wide range, Botrychium occurrences are often scattered 

and consist of only a few individuals.

In California, Botrychium are most often found in high latitudes and high elevation montane or 

forest habitats. Within these habitat types, Botrychium occur in meadows, springs and fens; along 

stream banks and alpine lakeshores; and in wet crevices in outcrops (Laeger 2002). Important habitat 

requirements include sufficient canopy cover, soil moisture organic matter and because Botrychium 

are closely associated with mycorrhizal fungi at all life stages, the avoidance of root and mycorrhizal 

disturbance. 

Population trends are difficult to define for Botrychium because individuals do not appear above 

ground every year. Threats from management activities include grazing and trampling by livestock; 

road construction and maintenance; recreation, including off-road vehicles use; changes in the 

hydrologic regime; and harvesting of plants as special forest products. The dispersal strategies and 

population dynamics (i.e. metapopulation dynamics) of these species make it particularly important to 

protect unoccupied suitable habitat. Although many of these species may be found in areas of old 

disturbance (greater than 10 years old), continuous, heavy soil disturbance can be very detrimental 

(Laeger 2002).

The Botrychium’s small size, inconspicuous growth form and potential for dormancy make survey 

and identification particularly challenging. On the PNF, fifteen sites have been identified as 

supporting unidentified Botrychium species (i.e. where the taxonomy has yet to be confirmed). B. 

ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. lunaria and B. pinnatum have not been documented on the 

PNF but are considered to have the potential to occur. B. minganese and B. montanum have been 

found on the PNF. 

PNF management prescription: Protect all plant occurrences from ground disturbance. 

Maintain hydrologic conditions in riparian areas where these plants occur. Do not allow machinery in 

occupied habitat. Develop a monitoring strategy for habitat enhancement activities as needed. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

352 – Plumas National Forest

Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size and

known species ecology.

3.8.9.1.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

One Botrychium location was documented within 100 feet of a trail proposed under Alternative 2 

(Table 133). Due to the difficulty of identification, a species determination for this Botrychium has 

not been made; therefore, for the purposes of this analysis this species will be treated as one of the 

eight PNF Sensitive Botrychium species (Table 126) and protected according to the management 

prescription described below.

Table 133. Botrychium occurrences within 100’ of the proposed trails under Alternative 2.

Occurrence Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential for impact Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ 

route

Within 30-

100’ 

Size of Occurrence 

(acres) 2 4 5

6 17M05 0.1 0.01 0.11 X

Due to its close proximity to the route proposed under Alternative 2, the individuals within 

Occurrence 6 are at a high risk of direct impacts (i.e. trampling or death) from motor vehicle use. This 

small occurrence contains only eight individuals; all of which are located along the banks of a small 

spring that crosses the proposed trail. Soil disturbance from motor vehicle use, particularly when it 

occurs on a regular basis, could have an adverse effect on the Botrychium at this site.

The habitat where this species is found is particularly sensitive to the impacts of motor vehicle 

use. Motor vehicles can disrupt key hydrologic processes, alter the timing and direction of water flow 

and infiltration and increase rates of erosion. This habitat is also highly susceptible to invasion from 

aggressive noxious weed species that thrive under wet conditions, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense) and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the Botrychium from implementation of 

Alternatives 3, 4 or 5. 

3.8.9.1.1.2 Cumulative Effects

Past activities, such as grazing by domestic livestock and construction of roads and trails, have 

resulted in water diversions and habitat type conversions of seeps, springs and meadows across this 

species’ range. These past management activities have likely had a negative impact on Botrychium 

individuals and areas of suitable habitat. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to this species by banning crosscountry travel; however, Alternative 2 would not eliminate the impacts to all occurrences or areas of 

suitable habitat. The occurrence that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails represents 

approximately five percent of all known Botrychium occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 353

Figure 8. Percentage of Plumas National Forest occurrences impacted by the proposed trails. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Pyrrocoma lucida

Penstemon personatus

Monardella follettii

Lupinus dalesiae

Lewisia kelloggii ssp.

hutchisonii

Ivesia sericolueca

Ivesia aperta var. aperta

Hydrothyria venosa

Eriogonum umbellatum var.

ahartii

Cypripedium fasciculatum

Clarkia mosquinii

Clarkia mildrediae ssp.

mildrediae

Calycadenia oppositifolia

Botrychium sp.

Astragalus pulsiferae var.

pulsiferae

Astragalus lentiformis

Arabis constancei

Allium jepsonii

Percent

Alt 2

Alt 4

Alt 5
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

354 – Plumas National Forest

The proposed trail appears to be relatively well-established; therefore, the largest impact to this 

occurrence most likely occurred at the time the route was created or constructed. Continued use of 

this route would likely threaten the individuals within this occurrence, by directly impacting 

individuals and indirectly increasing rates of erosion. The effects of present and future projects on this 

species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing Management 

Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed 

prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Botrychium from implementation of Alternatives 3, 4 or

5; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would be negligible. 

3.8.9.1.2 Ivesia aperta var. aperta (Sierra Valley Ivesia)

This species has a limited range that consists of scattered occurrences in Washoe County, Nevada and 

Plumas, Lassen and Sierra counties in California. On the PNF, Ivesia aperta var. aperta has been 

documented at 18 locations. Thirty three occurrences have been recorded from Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Forest Service, State and private lands adjacent to the PNF (CNDDB 2008). 

Ivesia aperta var. aperta is found in sagebrush plant communities at the eastern base of the Sierra 

Nevada. Within these communities, it is associated with meadow flats, meadow borders, rocky 

ephemeral stream channels, gentle rocky slopes with sparse vegetative cover and vernal pools (USDA 

Forest Service 1992). This species appears to be in decline across its range. Threats include livestock 

grazing and trampling, road construction and maintenance, mining, fire suppression activities (fire 

camps) and off-highway vehicle use. Off-highway vehicles impact this species and habitat by 

compaction of soils and physical damage to the plants. Observations have shown that motorized 

vehicle trails on the PNF have removed “strips” from Ivesia populations (USDA Forest Service 

1992).

PNF management prescription: At least 30 percent of the known occurrences within a project 

area should be protected from all ground-disturbing actions. Avoid impacting more than 50 percent of 

the known individuals within a project area over any 10 year period. To the degree possible, 

incorporate known aspects of the species’ ecology into design elements of proposed actions to protect 

or enhance species viability. Evaluate activities and use mitigations consistent with Riparian 

Management Objectives (HFQLG FEIS) or Riparian Conservation Objectives (Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment ROD, p. 32-35) depending on which standards apply, species abundance, 

population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology. In general, strive to avoid direct 

impacts.

3.8.9.1.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Two locations of Ivesia aperta var. aperta are situated within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternatives 2 and 5.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 355

Table 134. Locations of Ivesia aperta var. aperta within 100 feet of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential for impact Action Alternatives

Within 0-

30’ route

Within 30-

100’ 

Size of Occurrence 

(acres) 2 4 5

2 16M04A 0.4 1 125 X X

10 15M04 0.5 1.1 9 X X

Ivesia aperta var. aperta individuals within 30 feet of a proposed trail will have a high probability 

of direct effects (i.e. trampling or death) from motor vehicle use; however, because this species is 

dependent upon wet meadow habitats and is less likely to inhabit the drier conditions associated with 

the trail bed or shoulder, indirect effects to adjacent habitats are most likely to have an adverse 

impact.

The habitat where this species is found is particularly sensitive to the impacts of motor vehicle 

use. Motor vehicle use within or in close proximity to this habitat has the potential to disrupt key 

hydrologic processes, which could have adverse indirect effects on the species. Ruts caused by motor 

vehicles in wet meadows can alter the timing and direction of water flow and infiltration. Increased 

rates of erosion and creation of head-cuts can also become so severe that a large portion of wet 

meadow habitat is degraded. These habitats are also highly susceptible to invasion from aggressive 

noxious weed species that thrive under wet conditions, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and 

perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Ivesia aperta var. aperta from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4. 

3.8.9.1.2.2 Cumulative Effects

Past activities, such as grazing by domestic livestock and construction of roads and trails, have 

resulted in water diversions and habitat type conversions of meadows across this species’ range. 

These past management activities have likely had a negative impact on Ivesia aperta var. aperta 

individuals and areas of suitable habitat. 

At present, the two Ivesia aperta var. aperta occurrences that are potentially impacted by the 

proposed trails are also impacted by ongoing livestock grazing. Preliminary monitoring of this species 

has shown lower recruitment numbers and higher mortality levels in areas that are grazed by domestic 

livestock (M. Friend, personal communication). Occurrence 10 also has a channel headcut, which 

may accelerate the hydrologic degradation of the habitat. These conditions, in combination with 

motor vehicle use on the proposed trails, have the potential to negatively impact Ivesia aperta var. 

aperta habitat and threaten individuals. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to this species by banning crosscountry travel; however, Alternatives 2 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to all occurrences or 

areas of suitable habitat. The two occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails

represent approximately eleven percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and four 

percent of the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

356 – Plumas National Forest

Both of the proposed trails appear to be relatively well established; therefore, the largest impact to 

these two Ivesia aperta var. aperta occurrences most likely occurred at the time the route was created 

or constructed. Adding these trails to the NFTS under the action alternatives would have some 

negative impact on this species; however, it would likely not reduce the overall viability of Ivesia 

aperta var. aperta due to the small proportion of the two occurrences affected (less than eighteen 

percent) and the relatively small amount of suitable habitat potentially impacted. The effects of 

present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in 

this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare 

species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Ivesia aperta var. aperta from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would be negligible. 

3.8.9.1.3 Ivesia sericolueca (Plumas Ivesia)

This species has a limited range that consists of scattered occurrences in Washoe County, Nevada and

Plumas, Lassen, Nevada and Sierra counties in California. Ivesia sericolueca has been recorded at 14 

locations on the PNF and 52 occurrences outside of the PNF on County, Forest Service, State and

private lands (CNDDB 2008).

This plant is found in vernally wet portions of meadows and alkali flats and in vernal pools. 

These habitats are not widespread and are sensitive to changes in hydrology and impacts from 

erosion. Ivesia sericolueca has a downward trend across its range due to low levels of reproduction 

and high levels of disturbance at known sites. Threats to this species include recreation activities, offhighway vehicle use, firewood gathering, target shooting, livestock grazing, mining, fire suppression, 

military practice camps, timber harvest activities, changes in hydrology and erosion. 

PNF management prescription: At least 30 percent of the known occurrences within a project 

area should be protected from all ground-disturbing actions. Avoid impacting more than 50 percent of 

the known individuals within a project area over any 10 year period. To the degree possible, 

incorporate known aspects of the species’ ecology into design elements of proposed actions to protect 

or enhance species viability. Evaluate activities and use mitigations consistent with Riparian 

Management Objectives (HFQLG FEIS) or Riparian Conservation Objectives (Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment ROD, p. 32-35) depending on which standards apply, species abundance, 

population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology. In general, strive to avoid direct 

impacts. 

3.8.9.1.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Two locations of Ivesia sericolueca occur within 100 feet of a trail proposed under Alternative 2 

(Table 135). No occurrences of this species are impacted under any of the other action alternatives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 357

Table 135. Locations of Ivesia sericolueca within 100’ of a trail proposed under Alternative 2.

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with 

potential for impact Size of Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

5 13M10 0.6 1.1 52 X

6 13M10 0.04 0.4 17 X

Ivesia sericolueca individuals within 30 feet of a proposed trail will have a high probability of 

direct effects (i.e. trampling or death) from motor vehicle use; however, because this species is 

dependent upon wet meadow habitats and is less likely to inhabit the drier conditions associated with 

the trail bed or shoulder, indirect effects to adjacent habitats are most likely to have an adverse 

impact. 

Ivesia sericolueca occupies habitats that are particularly sensitive to the impacts of motor vehicle 

use. Motor vehicle use within or in close proximity to this habitat has the potential to disrupt key 

hydrologic processes, which could have adverse indirect effects on the species. Ruts caused by motor 

vehicles in wet meadows can alter the timing and direction of water flow and infiltration. Increased 

rates of erosion and creation of head-cuts can also become so severe that a large portion of wet 

meadow habitat is degraded. These habitats are also highly susceptible to invasion from aggressive 

noxious weed species that thrive under wet conditions, such as (Cirsium arvense) and perennial 

pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium).

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Ivesia sericolueca from implementation of 

Alternatives 3, 4 or 5.

3.8.9.1.3.2 Cumulative Effects 

Past activities, such as grazing by domestic livestock and construction of roads and trails, have 

resulted in water diversions and habitat type conversions of meadows across this species’ range. 

These past management activities have likely had a negative impact on Ivesia sericolueca individuals 

and areas of suitable habitat. 

Current livestock grazing on the PNF impacts occurrences of Ivesia sericolueca by reducing 

recruitment levels and increasing mortality rates (M. Friend, personal communication). This 

management activity, in combination with motor vehicle use along some of the proposed trails, may 

accelerate the hydrologic degradation of suitable habitat for this species across the Forest.

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to this species by banning crosscountry travel; however, Alternative 2 would not eliminate the impacts to all occurrences or areas of 

suitable habitat. The two occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trail represent 

approximately 14 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and three percent of the 

known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008).

The proposed trail (13M10) is relatively well established; therefore, the largest impact to these 

two occurrences most likely occurred at the time the route was created or constructed. Adding this 

trail to the NFTS under Alternative 2 would have some negative impact on this species; however, it 

would likely not reduce the overall viability of Ivesia sericolueca due to the small proportion of the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

358 – Plumas National Forest

two individual occurrences affected (less than three percent) and the relatively small amount of 

suitable habitat potentially impacted. The effects of present and future projects on this species would 

likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines

(such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention 

measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Ivesia sericolueca from implementation of Alternatives 3, 

4 or 5; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would be negligible. 

3.8.9.1.4 Pyrrocoma lucida (sticky Pyrrocoma)

This perennial tap rooted species is known from 76 occurrences in Sierra, Plumas, Yuba and Lassen 

counties (CNDDB 2008). It is endemic to the eastern portion of the Beckwourth Ranger District of 

the PNF, the Sierra Valley area on the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe NF and adjacent private 

lands. The PNF currently has 46 occurrences. 

Pyrrocoma lucida is found in vernally saturated soils of alkaline clay meadows within sagebrush 

scrub habitats below 6,000 feet. Within these habitats it occurs in the drier sagebrush-meadow 

ecotones rather than in the perennially wet meadows. It is also found in ephemeral drainages and 

swales, roadside ditches and historic railroad ditches.

The trend for this species is not known. Documented occurrences are numerous and individuals 

are estimated to exceed 383,000 plants with over half occurring on state or federal lands. In spite of 

this substantial number of occurrences and abundance of individuals, nearly every occurrence is 

disturbed by one or more factors. Threats include reservoir development, meadow restoration, offhighway vehicle use, recreation activities, fire suppression camps, military camps, prescribed burning 

and other fuel treatments, activities associated with timber harvest (i.e. landings), fuel wood 

gathering, grazing and land exchanges. 

PNF management prescription: At least 30 percent of the known occurrences within a project 

area should be protected from all ground disturbing actions. Avoid impacting more than 50 percent of 

the known individuals within a project area over any 10 year period. To the degree possible, 

incorporate known aspects of the species’ ecology into design elements of proposed actions to protect 

or enhance species viability. Evaluate activities and use mitigations consistent with Riparian 

Management Objectives (HFQLG FEIS) or Riparian Conservation Objectives (Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment ROD, pp. 32-35) depending on which standards apply, species abundance, 

population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology. In general, strive to avoid direct 

impacts.

3.8.9.1.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Two locations of Pyrrocoma lucida occur within 100 feet of a trail proposed under Alternatives 2 and 

5 (Table 136).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 359

Table 136. Locations of Pyrrocoma lucida within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

4 16M04A 0.2 63 X X

5 16M04 0.05 0.4 100 X X

Pyrrocoma lucida is found along the edges of vernally moist meadows and alkali flats. Because 

of their sparse vegetation and open terrain, these habitats are particularly inviting to motor vehicle 

use. The trails within the vicinity of these two occurrences are both well-established roads/trails; 

therefore, the likelihood of individuals occurring within the trail is relatively low. Motor vehicles 

pulling off of the trail to park may directly affect individuals within Occurrence 5 if plants occupy the 

area between 0-30 feet of the trail. 

Indirect effects to this species include increased risk of noxious weed invasion, particularly from 

aggressive noxious weed species that thrive under wet conditions, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense) and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Motor vehicle use within or in close 

proximity to this habitat can also disrupt key hydrologic processes, alter the timing and direction of 

water flow and infiltration and increase rates of erosion.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Pyrrocoma lucida from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4. 

3.8.9.1.5 Cumulative Effects 

Past activities, such as grazing by domestic livestock and construction of roads and trails, have 

resulted in water diversions and habitat type conversions of meadows across this species’ range. 

These past management activities have likely had a negative impact on Pyrrocoma lucida individuals 

and areas of suitable habitat. Current livestock grazing within occurrences, in combination with motor 

vehicle use along some of the proposed trails, may accelerate the degradation of habitat for this 

species across the Forest.

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to this species by banning crosscountry travel; however, Alternatives 2 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to all occurrences or 

areas of suitable habitat. The two occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trail

represent approximately four percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and three 

percent of the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008).

The proposed trails are relatively well-established; therefore, the largest impact to these two 

occurrences most likely occurred at the time the route was created or constructed. Adding these trails 

to the NFTS under the action alternatives would have some negative impact on this species; however,

it will likely not reduce the overall viability of Pyrrocoma lucida due to the small proportion of the 

two individual occurrences affected (less than 0.5 percent) and the relatively small amount of suitable 

habitat potentially impacted. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be 

minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

360 – Plumas National Forest

field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) 

remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Pyrrocoma lucida from implementation of Alternatives 3 

or 4; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would be negligible. 

3.8.9.2 Riparian Areas

One riparian species, Hydrothyria venosa, occurs within 100 feet of a proposed trail.

3.8.9.2.1 Hydrothyria venosa (Veined Water Lichen) 

This aquatic lichen has a broad distribution that includes five eastern states, Oregon, Washington, 

British Columbia and California. In California, it is found in streams along the western slope of the 

Sierra Nevada and northern Coast ranges. Twenty occurrences of Hydrothyria venosa have been

documented on the PNF. Outside of the PNF, 25 occurrences are known from the Forest Service and 

State Park lands. Where populations do occur, individuals are generally few in number. 

Hydrothyria venosa is found in cold, unpolluted streams in mixed conifer forests. It is in decline 

throughout its historic range. Threats to this species include activities that change the water chemistry, 

alter the stream channel or significantly alter the riparian vegetation. These changes increase the 

water temperature and/or increase flows that scour the gravel and rocks where this lichen is attached. 

Management activities of concern include grazing, off-highway vehicles, sedimentation from roads, 

herbicides, dispersed camping and recreational water use.

PNF management prescription: Protect all locations from disturbance. Maintain hydrologic 

conditions in streams where occurrences are found. Coordinate stream activities up and downstream 

of known occurrences. Consider a protection buffer to maintain canopy cover. If the establishment of 

a no-disturbance buffer is appropriate, consider the following when determining the size and shape of 

the buffer: site conditions, topographic position, slope, aspect, stand structure (including canopy 

height), intensity of the proposed management activity and proximity to water.

3.8.9.2.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Two locations of Hydrothyria venosa occur within 100 feet of the trails proposed under Alternative 2 

(Table 137).

Table 137. Locations of Hydrothyria venosa within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with 

potential for impact Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-

100’ 2 4 5

6 5M20 0.04 42 X

11 5M28E 0.5 0.2 1.6 X

This aquatic lichen requires perennial streams, with relatively stable water flows and clear, cool 

water (Dillingham 2005). This lichen also cannot tolerate too much physical disruption; therefore,

those individuals in Occurrence 11 that occupy portions of the stream that intersect the proposed trail

will likely be negatively impacted (i.e. killed) by motor vehicle use if Alternative 2 is implemented. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 361

Adding the proposed trails to the NFTS could also indirectly impact the two occurrences listed 

above if use of the trails result in alteration of the stream channel, removal of riparian vegetation or

modification of the water chemistry. These changes can increase the water temperature and/or 

increase flows that scour the gravel and rocks where this lichen is attached. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Hydrothyria venosa from implementation of 

Alternatives 3, 4, or 5. 

3.8.9.2.1.2 Cumulative Effects 

This species has likely lost individuals and suitable habitat in the past as a result of management 

activities that include water diversions, habitat type conversion and construction of roads and trails. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to Hydrothyria venosa by banning 

cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to occurrences or 

areas of suitable habitat. 

The two occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails represent approximately 

10 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and four percent of the known 

occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). Adding these trails to the NFTS under Alternatives 2 and 5 

would have some negative impact on this species and its habitat. These impacts would likely not 

reduce the overall viability of Hydrothyria venosa due to the small number of occurrences affected 

and the relatively low amount of suitable habitat potentially impacted. The effects of present and 

future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if 

existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations

and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Hydrothyria venosa from implementation of Alternatives 

3 or 4; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would also be negligible. 

3.8.9.3 Serpentine Plant Communities

The following five serpentine species are within 100 feet of a proposed trail: Allium jepsonii, Arabis 

constancei, Calycadenia oppositifolia, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii and Monardella follettii.

3.8.9.3.1 Allium jepsonii (Jepson's onion) 

This plant is known from 23 occurrences in eastern Butte and Tuolumne Counties in the northern 

Sierra Nevada (CNDDB 2008). In Butte County, it grows on serpentine soils in foothill woodland or 

mixed conifer forest. On the PNF, this plant is known from fifteen occurrences that are found on 

steep, relatively undisturbed, serpentine outcrops between 1,400 and 3,800 feet in elevation in the 

western portion of the Forest. Most occurrences are small, containing only hundreds of individuals.

The trend for this plant on the PNF appears to be stable for those plants located on rock outcrops; 

however, population numbers may fluctuate in serpentine soils located off of outcrops depending on 

climatic fluctuation. In Butte County threats to this species include road construction and for the few 

occurrences not on rock outcrops, timber harvest, prescribed burning and off-highway vehicle use.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

362 – Plumas National Forest

PNF management prescription: Protect all plant occurrences from ground disturbance. Evaluate 

activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic 

distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.3.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are two occurrences of Allium jepsonii within 30-100 feet of the trails proposed under 

Alternatives 2 and 5 (Table 138).

Table 138. Locations of Allium jepsonii within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with 

potential for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

2 5M02 0.2 11.1 X X

5 5M05 0.02 0.2 X X

The two Allium jepsonii occurrences are situated more than 30 feet from the system trails 

proposed under Alternatives 2 and 5; therefore, the potential for direct effects to individuals is low. 

There is some potential for indirect effects, such as increased erosion and noxious weed invasion; 

however, only a small portion (less than 10 percent) of each occurrence is located within 100 feet of 

the proposed trails, making the potential for significant effects to the entire occurrence low. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Allium jepsonii from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4. 

3.8.9.3.1.2 Cumulative Effects

This rare onion is found on rocky, low productivity, serpentine soils and has not been observed in 

areas of recent or high disturbance. This species has likely lost individuals and suitable habitat over 

the past 150 years as a result of ground disturbing activities such as gold and gravel mining, timber 

harvest, road construction and recreation. Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce 

impacts to Allium jepsonii by banning cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2 and 5 would not 

eliminate the impacts to all occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. 

The two Allium jepsonii occurrences that may be indirectly impacted by use of the proposed trails

represent approximately 13 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and nine percent 

of the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). Based on the low likelihood of direct effects 

to the known occurrences and the relatively small amount of suitable habitat impacted, it is predicted 

that implementation of the action alternatives would not reduce the overall viability of Allium 

jepsonii. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar 

to those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, 

protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Allium jepsonii from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4; therefore, cumulative effects from these alternatives would also be negligible. 

3.8.9.3.2 Arabis constancei (Constance’s Rock Cress)

This species occurs on undisturbed serpentine-derived soils in scattered locations on the PNF and

southernmost part of the Lassen National Forest, in Plumas and Sierra counties. There are 55 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 363

occurrences on the PNF that occur in several parallel bands of serpentine. Only one occurrence is 

known from outside of the PNF; it is found on the Lassen National Forest (CNDDB 2008). 

Occurrences are found between 3,200 and 6,600 feet in elevation and range in size from a few 

individuals on small serpentine outcrops to over a hundred individuals within larger areas of 

productive serpentine soil.

The known occurrences of this plant seem to be stable if they have not been impacted; however, 

many of the known occurrences have been impacted by various activities including mining, road 

building, timber harvest, off-highway vehicle use and recreation activities. 

PNF management prescription: Protect all plant occurrences from ground disturbance. Evaluate 

activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic 

distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

There are two occurrences of Arabis constancei within 30-100 feet of the trails proposed under 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 (Table 139).

A review of the PNF files indicates that this species has a very low tolerance to soil disturbance. 

It may be found occupying very old areas of disturbance, but it is not found in new areas of 

disturbance. 

The potential for direct effects to individuals is low in the two Arabis constancei occurrences 

because individuals are situated more than 30 feet from the proposed trails. There is some potential 

for indirect effects, such as increased erosion and noxious weed invasion; however, only a small 

portion (less than three percent) of each occurrence is located within 100 feet of the proposed trails, 

making the potential for significant effects to the entire occurrence low.

Table 139. Locations of Arabis constancei within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with 

potential for impact Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-

100’ 2 4 5

12C2 8M11 0.03 1.3 X X X

43 8M13 0.3 12 X

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Arabis constancei from implementation of 

Alternative 3.

3.8.9.3.2.2 Cumulative Effects 

This species has likely lost individuals and suitable habitat over the past 150 years as a result of 

ground disturbing activities such as gold and gravel mining, timber harvest, road construction and

recreation. Implementation of the action alternatives will reduce impacts to Arabis constancei by 

banning cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to all 

occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. 

The two Arabis constancei occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails

represent approximately four percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and in 

California (CNDDB 2008). It is predicted that implementation of action Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

364 – Plumas National Forest

not reduce the viability of Arabis constancei due to this relatively small scale of potential impact; the 

low likelihood of direct effects to the two occurrences that are within 30-100 feet of the proposed 

trails; and the relatively small proportion of the occurrence affected (less than three percent). The 

effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those 

described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of 

known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Arabis constancei from implementation of Alternative 3; 

therefore, the cumulative effects from this alternative would also be negligible. 

3.8.9.3.3 Calycadenia oppositifolia (Butte County calycadenia)

Calycadenia oppositifolia is an annual herb that is restricted to a narrow band of habitat in the 

foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountain Range in Butte County, California. There are 

seven occurrences on the PNF. 

Calycadenia oppositifolia is found in grassy openings in woodland, chaparral and forested 

habitats below 3,100 feet in elevation. It often occurs on shallow, serpentine soils, but can also be 

found on volcanic or granitic parent materials. Threats to this species include livestock grazing, road 

construction and maintenance, off-highway vehicle use and urban development. Calycadenia 

oppositifolia has been observed in disturbed areas; however, the greatest concentrations of the species 

have been found in undisturbed openings (State of California, Department of Water Resources 2004).

PNF management prescription: Protect occurrences from ground disturbance before seed set. 

Evaluate any disturbance outside the growing season to determine if effect would be detrimental to 

the species. For any other activities, evaluate on a site-by-site basis considering the species 

abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

Two occurrences of Calycadenia oppositifolia occur within 30-100 feet of the trails proposed under 

Alternatives 2 and 5 (Table 140).

Table 140. Locations of Calycadenia oppositifolia within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

6 5M02 1.4 18.2 X X

12 5M01 0.3 0.3 X X

Field surveys of the proposed trails did not find Calycadenia oppositifolia individuals growing 

directly in or along the trail (L. Janeway, personal communication 2008); therefore, the potential for 

direct effects to individuals is low. There is some potential for negative indirect effects, particularly in 

Occurrence 12, which has 100 percent of its individuals located within 100 feet of the trail and occurs 

in open and highly accessible habitat. Negative impacts to individuals within this location could result 

in the elimination of the entire occurrence. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Calycadenia oppositifolia from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 365

3.8.9.3.3.2 Cumulative Effects 

Past ground disturbing activities, such as off-highway vehicle use, mining, logging and road building, 

have most likely affected Calycadenia oppositifolia individuals and areas of suitable habitat. It is 

unclear to what extent these past activities have affected this species due to the fact that it has been 

observed growing in both disturbed and undisturbed habitats (State of California, Department of 

Water Resources 2004). 

Implementation of the action alternatives will reduce impacts to Calycadenia oppositifolia by 

banning cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to all 

occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. The two Calycadenia oppositifolia occurrences that may be 

impacted by use of the proposed trails represent approximately 29 percent of all known occurrences 

on the PNF (Figure 8). This relatively substantial percentage of occurrences affected increases the 

risk of negative cumulative impacts to Calycadenia oppositifolia; however, this species’ tolerance for 

disturbance, in combination with the low likelihood of direct impacts, makes the overall risk to the 

species’ viability much lower. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely 

be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as 

field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) 

remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Calycadenia oppositifolia from implementation of 

Alternatives 3 or 4; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would also be negligible. 

3.8.9.3.4 Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii (Ahart's sulphur flower) 

This newly described sub-shrub species is restricted to Butte, Yuba and Plumas Counties in 

California. Eleven occurrences have been recorded on the PNF and an additional three occurrences 

are on Lassen NF lands that are administered by the PNF. 

This species occurs on serpentine slopes in open chaparral and mixed conifer forests. The current 

trend for this species is unknown. Threats include timber harvest, off-highway vehicle use, prescribed 

burning and road construction on public lands.

PNF management prescription: Protect all plant occurrences from ground disturbance. Evaluate 

other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic 

distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.3.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Seven locations of Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii occur within 100 feet of the trails proposed 

under Alternative 2 (Table 141). No occurrences of this species are impacted under any of the other 

action alternatives. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

366 – Plumas National Forest

Table 141. Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii occurrences within 100’ of Alternative 2 proposed trails. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

10 7M09 0.07 0.007 0.07 X

11 (1) 7M10 0.04 0.04 X

11 (2) 7M10 0.3 0.3 0.7 X

11 (3) 7M10 0.04 0.04 X

11 (4) 7M10 0.2 0.8 X

11 (5) 7M10 0.002 0.04 0.04 X

11 (6) 7M10 0.02 0.02 0.04 X

The response of this serpentine sub-shrub to disturbance is presently unknown. While it is found 

in open, rocky habitats, it has not been observed in recently disturbed areas. Surveys of trails 7M09 

and 7M10 did not observe individuals in the trails and motor vehicle disturbance was not observed to 

extend beyond the trails (L. Janeway, personal communication 2008). These two factors lower the 

probability of direct disturbance to Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii individuals. 

As seen in Table 141, all seven locations are at risk of indirect effects from motorized vehicle use 

under this alternative. Five of these locations are small, with 100 percent of their occurrence at risk of 

being indirectly impacted. Indirect effects, such as erosion or noxious weed invasion, within these 

small sites could result in the elimination or degradation of the entire sub-occurrence. 

There are no direct or indirect effects to Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii from implementation 

of Alternatives 3, 4 or 5. 

3.8.9.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects

Little is known about the past distribution and abundance of this newly described species, making it 

difficult to determine the effects of past management activities on this species. As is the case with 

many of the serpentine species, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii has most likely been affected by 

historic ground disturbing activities, such as off-highway vehicle use, mining, logging and road 

building. Implementation of the action alternatives will reduce impacts to Eriogonum umbellatum var.

ahartii by banning cross-country travel; however, Alternative 2 will not eliminate the impacts to all 

occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. 

The seven occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails under Alternative 2 

represent approximately 64 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and 50 percent of 

the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). This large percentage of occurrences with the 

potential to be impacted greatly increases the risk of negative cumulative impacts to Eriogonum 

umbellatum var. ahartii under Alternative 2. There are no direct or indirect effects to Eriogonum 

umbellatum var. ahartii from implementation of Alternatives 3, 4 or 5; therefore, the cumulative 

effects from these alternatives would be negligible. 

The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to 

those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection 

of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 367

3.8.9.3.5 Monardella follettii (Follett's monardella) 

This species is known from Plumas County in the northern Sierra Nevada and from one historic 

occurrence in Nevada County that has not been relocated since 1916. There are currently 35 known 

occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008), 34 of which occur on the PNF. 

The PNF occurrences occur within a band of serpentine that extends from Meadow Valley to Red 

Hill. Plants are often found in open, rocky areas and openings in mixed conifer forest. Occurrences 

range in size from a few individuals to thousands of individuals scattered over a large area. Threats to 

this species include off-highway vehicle use, rock collection and mining, timber harvest, road 

construction and maintenance and canopy closure resulting from fire suppression.

PNF management prescription: Protect 50 percent of known occurrences within a project area 

from ground disturbance. Favor protection of locations that have open tree and shrub canopies (less 

than 50 percent cover) over those with closed tree and shrub canopies. Favor allowing ground 

disturbance and prescribed fire in areas of dense shrub or tree cover. Evaluate other activities on a 

site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known 

species ecology.

3.8.9.3.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Three occurrences of Monardella follettii occur within 100 feet of the trails proposed under 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 (Table 142). 

This perennial herb is found in undisturbed and disturbed sites, such as abandoned roads, skid 

trails and on old landings (Griggs 2001). Occurrences of this species often cover large areas that 

range from 1-100 acres and individuals within occurrences are often abundant and patchily 

distributed. 

Table 142. Locations of Monardella follettii within 100’ of trails proposed under the Action Alternatives. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with 

potential for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

1S 8M23 0.003 0.2 27 X

4 8M13 0.3 8 X

9 8M11 3.0 6.6 183 X X X

Although this species is found in areas of disturbance, any beneficial affect of these open sites 

(i.e. increased light or low levels of competition) could easily be overcome by the negative direct 

effect of repeated trampling or death of individuals. Two of the occurrences are in close proximity to 

the proposed trails. Within these occurrences, those individuals that are within 30 feet of the trail 

would likely be negatively impacted by motor vehicle use. Indirect effects, such as increased erosion 

and noxious weed invasion, may also negatively impact all of the three occurrences. 

3.8.9.3.5.2 Cumulative Effects

Monardella follettii individuals and areas of suitable habitat have likely been affected by past ground 

disturbing activities, such as off-highway vehicle use, mining, logging and road building; however,

the ability of this species to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites suggests that at 

least some of these past management activities may not have been detrimental to the species. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

368 – Plumas National Forest

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to Monardella follettii by 

banning cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to all 

occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. One large Monardella follettii occurrence (11B) occurs along 

an existing system trail; use of this trail and any associated impacts to this occurrence would continue 

under all of the action alternatives. 

As noted above, the close proximity of this species to the proposed trails would increase the 

probability of negative direct effects, which may outweigh the positive indirect effects to the species 

(i.e. increased light availability or low levels of competition). The three Monardella follettii

occurrences that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails represent approximately nine percent 

of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and in California (CNDDB 2008). These factors, in 

combination with the large size (between 8 and 183 acres) of the Monardella follettii occurrences and

consequently the relatively low number of individuals with potential to be directly and indirectly 

affected, reduce the overall negative impact to this species from adding the trail to the NFTS. The 

effects of present and future projects on Monardella follettii would likely be minimal or similar to 

those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection 

of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

3.8.9.4 Barren Habitats

One barren habitat species, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii, occurs within 100 feet of a proposed 

trail.

3.8.9.4.1 Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii (Hutchinson’s lewisia)

In California, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii occurs at 18 sites ranging from the southern Cascade 

Range to the central Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2008). On the PNF, it is limited to five 

occurrences, all of which occur in the southwestern portion of the forest in an area of approximately 

20 square miles. 

This species is found in granitic gravel on ridge tops and flats, sparsely vegetated by Jeffrey pine 

and lodgepole pine woodlands, with patches of upland sedge (Carex sp.) and rock garden 

wildflowers. One of the largest threats to this species is off-highway vehicles, which travel easily 

across the flat open terrain where Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii is found. Other threats include 

horticultural collection, camping, hiking and activities that compact soil and trample plants. 

PNF management prescription: Protect all plant occurrences from ground disturbance that 

result in soil displacement. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species 

abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

One occurrence of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii occurs within 30-100 feet of a proposed system 

trail (Table 143).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 369

Table 143. Locations of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii within 100’ of the trails proposed under the 

Action Alternatives. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with 

potential for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

5 9M24 0.06 0.4 X

This species is found in gravelly, exposed sites with sparse vegetation and little to no natural 

barriers to motor vehicle use. The response of this species to disturbance is presently unknown; 

however, motor vehicles have been identified as a significant threat to this species (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

The distance to the trail makes the likelihood of direct effects to individuals low; however, the 

small size of the occurrence, its isolation from other occurrences and the fragility of the habitat 

increase the potential for indirect effects to this occurrence. The substrate where Lewisia kelloggii ssp. 

huchinsonii occurs is highly susceptible to erosion; therefore, effects from soil erosion may be a 

concern at this site.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii from implementation 

of Alternatives 3, 4 or 5. 

3.8.9.4.1.2 Cumulative Effects

Scientific research recently identified this species as being genetically distinct from other subspecies 

of Lewisia kelloggii (USDA Forest Service 2008); this recent distinction means that little is actually 

known about this species’ past distribution or about how management activities have affected 

individuals or areas of suitable habitat. The presence of this species in areas that are susceptible to 

erosion and off-highway vehicle use suggests that past ground disturbing management activities have 

likely had a negative effect on Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii.

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to Lewisia kelloggii ssp. 

huchinsonii by banning cross-country travel; however, Alternative 2 would not eliminate the impacts 

to all occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. One occurrence of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii 

(#2) occurs along an existing system trail; use of this trail and any associated impacts to this 

occurrence would continue under all of the action alternatives. 

The Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii occurrence that may be impacted by use of trail proposed 

under Alternative 2 represents approximately 20 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 

8) and 6 percent of the occurrences documented in California (CNDDB 2008). Inclusion of this route 

under Alternative 2 is likely to have a negative impact on this occurrence. This relatively large 

percentage of occurrences with the potential to be impacted greatly increases the risk of negative 

cumulative impacts to Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii under Alternative 2. There are no direct or 

indirect effects to Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii from implementation of Alternatives 3, 4 or 5; 

therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives would be negligible. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

370 – Plumas National Forest

The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to 

those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection 

of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

3.8.9.5 Interior Forest Habitat

One Interior Forest species, Cypripedium fasciculatum, occurs within 100 feet of a proposed trail.

3.8.9.5.1 Cypripedium fasciculatum (Clustered Lady’s Slipper)

This orchid has a wide distribution that extends from British Columbia, south to the Sierra Nevada 

and Coast Ranges of California and east to the Rocky Mountains. While the distribution of this 

species is broad, occurrences are often small and widely scattered. In California, the highest 

distribution of Cypripedium fasciculatum is on the Klamath and Plumas National Forests. There are 

135 occurrences on the PNF; these range in size from two to over 3,000 stems. A total of 200 

occurrences have also been recorded on the Six Rivers, Shasta-Trinity, Klamath, Mendocino and

Tahoe National Forests (Kaye and Cramer 2005).

In California, Cypripedium fasciculatum is most commonly associated with mixed conifer forests 

in the mid-to-late stages of successional development. The best conditions for this species are thought 

to exist when crown canopy cover is between 50 and 75 percent, with 60 percent being optimal (Kaye 

and Cramer 2005). It appears that the optimum habitat conditions for Cypripedium fasciculatum are 

not found in early successional communities (Kagan 1990). This species has an apparent intolerance 

to intense disturbance that directly reduces the duff layer. It is usually found in areas that have not 

been disturbed or in areas where the disturbance was light or in the distant past. Mycorrhizal fungi 

play a pivotal role in the biology of orchids. Several stages in the orchid’s life cycle, particularly the 

early stages of seedling development, depend on mycorrhizal fungal symbioses. 

Threats include any direct ground disturbance from activities such as timber harvest, intense fire, 

recreational activities, livestock grazing, road and trail maintenance and illegal collection. Given this 

species’ complicated life history, narrow range of environmental factors necessary for establishment, 

apparent intolerance to intense disturbance and occurrence on private lands, the trend for this species 

is thought to be declining.

PNF management prescription: Buffer all plant occurrences by approximately 100 feet from 

ground disturbance to maintain canopy closure, hydrologic conditions and mycorrhizal relationships. 

Do not advertise locations, to minimize poaching. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis 

considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.5.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Six occurrences of Cypripedium fasciculatum occur within 100 feet of the trails proposed under 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 (Table 144).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 371

Table 144. Locations of Cypripedium fasciculatum within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

31 7M16 0.0001 0.3 8 X X X

51 8M35 0.02 0.02 X X X

126 5M28E 0.001 0.00005 0.02 X

132 8M26 0.0001 0.001 X X X

135A 9M55 0.0001 0.0001 X X X

137 9M20 0.02 0.02 X

Formal studies of the response of Cypripedium fasciculatum to disturbance are limited; however,

this orchid is most commonly found in areas that have not been disturbed or in areas where the 

disturbance was light or in the distant past. Several stages in the orchid’s life cycle, particularly the 

early stages of seedling development, depend on mycorrhizal fungal symbioses; therefore,

occurrences are usually found in those areas where suitable conditions for the fungi exist (i.e. sites 

that are moist, shady and have adequate organic matter). Cypripedium fasciculatum is most frequently 

found in late successional, closed-canopy stands and is much less common in early to midsuccessional forests. The habitat that this species is dependent upon makes it highly unlikely that 

individuals would inhabit or colonize the open sites associated with trail beds or shoulders.

At this time, no individuals are known to occur within any of the proposed trails. There are 

however, three occurrences documented within 0-30 feet of a proposed trail. Individuals within these 

occurrences may be at risk of direct effects (i.e. trampling or death) from motor vehicle use. 

The close proximity (within 100 feet) of these six occurrences to the trails greatly increases the 

potential for negative edge effects, such as reduced shade, moisture and duff levels, which could alter 

the orchid’s microhabitat conditions. Adding these trails to the NFTS would also provide access to 

these orchid occurrences, which could increase the potential for illegal collection. 

3.8.9.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects

Cypripedium fasciculatum has likely lost individuals and a considerable amount of suitable habitat 

over the last 150 years due to human activities related to mining, logging, road building, fire 

suppression and homesteading. All of these activities have, to one extent or another, resulted in a 

reduction in canopy cover, modification of stand dynamics, alteration in fire frequency and intensity

and change in microclimate conditions. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce impacts to Cypripedium fasciculatum by 

banning cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would not eliminate the impacts to all 

occurrences or areas of suitable habitat. One occurrence of Cypripedium fasciculatum (#31B) occurs 

along an existing system trail and many of the trails proposed under the action alternatives are old 

skid trails or temporary roads; this suggests that the largest impact to these six Cypripedium 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

372 – Plumas National Forest

fasciculatum occurrences most likely occurred at the time the route, skid trail or temporary road was 

created or constructed.

The six occurrences impacted by use of the proposed trails represent approximately four percent 

of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and two percent of the occurrences documented on 

National Forests in California (Kaye and Cramer 2005). It is predicted that implementation of action 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5, would not reduce the overall viability of Cypripedium fasciculatum due to 

this relatively small scale of potential impact. 

The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to 

those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection 

of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

3.8.9.6 Open Habitats

The following eight Open Habitat species are within 100 feet of a proposed trail: Astragalus 

lentiformis, Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae, Calycadenia oppositifolia, Clarkia mildrediae ssp.

mildrediae, Clarkia mosquinii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae and Penstemon 

personatus. The individual species discussion for Calycadenia oppositifolia is included above under 

the “Serpentine plant communities” section. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii is discussed under the 

“Barren habitat” section.

3.8.9.6.1 Astragalus lentiformis (lens-pod milk-vetch) 

This perennial herb is limited to Plumas County. There are presently 67 documented occurrences of 

this species on the PNF, all of which are located within the eastern portion of the Forest. Two 

occurrences occur outside of the PNF on private land (CNDDB 2008). This plant is found on bare, 

xeric volcanic soils in flat to gently sloping sagebrush/pine woodlands between 4,900 and 6,400 feet 

in elevation. It is considered an edaphic specialist. 

The tolerance of this milk-vetch to disturbance is presently unknown. This species has been 

observed growing in areas that have been disturbed; however, the intensity, extent and frequency of 

the disturbance have not been quantified. Certain levels of soil displacement and disturbance may be 

beneficial. Threats to this species include fire suppression, livestock grazing, timber harvest, road 

construction, mining, reservoir construction and utility line construction. Although this species 

recruits after disturbance, it is unknown to what extent these activities cause local extinction and seed 

burial.

PNF management prescription: Protect at least 30 percent of all known occurrences within a 

project analysis area from all disturbances associated with management activities. In small 

populations (containing less than 50 individuals or less than one-quarter acre) avoid ground 

disturbance. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, 

population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.6.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

There are nine locations of Astragalus lentiformis within 100 feet of the trails proposed under 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 (Table 145)
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 373

Table 145. Locations of Astragalus lentiformis within 100’ of trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives. 

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

13 13M08 8.5 18 341.9 X

13B 13M10 0.1 0.004 0.07 X

14/ 13M09 0.25 0.63 26.8 X X X

31

14M05 1.6 3.7

95.3

X X

14M06 3 6.4 X X

41 13M32 0.003 0.2 24.2 X

43 13M10 0.01 0.02 X

68 13M08 0.06 0.01 0.07 X

69 13M10 0.08 0.01 0.09 X

70 13M10 0.5 0.9 1.7 X

Astragalus lentiformis is a perennial herb that is found in both undisturbed and disturbed sites. In 

general, this species appears to respond favorably to light-to-moderate disturbance and PNF botanists 

have observed this species growing directly in roadbeds. Surveys conducted during the summer of 

2007 also noted individual plants growing in the center of and along the edge of the proposed trails 

(Vollmar 2007). While past management has demonstrated that certain levels of soil displacement and 

disturbance may be beneficial, the intensity and frequency of disturbance that is tolerable to this 

species has not been fully quantified. 

The Astragalus lentiformis occurrences that are within 30 feet of the trail may be directly affected 

by the proposed trails. Some individuals are likely to have their vigor and productivity reduced or to 

be killed by motor vehicles parking or driving over them. None of the locations have 100 percent of 

their individuals within 0-30 feet of the trail; however, those occurrences that contain less than 50

individuals or are less than one-quarter acre are at a high risk of being negatively impacted.

A number of the occurrences listed in Table 145 are large and/or have additional sub-occurrences 

in the vicinity that are not at risk of being impacted under these alternatives. All of the occurrences 

also have a portion of their occurrence between 30-100 feet from the edge of the trail, where direct 

effects are less likely to occur. Individuals that are greater than 30 feet from the trail may benefit from 

the indirect effects (i.e. increased light or low levels of competition) of the trail. Some negative 

indirect effects, such as increased erosion and noxious weed invasion, could negatively impact these 

occurrences.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Astragalus lentiformis from implementation of 

Alternative 3. 

3.8.9.6.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The ability of Astragalus lentiformis to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites 

suggests that this species may have benefited from past management activities that created open 

conditions and increased light reception to the understory. Suitable habitat for this locally abundant 

species has likely been impacted by past timber management practices, which generally favored 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

374 – Plumas National Forest

removal of larger, more dominant trees (i.e. overstory removal). This management practice, as well as 

the suppression of wildfire, has resulted in a greater number of dense forests that are dominated by 

small trees and a reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce direct impacts to this species by banning 

cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would not eliminate the potential for direct 

impacts to all occurrences. The close proximity of this species to the proposed trails would increase 

the probability of negative direct effects, which may outweigh the positive indirect effects to the 

species (i.e. increased light availability or low levels of competition). 

The nine locations of Astragalus lentiformis that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails

represent approximately 13 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and 13 percent of 

the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). 

Adding these trails to the NFTS under the action alternatives may have some negative direct 

impacts to this species; however, these will likely not reduce the overall viability of Astragalus 

lentiformis due to its ability to tolerate and even thrive, in disturbed sites; the large occurrence size 

and close proximity to adjacent sub-occurrences; and the low amount of suitable habitat potentially 

impacted. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar 

to those described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, 

protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Astragalus lentiformis from implementation of 

Alternative 3; therefore, the cumulative effects from this alternative would also be negligible. 

3.8.9.6.2 Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae (Pulsifer's milk-vetch)

Pulsifer’s milk-vetch is known to occur in Lassen, Modoc, Plumas and Sierra Counties in California, 

as well as in two counties in the state of Nevada. This species is presently known from a total of 16 

occurrences, 12 of which are located on the PNF (CNDDB 2008). 

Pulsifer’s milk-vetch typically occupies steep, sandy or gravelly slopes in Great Basin scrub, 

pinyon and juniper woodlands and lower montane coniferous forests between 4,200 and 6,000 feet in 

elevation. It is considered to be an “unusual edaphic” species, which means that it is often more 

influenced by soil conditions than by light regimes (USDA Forest Service 2003b). In many cases, the 

substrate where this species occurs inhibits the growth of other species, resulting in a lower 

accumulation of biomass. Although this species recruits after disturbance, it is unknown to what 

extent these activities cause local extinction and seed burial.

PNF management prescription: Protect at least 30 percent of all known occurrences within a 

project analysis area from all disturbances associated with management activities. Protect all plant 

occurrences from soil displacement activities. Allow for at least 5 years rest between disturbance 

prescriptions to the same occurrence. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering 

species abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 375

3.8.9.6.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Three occurrences of Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae occur within 100 feet of the trails proposed 

under Alternative 2 (Table 146). No occurrences of this species are impacted under any of the other 

action alternatives. 

Table 146. Locations of Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae within 100’ of the trails proposed under the 

Action Alternatives.

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

3 15M01 0.02 0.02 X

3A

15M01 0.8 1.6

17

X

15M01A 0.4 1.26 X

7C 12M16 0.02 0.02 X

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae is found in sandy or gravelly sites with sparse vegetation and 

little to no natural barriers to motorized vehicle use. Although plants have been located in old road 

beds, they are more often found scattered across lightly vegetated side slopes. This species has been 

shown to recruit after disturbance; however, it is unknown at what extent soil disturbing activities 

cause extirpation and seed burial.

All three of these occurrences are at high risk of direct effects from motor vehicle use along these 

trails. Individuals may be killed or damaged by vehicles parking on or driving over them. Soil 

displacement can easily dislodge individuals, bury seeds and damage or destroy seedlings (USDA 

Forest Service 2005d). Due to their small size and close proximity, the death of individuals in 

Occurrences 3 and 7C could result in the elimination of the entire sub-occurrence. Occurrence 3A is 

large enough (only 25 percent has the potential to be directly or indirectly affected) that impacts 

would likely not result in a significant negative effect over the entire occurrence. Indirect effects to 

these three occurrences include increased risk of noxious weed introduction and spread, soil erosion

and soil compaction. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae from 

implementation of Alternatives 3, 4 or 5. 

3.8.9.6.2.2 Cumulative Effects

Suitable habitat for this species has likely been impacted by past management practices, such as 

overstory removal and wildfire suppression, which has resulted in a greater number of dense forests 

that are dominated by small trees and a reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. The 

ability of Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae to colonize previously disturbed sites suggests that this 

species may benefit from some management activities that create open habitat conditions; however, it 

is also not known to what extent or intensity this species is able to survive soil-disturbing activities.

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce direct impacts to this species by banning

cross-country travel; however, Alternative 2 would not eliminate the potential for direct impacts to all 

occurrences. The close proximity of this species to the proposed trails would increase the probability 

of negative direct effects, which may outweigh any positive indirect effects to the species such as 

increased light availability or lower levels of competition. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

376 – Plumas National Forest

Livestock grazing has historically occurred in the area where occurrence 3 and 3A are found. 

Monitoring of these sites in 1994 documented some disturbance from cattle; however, the steepness 

of the site was thought to prevent heavy grazing and access to Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae

individuals. This present management activity, in combination with motor vehicle use on the 

proposed trails, may have the potential to negatively impact habitat and threaten individuals. 

The three Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails

represent approximately 25 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF and 19 percent of the 

known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). Implementation of action Alternative 2 would

likely have some negative direct impacts to this species; however, it is predicted that it would not 

reduce the overall viability of Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae due to the species’ ability to 

recruit after disturbance, its presence in areas of disturbance (i.e. road cuts), the large occurrence size 

or close proximity to adjacent sub-occurrences and the relatively small scale of potential impact. 

There are no direct or indirect effects to Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae from 

implementation of Alternatives 3, 4 or 5; therefore, the cumulative effects from these alternatives 

would be negligible. 

3.8.9.6.3 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia)

This annual plant is limited to eastern Butte County and western Plumas County in the northern Sierra 

Nevada and southern Cascades of California. There are 30 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae 

occurrences on the PNF, the majority of which are located in the Feather River Canyon. Ten 

occurrences are found outside of the Forest boundary. 

This species occurs in cismontane woodland and in lower montane coniferous forest, usually on 

sandy granitic substrate. The current trend for this species is unknown; however, most occurrences 

appear to be stable (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Wildfire suppression has likely restricted the 

amount of suitable habitat for this species. As a result, most occurrences are found on road cut banks, 

where there is minimal plant competition and open light conditions. This increases the potential for 

impact from road widening and maintenance activities. Activities that create soil disturbance may 

negatively impact plants and the soil seed bank. 

PNF management prescription: Protect occurrences from ground disturbance before seed set. 

Evaluate ground disturbance outside the growing season; however, in general, disturbance (without 

major habitat alteration) after plants had set seed could occur. Canopy removal in and adjacent to 

occurrences is encouraged to open the habitat. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis 

considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.6.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 10 locations of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae within 100 feet of the trails proposed 

under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 (Table 147). 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 377

Table 147. Locations of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae within 100’ of the trails proposed under the 

Action Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

8 5M23 0.01 70.6 X

8A (1)

5M23 8.2 1.5

17.5

X

5M26 0.3 0.01 X X X

8A (2) 5M27 0.4 0.6 1.8 X

8A (3) 5M28E 0.1 0.3 0.5 X

8A (4) 5M28E 0.08 1.2 X

8C

5M21 0.2

14.8

X

5M24 1.3 2.0 X X

8D (1) 5M20 0.02 0.02 X

8D (2) 5M20 0.01 0.02 X

8D (3) 5M21 0.02 0.02 X

8D (4) 5M21 0.01 0.01 0.02 X

This early seral species is found in very exposed, sunny openings and road cuts on erodible, 

granitic soils. It has primarily been observed in areas of past disturbance, but is not found in areas of 

recent disturbance.

All of the Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae occurrences that are within 30 feet of the trail may 

be directly affected by the proposed trails. Some individuals are likely to have their vigor and 

productivity reduced or to be killed by motor vehicles. Location 8D that has almost 100 percent of its

individuals within 0-30 feet of the trail has the highest risk of negative effects. The death of 

individuals within this location could result in the elimination of the entire occurrence. 

The remaining sites have a portion of their occurrence between 30-100 feet from the edge of the 

trail, where direct effects are less likely to occur. Individuals that are greater than 30 feet from the trail 

may benefit from the indirect effects (i.e. increased light or low levels of competition) of the trail. 

Due to their proximity to the trail, negative indirect effects, such as increased erosion and noxious 

weed invasion, may also negatively impact these occurrences.

3.8.9.6.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The ability of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae to colonize both previously disturbed and 

undisturbed sites suggests that this species has benefited from past management activities that created 

open conditions and increased light reception to the understory. Past wildfire suppression activities 

have likely restricted the amount of suitable habitat for this species. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce direct impacts to this species by banning 

cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would not eliminate the potential for direct 

impacts to all occurrences. Six locations of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae have been documented 

along one of the existing system trails; use of this trail and any associated impacts to these locations 

would continue under all of the action alternatives. The close proximity of this species to the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

378 – Plumas National Forest

proposed trails would increase the probability of negative direct effects, which may outweigh the 

positive indirect effects to the species (i.e. increased light availability or low levels of competition). 

The nine locations of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae that may be impacted by use of the 

proposed trails represent approximately 30 percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) 

and 23 percent of the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). Adding these trails to the 

NFTS under the action alternatives may have some negative direct impacts to this species; however,

these would likely not reduce the overall viability of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae due to its 

ability to tolerate and even thrive, in disturbed sites. The effects of present and future projects on this 

species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing Management 

Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed 

prevention measures) remain in place.

3.8.9.6.4 Clarkia mosquinii (Mosquin's clarkia) 

This annual species occurs in the foothill woodland and lower elevation mixed conifer forest of Butte 

and Plumas Counties. This species was thought to be extinct when the only known location was 

eliminated with the formation of Lake Oroville. Clarkia mosquinii was rediscovered in 1992, 

initiating surveys for this species on the PNF. To date, 45 occurrences have been documented within 

the lower elevations of the PNF, while 14 occurrences have been reported from outside of the Forest 

boundary.

Clarkia mosquinii is probably a fire-follower and wildfire suppression has likely restricted the 

amount of suitable habitat for this species. This species often occurs in road cuts and on decomposing 

granite. Threats from management activities include road construction and maintenance and timber 

harvest. This species is considered highly vulnerable because of the high risk to occurrences outside 

of NFS lands.

PNF management prescription: Protect occurrences from ground disturbance before seed set. 

Evaluate ground disturbance outside of the growing season; however, in general, disturbance (without 

major habitat alteration) after plants have set seed can occur. Canopy removal in and adjacent to 

occurrences is encouraged to open the habitat. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis 

considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.

3.8.9.6.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

One occurrence of Clarkia mosquinii occurs within 100 feet of a trail proposed under Alternative 2 

(Table 148). No occurrences of this species are impacted under any of the other action alternatives. 

Like many of the species in this guild, Clarkia mosquinii is often found in exposed, disturbed 

habitats such as roadsides. Motor vehicle trails may create some suitable edge habitat for this species 

(i.e. increased light availability and low levels of competition); however, these effects could easily be 

overcome by the negative direct effect of repeated trampling or death of individuals. Indirect effects, 

such as increased erosion and noxious weed invasion, may negatively impact occurrence 13B.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 379

Table 148. Clarkia mosquinii location within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action Alternatives.

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

13B 5M06 0.04 0.5 X

3.8.9.6.4.2 Cumulative Effects

It is difficult to determine how Clarkia mosquinii has responded to past management activities 

because this species was thought to be extinct until its re-discovery in 1992. The presence of Clarkia 

mosquinii on exposed, disturbed habitats such as roadsides suggests that this species may benefit 

from management activities that create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. 

Past wildfire suppression activities have likely restricted the amount of suitable habitat for this 

species. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce direct impacts to this species by banning 

cross-country travel; however, Alternative 2 would not eliminate the potential for direct impacts to all 

occurrences. One occurrence of Clarkia mosquinii (12C) occurs along an existing system trail; use of 

this trail and any associated impacts to this occurrence would continue under all of the action 

alternatives. The one location of Clarkia mosquinii that may be impacted by use of the trail proposed 

under Alternative 2 represents approximately two percent of all known occurrences on the PNF

(Figure 8) and the known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). 

Adding this trail to the NFTS under Alternative 2 may have some negative indirect impacts to this 

species; however, these would likely not reduce the overall viability of Clarkia mosquinii due to its 

presence in areas of disturbance (i.e. road cuts) and the relatively small scale of potential impact. The 

effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those 

described in this analysis if existing Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of 

known rare species locations and noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

3.8.9.6.5 Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine) 

This perennial lupine species is known to occur in Plumas County and in isolated occurrences in 

Sierra and Yuba counties in California. Within this limited range, Lupinus dalesiae is locally 

abundant. There are currently 260 occurrences documented on the PNF. Outside of the PNF, there are 

22 occurrences, all of which occur on lands adjacent to the National Forest. 

Lupinus dalesiae is found in a variety of habitats that include undisturbed and disturbed sites 

(such as old skid trails and road cut banks), openings in chaparral, cismontane woodlands and mixed 

conifer forests. Recent visits to old project areas have shown that this species tolerates and even 

thrives on disturbance; however, the intensity, extent or frequency of the disturbance associated with 

these occurrences has not been quantified in a manner that facilitates the development of prescriptions 

that consistently mimic historical disturbance regimes. 

The trend for this plant is stable. Threats include road construction and maintenance; timber 

harvest, release and site preparation activities; mining; off-highway vehicle use; and development on 

private lands. The California Native Plant Society recently lowered the listing status of Lupinus 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

380 – Plumas National Forest

dalesiae (from List 1B to List 4) based on the number of mapped occurrences in the California Fish 

and Game’s California Native Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 

PNF management prescription: Protect 30 percent of known occurrences within a project area 

from ground disturbance. Favor protection of locations that have open tree and shrub canopies (less 

than 50 percent cover) over those with closed tree and shrub canopies. Favor allowing ground 

disturbance and prescribed fire in areas of dense shrub or tree cover. Evaluate other activities on a 

site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution and known 

species ecology.

3.8.9.6.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 22 locations of Lupinus dalesiae within 100 feet of the proposed trails (Table 149). 

Lupinus dalesiae is a perennial herb that is found in disturbed sites, such as old skid trails and 

road cut banks and undisturbed sites. Past management has demonstrated that this species tolerates 

and even thrives on disturbance. For example, a survey of Occurrence 35 found Lupinus dalesiae

occupying all of the areas that had been previously disturbed by mechanical timber harvest and 

disturbance and road building were thought to have been one cause for this population’s increase 

(Rotta 1983). Surveys conducted during the summer of 2007 also noted individual plants growing in 

the center of and along the edge of the proposed trails (Vollmar 2007).

All of the Lupinus dalesiae occurrences that are within 30 feet of the trail may be directly 

affected by the proposed trails. Some individuals are likely to have their vigor and productivity 

reduced or to be killed by motor vehicles. The five locations (23J, 160, 165, 166A and 166B) that 

have 100 percent of their individuals within 0-30 feet of the trail have the highest risk of negative 

effects. The death of individuals within these locations could result in the elimination of the entire 

occurrence. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 381

Table 149. Locations of Lupinus dalesiae within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

0 9M54 0.01 0.001 0.01 X X X

2E 8M19 0.005 0.23 0.35 X X X

10A 8M13 0.006 0.02 X

10B 8M13 0.02 0.02 X

23F 8M18 0.8 1.5 2.79 X

23J 8M17 0.1 0.1 X

35 7M16 2.9 5.6 29.6 X X X

41D

8M42 0.71 1.72

19

X X

8M43 0.27 0.88 X X X

44A 9M37 0.2 0.50 111 X X

66

9M37 0.02 0.003

0.02

X X

9M37A 0.003 X

79

8M28 2.49 5.64

23

X X X

8M28A 0.79 2.10 X

88 9M35 0.8 1.2 5.10 X X

89A 9M35 0.02 0.02 X X

89B 9M33 0.03 0.1 0.1 X

140A1 10M12 0.01 0.01 X X X

140A2 10M12 0.006 0.02 X X X

141A 10M12 0.03 5.14 X X X

160 11M09 0.07 0.07 X X

161 9M39A 0.01 0.01 X X X

165 7M15 0.01 0.01 X X X

166A 7M15 0.01 0.01 X X X

166B 7M15 0.002 0.002 X X X

The remaining sites have a portion of their occurrence between 30-100 feet from the edge of the 

trail, where direct effects are less likely to occur. Individuals that are greater than 30 feet from the trail 

may benefit from the indirect effects (i.e. increased light or low levels of competition) of the trail. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Lupinus dalesiae from implementation of 

Alternative 3. 

3.8.9.6.5.2 Cumulative Effects

The ability of Lupinus dalesiae to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites and

tolerate and even thrive on disturbance, suggests that this species may have benefited from past 

management activities that created open conditions and increased light reception to the understory. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce direct impacts to this species by banning 

cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would not eliminate the potential for direct 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

382 – Plumas National Forest

impacts to all occurrences. The close proximity of this species to the proposed trails would increase 

the probability of direct effects; however, these effects will likely not be severe enough to negatively 

impact this species due to its high tolerance to disturbance.

The 22 locations of Lupinus dalesiae that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails represent 

approximately eight percent of all known occurrences on the PNF (Figure 8) and seven percent of the 

known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). Adding these trails to the NFTS under the action 

alternatives may have some negative direct impacts to individuals; however, these would likely not 

reduce the overall viability of Lupinus dalesiae due to its ability to tolerate and even thrive, in 

disturbed sites and the low percentage of sites impacted. The effects of present and future projects on 

this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing 

Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and

noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects to Lupinus dalesiae from implementation of Alternative 3; 

therefore, the cumulative effects from this alternative would be negligible. 

3.8.9.6.6 Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue) 

This rhizomatous species is limited to 31 occurrences in Butte, Nevada, Plumas and Sierra counties. 

On the PNF, this species occurs in 23 large but localized populations and population size varies from 

thousands of stems to less than 10. 

Penstemon personatus occurs in west side mixed conifer and red fir forests. It appears to tolerate 

limited disturbance, as long as it does not change the microhabitat or result in soil compaction. 

Observations have shown that plants that grow in complete canopy cover typically have a shorter 

stature and do not flower, whereas plants in partial sun are reproductive. A report on the biology of 

Penstemon personatus in 2001 found that the species is typically less abundant and less tolerant of 

disturbance on south-facing slopes. 

Although there may be local fluctuations in population size, the overall trend for this species 

appears stable. General threats to this species include road construction and maintenance, timber site 

preparation and release, landing construction, high intensity pile burns, grazing, mining activity and

off-highway vehicle use. A species management guide was written for this species in 1987.

PNF management prescription: Use guidance in the Preferred Alternative of the approved 

Penstemon personatus Species Management Guide of 1987 to develop a set of key Penstemon 

personatus Areas (occurrences or portions of occurrences) within each metapopulation, which will be 

protected from management disturbances. These key areas would be established within occupied 

habitat to maintain the species’ geographic distribution. Priority for the delineation of key areas would 

be given to those occurrences that currently exhibit a diversity of habitat types. Avoid building 

landings or temporary roads through known occurrences. Avoid sub-soiling through known 

occurrences. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, 

population size, geographic distribution and known species ecology.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 383

3.8.9.6.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Two locations of Penstemon personatus intersect the trails proposed under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 

(Table 150) 

Table 150. Locations of Penstemon personatus within 100’ of the trails proposed under the Action 

Alternatives

Occurrence

ID

Route 

ID

Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

Occurrence 

(acres)

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

7I 8M04 3.2 6.3 148 X

12 7M11 1.3 2.8 83 X X X

Penstemon personatus is a perennial herb that is found in disturbed and undisturbed sites. For 

example, surveys of the above occurrences found Penstemon personatus along the edges of old skid 

trails and in other disturbed sites where the soil had not been compacted (Carter 1992). Past 

management indicates that this species is able to tolerate and even increase in abundance or vigor 

following ground disturbance. Although this species does tolerate a number of different types of 

disturbance, it is not required for regeneration or survival. 

Within the two occurrences, the distribution and abundance of Penstemon personatus in relation 

to the trail is unknown; therefore, those individuals that are within the trail would likely be negatively 

impacted by motor vehicle use. Indirect effects, such as increased erosion and noxious weed invasion, 

may also negatively impact the two occurrences. The large size (over 80 acres) of these occurrences

and consequently the relatively low number of individuals with potential to be directly and indirectly 

affected, would reduce the overall negative impact to this species from adding the trail to the NFTS.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Penstemon personatus from implementation of 

Alternative 3. 

3.8.9.6.6.2 Cumulative Effects

Suitable habitat for Penstemon personatus has been impacted by past timber management practices, 

which generally favored removal of larger, more dominant trees (i.e. overstory removal). This 

management practice, as well as the suppression of wildfire, has resulted in a greater number of dense 

forests that are dominated by small trees and a reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. 

The ability of Penstemon personatus to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites 

suggests that this species may have benefited from past management activities that created open 

conditions and increased light reception to the understory. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce direct impacts to this species by banning 

cross-country travel; however, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would not eliminate the potential for direct 

impacts to all occurrences. The close proximity of this species to the proposed trails would increase 

the probability of direct effects; however, these effects would likely not be severe enough to 

negatively impact this species due to its high tolerance to disturbance.

The two locations of Penstemon personatus that may be impacted by use of the proposed trails

represent approximately nine percent of all known occurrences on the PNF and two percent of the 

known occurrences in California (CNDDB 2008). Adding these trails to the NFTS under the action 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

384 – Plumas National Forest

alternatives may have some negative direct impacts to individuals; however, these would likely not 

reduce the overall viability of Penstemon personatus due to its ability to tolerate and even thrive, in 

disturbed sites and the low percentage of sites impacted. The effects of present and future projects on 

this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing 

Management Guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and

noxious weed prevention measures) remain in place.

There are no direct or indirect effects Penstemon personatus from implementation of Alternative 

3; therefore, the cumulative effects from this alternative would be negligible. 

3.8.10 Action Alternatives (2 thru 5)—Summary of Environmental Consequences

The following section presents an overview of the effects analysis for each action alternative (Table 

151). In general, the greater the number of motor vehicle trails (and miles) proposed, the higher the 

risk and severity of negative impacts to rare species and their associated habitats. Alternative 2 

impacts the largest number of rare species and botanically sensitive resources. Alternative 3, which 

does not add trails to the NFTS, has the least impact on rare species. In comparison to these 

alternatives, the impacts from Alternative 5 fall near the middle of the spectrum of potential effects.

3.8.10.1 Alternative 2—Proposed Action.

3.8.10.1.1 Direct/Indirect Effects 

Table 151. Summary of rare species indicator measures for Alternative 2.

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed system trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to Sensitive rare species sites

5.2 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites

52 trails

Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 124 acres

Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 78 locations

Alternative 2 prohibits cross-country travel, adds approximately 361 miles of proposed trails to the 

trail system and makes no changes to the existing system trails. In comparison to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 2 has the highest impact on rare species and their habitats. It has the highest 

number of proposed trails (52 trails) and trail miles (5.2 miles) that intersect rare species occurrences 

or associated habitat. This alternative also has the potential to impact 18 rare species (78 locations) 

both directly and indirectly.

The following species have been documented within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternative 2: Botrychium sp., Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia sericolueca and Pyrrocoma lucida

(Meadow and Seep species); Hydrothyria venosa (Riparian Area species); Allium jepsonii, Arabis 

constancei, Calycadenia oppositifolia, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii and Monardella follettii

(Serpentine species); Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii (Barren and Open Habitat species); 

Cypripedium fasciculatum (Interior Forest species); and Astragalus lentiformis, Astragalus pulsiferae 

var. pulsiferae, Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae, Clarkia mosquinii, Lupinus dalesiae and

Penstemon personatus (Open Habitat species). Six of these species are only impacted by this 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 385

alternative and none of the other action alternatives; these are: Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae, 

Botrychium sp., Clarkia mosquinii, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii, Ivesia sericolueca and

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii. Refer to the analysis in the section above (“Action Alternatives (2

thru 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences for Individual Species”) for a detailed discussion 

of effects to individual species. Overall, Alternative 2 has the potential to negatively affect all of these 

species.

In general, occurrences with individuals that are in or within 30 feet of the trail are at a high risk 

of direct effects from motorized vehicle use. These effects could include death, altered growth or

reduced seed set from physically breaking, crushing or uprooting plants (Wilshire, Shipley and

Nakata 1978, Cole and Bayfield 1993). 

Indirect effects to species are dependent upon a number of species-specific factors that include 

habitat type, tolerance to disturbance, distance from trail, amount of occurrence impacted and

intensity and timing of disturbance. All of the rare species listed above (i.e. those within 100 feet of a 

proposed trail) have a high risk of indirect effects from noxious weed introduction and spread. 

Species that are intolerant of disturbance, such as Cypripedium fasciculatum, may be indirectly 

impacted by increased light levels and duff or litter disturbance along the edges of motorized trails. In 

contrast, for those species that tolerate some degree of disturbance, such as Astragalus lentiformis or 

Lupinus dalesiae, adding motorized trails to the NFTS may have fewer detrimental indirect effects. 

The largest improvement over Alternative 1 is the prohibition of cross-country travel. This 

reduces vehicle access and impacts to rare plants and their habitats, lowers the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread throughout the forest and concentrates use on maintained trails that would be 

managed and improved to reduce resource damage. 

3.8.10.1.1.1 Special Interest Areas

Alternative 2 has highest number of proposed trails (4.4 miles) within PNF Special Interest Areas 

(Table 132). Implementation of this alternative proposes adding trails to NFTS in Brady’s Camp (2.8 

miles), Butterfly Valley (0.2 miles) and Fowler Lake (0.1 miles) SIAs. An additional 1.2 miles of 

unauthorized routes would also be added to the existing 5.6 miles of NFS trail in the proposed McRae 

Meadow SIA. Some of the unique botanical features for which these Special Interest areas were 

designated (or proposed for designation) include large meadow and stream complexes, aquatic plant 

communities, red fir and lodgepole forests and sub-alpine plant communities (Meyer 1991). While 

some of these proposed trails are relatively well-established, motor vehicle use within these areas still 

has the potential to significantly degrade or disturb these special features if trail design features are 

not in place. Trails that would be designated under Alternative 2 will meet the requirements of the 

best management practices (USDA Forest Service. 2000). Maintenance improvements to trails would 

be consistent with standard practices for trail construction and maintenance. Those practices can be 

found in the Forest Service Trails Handbook (FS 2309.18). Alternative 2 includes route 9M24 which 

enters the Fowler Lake SIA. Designation of this route is likely to have a significant impact on the 

sensitive plant species Lewisia kelloggii spp. hutchinsonii.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

386 – Plumas National Forest

3.8.10.1.2 Cumulative Effects

All of the rare species locations (78 sites) located within 100 feet of a proposed trail have the 

potential to be directly or indirectly affected by adding the trail to the NFTS; therefore, these species 

are also at risk of being cumulatively impacted. 

In comparison to the other action alternatives, Alternative 2 has the greatest number of miles in 

riparian areas, wet meadows, serpentine areas, barren habitats, interior forest and open forest (Table 

129); therefore, implementation of this alternative also has the potential to affect suitable habitat for a 

number of rare species on the PNF.

Of the eighteen species with the potential to be directly and indirectly impacted by Alternative 2, 

fourteen have 25 percent or less of their known PNF locations impacted by the proposed trails (Figure 

8). Four species have greater than 25 percent of their known locations affected; these are: Eriogonum 

umbellatum var. ahartii (64 percent), Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (57 percent), Calycadenia 

oppositifolia (29 percent) and Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae (25 percent). Because of this large 

percentage of occurrences impacted, direct and indirect effects to locations along the proposed trails

could have a significant cumulative effect to these species. 

Overall, cumulative effects to rare species under this alternative are far less than those under 

Alternative 1. This is primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel. Of the action alternatives, this 

alternative has the largest cumulative impact on Sensitive rare species due to the large number of 

miles proposed, the amount of suitable habitat impacted and the number of species directly and 

indirectly affected by the proposed trails. 

3.8.10.2 Alternative 3

3.8.10.2.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

Table 152. Summary of rare species indicator measures for Alternative 3.

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed system trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to Sensitive rare species sites

0 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites

0 trails

Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 0 acres

Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 0 locations

Alternative 3 prohibits cross-country travel, adds no proposed trails to the trail system and makes no 

changes to the existing trail system. In comparison to the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 has 

the lowest impact on rare species and their associated habitats. It proposes no trails that intersect rare 

species occurrences or associated habitat. 

Of those species that have been documented along a trail proposed under Alternatives 2, 4 or 5, 

the following five are known to occur along existing system trails: Monardella follettii in Serpentine 

Areas; Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii in Barren and Open Habitats; Cypripedium fasciculatum in 

Interior Forest habitats; and Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae and Clarkia mosquinii in Open 

Habitats. Use of the existing system trails may have some negative effects to these five species, but 

they would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing. This is due to the low number of sites that 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 387

are potentially impacted, as well as the fact that many of the existing system trails are already wellestablished and frequently utilized roads and trails where species have either adapted to the existing 

condition or been extirpated by past motorized vehicle use. Impacts to species along the existing 

system trails would continue under all of the action alternatives; no additional impacts would occur to 

PNF Sensitive species under Alternative 3 because no trails are proposed. 

3.8.10.2.1.1 Special Interest Areas

Alternative 3 proposes no new trails within PNF Special Interest Areas or Research Natural Areas; 

therefore, it places no additional adverse impact on these unique botanical resources. There are 

approximately 9.6 miles of existing system trail in the Butterfly Valley SIA and the proposed McRae 

Meadow and Mount Fillmore SIAs (Table 128). Use of these existing trails would continue under all 

of the action alternatives.

3.8.10.2.2 Cumulative Effects 

Overall, cumulative effects to rare species under this alternative are far less than those under 

Alternative 1 or the action alternatives. This is primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel and 

eliminating the use of all unauthorized routes. No proposed trails are added to the NFTS under this 

alternative; therefore, none of the PNF rare species are at risk of being cumulatively impacted by 

Alternative 3. 

3.8.10.3 Alternative 4

3.8.10.3.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

Table 153. Summary of rare species indicator measures for Alternative 4 

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed system trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to Sensitive rare species sites

1.3 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites

15 trails

Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 33 acres

Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 21 locations

Alternative 4 prohibits cross-country travel, adds approximately 141 miles of trails to the NFTS and

makes no changes to the existing trail system. In comparison to the other action alternatives, 

Alternative 4 has second lowest impact on rare species and their associated habitats. It has the second 

lowest number of trails (15 trails) and trail miles (1.3 miles) that intersect rare species occurrences or 

associated habitat. This alternative has the potential to impact 6 rare species (21 locations) both 

directly and indirectly.

The following species have been documented within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternative 4: Arabis constancei and Monardella follettii (Serpentine Area species); Cypripedium 

fasciculatum (Interior Forest species); and Astragalus lentiformis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae

and Lupinus dalesiae (Open Habitat species). A detailed discussion of direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects to these species from motorized vehicle use is provided under “Action Alternatives (2 thru 5): 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

388 – Plumas National Forest

Summary of Environmental Consequences for Individual Species”. While Alternative 4 may 

negatively affect some of these species, it would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing. 

In comparison to Alternative 2, this alternative provides a greater level of protection for the 

following seven rare species: Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae, Astragalus lentiformis, 

Botrychium sp., Clarkia mosquinii, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii, Ivesia sericolueca and

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii. This is because a number of the routes that were in violation of the 

PNF management prescriptions for individual species (i.e. those that had the potential to directly 

impact individuals or small occurrences) were excluded from the proposed trail system. In addition, 

this alternative avoids impacts to Ivesia aperta var. aperta and Pyrrocoma lucida (Meadow and Seep 

species); Hydrothyria venosa (Riparian Area species); Allium jepsonii and Calycadenia oppositifolia 

(Serpentine Area species); and Penstemon personatus (Open Habitat species).

In general, occurrences with individuals that are in or within 30 feet of the trail are at a high risk 

of direct effects from motor vehicle use. These effects could include death, altered growth or reduced 

seed set from physically breaking, crushing or uprooting plants (Wilshire, Shipley and Nakata 1978, 

Cole and Bayfield 1993). 

Indirect effects to species are dependent upon a number of species-specific factors that include 

habitat type, tolerance to disturbance, distance from trail, amount of occurrence impacted and

intensity and timing of disturbance. All of the rare species listed above (i.e. those within 100 feet of a 

proposed trail) have a high risk of indirect effects from noxious weed introduction and spread. 

Species that are intolerant of disturbance, such as Cypripedium fasciculatum, may be indirectly 

impacted by increased light levels and duff or litter disturbance along the edges of motorized trails. In 

contrast, for those species that tolerate some degree of disturbance, such as Astragalus lentiformis or

Lupinus dalesiae, adding motorized trails to the NFTS may have fewer detrimental indirect effects. 

The largest improvement over Alternative 1 is the prohibition of cross-country travel. This 

reduces vehicle access and impacts to rare plants and their habitats, lowers the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread throughout the forest and concentrates use on maintained trails that would be 

managed and improved to reduce resource damage. 

3.8.10.3.1.1 Special Interest Areas

Alternative 4 has the lowest number of motorized trails (1.2 miles) within PNF Special Interest Areas 

(Table 129). Under this alternative, 1.2 miles are proposed in the McRae Meadow SIA, which 

currently contains 5.6 miles of existing system trail. Some of the unique botanical features for which 

this SIA has been proposed for designation include large meadow complexes, a state-designated Wild 

Trout stream, unique old-growth forests and unusual geologic features (Meyer 1991). While some of 

these proposed trails are relatively well-established, motor vehicle use within these areas still has the 

potential to significantly degrade or disturb these special features if trail design features are not in 

place. Trails that would be designated under Alternative 4 will meet the requirements of the best 

management practices (USDA Forest Service. 2000). Maintenance improvements to trails would be 

consistent with standard practices for trail construction and maintenance. Those practices can be 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 389

found in the Forest Service Trails Handbook (FS 2309.18). Alternative 4 meets the PNF management 

direction for Special Interest Areas.

None of the remaining Plumas SIAs or RNAs are impacted by the routes proposed under Alternative 

4 (Table 129).

3.8.10.3.2 Cumulative Effects

All of the rare species locations (21 sites) located within 100 feet of a proposed trail have the 

potential to be directly or indirectly affected by adding the trail to the NFTS; therefore, these species 

are also at risk of being cumulatively impacted. 

In comparison to the other action alternatives, Alternative 4 has the second lowest number of 

proposed trail miles in riparian areas, wet meadows, serpentine areas, barren habitats, interior forest

and open forest (Table 129). Because this alternative does propose routes within these sensitive 

habitat types, implementation of this alternative has the potential to affect suitable habitat for a 

number of rare species on the PNF. Of the six species with the potential to be directly and indirectly 

impacted by Alternative 4, all have 13 percent or less of their known PNF locations impacted by the 

proposed trails (Figure 8). 

Overall, cumulative effects to rare species under this alternative are far less than those under 

Alternative 1. This is primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel. Of the action alternatives, this 

alternative has the second lowest cumulative impact on Sensitive rare species due to the low number 

of miles proposed, amount of suitable habitat impacted and the lower number of species directly and 

indirectly affected.

3.8.10.4 Alternative 5 

3.8.10.4.1 Direct/Indirect Effects 

Table 154. Summary of rare species indicator measures for Alternative 5 

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed system trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to Sensitive rare species sites

2.6 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites

30 trails

Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 62.2 acres

Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of a proposed system trail 36 locations

Alternative 5 prohibits cross-country travel, adds approximately 234 miles of proposed trails to the 

trail system and makes no changes to the existing trail system. Of the action alternatives, 

implementation of Alternative 5 has the second greatest impact to rare species and their associated 

habitats. It has the second highest number of trails (30 trails) and trail miles (2.6 miles) that intersect 

rare species occurrences or associated habitat. This alternative also has the potential to impact 12 rare 

species (36 locations) both directly and indirectly.

The following species have been documented within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternative 5: Ivesia aperta var. aperta and Pyrrocoma lucida (Meadow and Seep species); 

Hydrothyria venosa (Riparian Area species); Allium jepsonii, Arabis constancei, Calycadenia 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

390 – Plumas National Forest

oppositifolia and Monardella follettii (Serpentine species); Cypripedium fasciculatum (Interior Forest 

species); and Astragalus lentiformis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae, Lupinus dalesiae and

Penstemon personatus (Open Habitat species). A detailed discussion of direct, indirect and

cumulative effects to these species from motorized vehicle use is provided under “Action Alternatives 

(2 thru 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences for Individual Species”. While Alternative 5 

may negatively affect some of these species, it would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing.

In comparison to Alternative 2, this alternative provides a greater level of protection for the 

following seven rare species: Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae, Astragalus lentiformis, 

Botrychium sp., Clarkia mosquinii, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii, Ivesia sericolueca and

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii. This is because a number of the routes that were in violation of the 

PNF management prescriptions for individual species (i.e. those that had the potential to directly 

impact individuals or small occurrences) were excluded from the proposed trail system. 

In general, occurrences with individuals that are in or within 30 feet of the trail are at a high risk 

of direct effects from motorized vehicle use. These effects could include death, altered growth or

reduced seed set from physically breaking, crushing or uprooting plants (Wilshire, Shipley and

Nakata 1978, Cole and Bayfield 1993). 

Indirect effects to species are dependent upon a number of species-specific factors that include 

habitat type, tolerance to disturbance, distance from trail, amount of occurrence impacted and

intensity and timing of disturbance. All of the rare species listed above (i.e. those within 100 feet of a 

proposed trail) have a high risk of indirect effects from noxious weed introduction and spread. 

Species that are intolerant of disturbance, such as Cypripedium fasciculatum, may be indirectly 

impacted by increased light levels and duff or litter disturbance along the edges of motorized trails. In 

contrast, for those species that tolerate some degree of disturbance, such as Astragalus lentiformis or 

Lupinus dalesiae, adding motorized trails to the NFTS may have fewer detrimental indirect effects. 

The largest improvement over Alternative 1 is the prohibition of cross-country travel. This 

reduces vehicle access and impacts to rare plants and their habitats, lowers the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread throughout the forest and concentrates use on maintained trails that would be 

managed and improved to reduce resource damage. 

3.8.10.4.1.1 Special Interest Areas

Of the action alternatives, Alternative 5 has second highest number of motorized trails (3 miles) 

within PNF Special Interest Areas (Table 129). Implementation of this alternative proposes trails in 

Brady’s Camp (2.1 miles), Butterfly Valley (0.2 miles) and McRae Meadow (1.2 miles) SIA. Two of 

these SIAs, Butterfly Valley and McRae Meadow, already have existing NFS trails within their 

boundary (Table 128). Some of the unique botanical features for which these Special Interest areas 

were designated (or proposed for designation) include large meadow and stream complexes, aquatic 

plant communities, red fir and lodgepole forests and sub-alpine plant communities (Meyer 1991). 

While some of these proposed trails are, relatively well-established, motorized vehicle use within 

these areas still has the potential to significantly degrade or disturb these special features if trail 

design features are not in place. Trails that would be designated under Alternative 5 will meet the 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 391

requirements of the best management practices (USDA Forest Service. 2000). Maintenance 

improvements to trails would be consistent with standard practices for trail construction and 

maintenance. Those practices can be found in the Forest Service Trails Handbook (FS 2309.18). 

Alternative 5 meets the PNF management direction for Special Interest Areas. 

None of the remaining Plumas SIAs or RNAs are impacted by the routes proposed under 

Alternative 5 (Table 129).

3.8.10.4.2 Cumulative Effects 

All of the rare species locations (36 sites) located within 100 feet of a proposed trail have the 

potential to be directly or indirectly affected by adding the trail to the NFTS; therefore, these species 

are also at risk of being cumulatively impacted. 

In comparison to the other action alternatives, Alternative 5 has the second greatest number of 

miles in riparian areas, wet meadows, serpentine areas, barren habitats, interior forest and open forest 

(Table 129); therefore, implementation of this alternative also has the potential to affect suitable 

habitat for a number of rare species on the PNF.

Of the 12 species with the potential to be directly and indirectly impacted by Alternative 5, eleven 

have 25 percent or less of their known PNF locations impacted by the proposed trails (Figure 8). One 

species, Calycadenia oppositifolia, has 23 percent known locations affected. Because of this large 

percentage of occurrences impacted, direct and indirect effects to locations along the proposed trails 

could have a significant cumulative effect to this species.

Overall, cumulative effects to rare species under this alternative are far less than those under 

Alternative 1. This is primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel. Of the action alternatives, this 

alternative has the second largest cumulative impact on Sensitive rare species due to large number of 

miles proposed, the amount suitable habitat impacted and the number of species directly and 

indirectly affected.

3.8.10.5 Summary of Determinations

Table 155 presents the determinations for all of the PNF rare species. These determinations are based 

on professional experience and judgment; the existing condition of botanical resources within the 

analysis area and the potential impacts of the alternatives. An effects determination is also the 

culmination of potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Even if the potential direct effects are 

low, there is often the potential for the indirect or cumulative effects to affect the viability of the 

species.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

392 – Plumas National Forest

Table 155. Summary of species determinations. Shaded cells indicate a “may affect” determination.

Species

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Allium jepsonii MA (T) MA (NT) WN WN MA (NT)

Arabis constancei MA (NT) MA (NT) WN MA (NT) MA (NT)

Astragalus lemmonii WN WN WN WN WN

Astragalus lentiformis MA (NT) MA (NT) WN MA (NT) MA (NT)

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Astragalus webberi MA (T) WN WN WN WN

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis WN WN WN WN WN

Botrychium ascendens MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Botrychium crenulatum MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Botrychium lineare MA (T) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Botrychium lunaria MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Botrychium minganese MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Botrychium montanum MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Botrychium pinnatum MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Bruchia bolanderi MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Buxbaumia viridis MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Calycadenia oppositifolia MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN MA (NT)

Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae MA (NT) MA (NT) WN MA (NT) MA (NT)

Clarkia mosquinii MA (T) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Cudonia monticola WN WN WN WN WN

Cypripedium fasciculatum MA (NT) MA (NT) WN MA (NT) MA (NT)

Cypripedium montanum MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Dendrocollybia racemosa WN WN WN WN WN

Eleocharis torticulmis MA (T) WN WN WN WN

Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN)

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius WN WN WN WN WN

Fissidens pauperculus MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Fritillaria eastwoodiae MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Helodium blandowii WN WN WN WN WN

Hydrothyria venosa MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN MA (NT)

Ivesia aperta var. aperta MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN MA (NT)
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 393

Species

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Ivesia sericolueca MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Ivesia webberi WN WN WN WN WN

Lewisia cantelovii MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN WN

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii WN WN WN WN WN

Lomatium roseanum MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Lupinus dalesiae MA (NT) MA (NT) WN MA (NT) MA (NT)

Meesia longiseta WN WN WN WN WN

Meesia triquetra MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Meesia uliginosa MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Mielichhoferia elongata WN WN WN WN WN

Monardella follettii MA (T) MA (NT) WN MA (NT) MA (NT)

Monardella stebbinsii MA (T) WN WN WN WN

Oreostemma elatum MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Packera layneae MA (FT) WN (FT) WN (FT) WN (FT) WN (FT)

Penstemon personatus MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN MA (NT)

Penstemon sudans MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

Phaecollybia olivacea WN WN WN WN WN

Pyrrocoma lucida MA (NT) MA (NT) WN WN MA (NT)

Sedum albomarginatum MA (NT) WN WN WN WN

For Sensitive Species:

•WN: The routes proposed under this Alternative will not affect this species.

•MA (NT): The routes proposed under this Alternative may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability for the species.

•MA (T): The routes proposed under this Alternative may affect individuals and is likely to result in a trend toward federal listing 

or loss of viability for the species.

For Federally Listed Species: 

•WN (FT):The routes proposed under this Alternative will not affect this species or its designated critical habitat.

•MA (FT): The routes proposed under this Alternative may affect and is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species

3.8.10.5.1 Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

The following presents an overview of the effects analysis for each alternative (Table 156). In 

general, the greater the number of motorized vehicle trails (and miles) proposed, the higher the risk 

and severity of negative impacts to rare species and their associated habitats. Alternative 1 has the 

greatest negative effect on rare species and habitats, primarily due to the allowance for cross-country 

travel, which has the potential to affect all but the most inaccessible rare species and habitats. Out of 

the action alternatives, Alternative 2 impacts the largest number of rare species and botanically 

sensitive resources. Alternative 3, which designates no unauthorized routes, has the least impact on 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

394 – Plumas National Forest

rare species. In comparison to these alternatives, the impacts from Alternative 5 fall closer to the 

middle of the spectrum of potential effects.

3.8.10.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternative 1 does not comply with the Forest Plan or other management direction for botanical 

resources. It does not prohibit cross-country travel and has the highest impact on rare species and 

botanical resources. Alternative 1 does not protect sensitive species as needed to maintain viability 

(FSM/H 2670). It also does not protect the resource values within the established Mud Lake RNA 

from motorized vehicle travel (SNFPA 2004).

The action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction. Under these 

alternatives, sensitive plant species are protected (albeit to differing degrees) as needed to maintain 

viability. Motor vehicle travel in the Mud Lake RNA is also prohibited under all action alternatives 

(SNFPA 2004).

Table 156. Summary of Effects for Botanical Resources

Indicators – Botanical Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Miles of unauthorized or proposed system trails open 

for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites.

1 2 5 4 3

Number of unauthorized or proposed trails open for 

public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

Sensitive rare species sites.

1 2 5 4 3

Acres of rare plant sites or suitable habitat within 100 

feet of unauthorized or proposed system trails. 1 2 5 4 3

Total number of rare plant sites within 100 feet of 

unauthorized or proposed trails. 1 2 5 4 3

Average for Botanical Resources 1 2 5 4 3

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the best for botanical resources related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the 

alternative is the worst for botanical resources related to the indicator.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 395

3.9 Noxious Weeds

3.9.1 Introduction

In 2003, the United States Forest Service identified invasive species as one of four critical threats to 

the nation’s ecosystems (Bosworth 2003). Noxious weed species pose a significant threat to 

biological diversity due to their ability to displace native species, alter nutrient and fire cycles, 

decrease the availability of forage for wildlife and degrade soil structure (Bossard, Randall and 

Hoshovsky 2000). 

Motorized vehicles contribute to the introduction and spread of noxious weed species by creating 

suitable environmental conditions for establishment and by acting as a major vector for spread 

(Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The following section provides a discussion of the risk associated 

with noxious weed introduction and spread as a result of the proposed trail designation. A complete 

assessment of noxious weed risk is provided in the “Plumas National Forest Travel Management: 

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment”, which is located in the project record.

3.9.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Direction relevant to the alternatives that are relevant to the management and prevention of noxious 

weeds includes:

FSM 2081.03 requires that a weed risk assessment be conducted when any ground disturbing activity 

is proposed. Determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the 

proposed action. Projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds 

must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation.

Executive Order 13112 of Feb. 3, 1999, directs federal agencies to: prevent the introduction of 

invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control such species, not authorize, fund or carry 

out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species unless the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such 

actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and take all feasible and 

prudent measures to minimize risk of harm in conjunction with the actions.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified Standards and Guidelines applicable to motorized 

travel management and noxious weeds, which will be considered during the analysis process (USDA 

Forest Service 2004). Appendix A of the SNFPA 2004 Record of Decision (page 36) establishes goals 

for noxious weed management using an integrated weed management approach according to the 

priority set forth in Forest Service Manual 2081.2. The three goals/priorities include: 

1. Prevent the introduction of new invaders.

2. Conduct early treatment of new infestations.

3. Contain and control established infestations.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

396 – Plumas National Forest

3.9.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

3.9.3.1 Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts on Noxious Weeds

Two geographic areas were chosen to analyze the effects of the proposed trails on noxious weeds:

• Direct and indirect effects from noxious weeds under the four action alternatives were 

assessed using the area within 100 feet of proposed trails. In general, weed infestations 

located in close proximity to the proposed trails (i.e. within 100 feet) will have a high risk of 

spread to areas along the trail and to other parts of the Forest. 

• The No-action Alternative (Alt. 1), which allows for cross-country travel, was assessed using 

the entire PNF.

Those noxious weed species located within these two geographic areas were considered to have 

the highest potential to be impacted or influenced by the proposed trail designation. Conversely, 

species outside of the analysis area were not considered to have a high likelihood of being impacted 

by the proposed project either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. 

3.9.3.2 Field Surveys

To date, field surveys have been conducted on approximately 287 miles of proposed trails (Vollmar 

2007, USDA Forest Service 2007, USDA Forest Service 2008 a, b and c). An additional 66 miles of 

proposed trail and 10 miles of existing system trails (USDA Forest Service 2003a) have also been 

surveyed under past management projects. For those 25 miles of trail that had not been surveyed at 

the time of this analysis, information from the PNF noxious weed records were used to analyze the 

potential risk from known noxious weed infestations. 

3.9.3.3 Assumptions Specific to Noxious Weed Assessment

In addition to those listed at the beginning of Chapter 3, the following assumptions were used in the 

analysis of noxious weeds: 

1. This project is assumed to be a ground-disturbing activity, which requires a weed risk 

assessment.

2. Existing weed infestations will continue to spread and the rate of spread will be increased by 

motorized vehicle activity. Infestations located along trails will spread further along the trails.

Motorized vehicles will bring in weed seeds and propagative parts from home areas and other 

areas where they have traveled.

3. When completing the risk assessments, the following categories were assigned to determine 

the risk of noxious weed spread or introduction: high, medium or low. These categories were 

assigned based on the following factors:

• High Risk: A high risk of spread or introduction was assigned based on the presence of 

weed infestations along portions of an unauthorized route that was heavily used, a high 

level of invasiveness (i.e. the species was considered an A-rated species by the 

California Department of Agriculture or invasive by the California Invasive Plant 

Council.) or unauthorized route inventories were lacking or incomplete. A high risk of 

spread was assumed when there was no information on weed populations.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 397

• Medium Risk: The risk of spread was considered medium if noxious weed infestations

did not occur directly along a travel route or occurred on a portion of the unauthorized 

route where travel was prohibited; treatments were available and feasible; or the species 

was listed as a B or C-rated species by the California Department of Agriculture or was 

considered to be less invasive and already fairly well-distributed. 

• Low Risk: The risk of introduction or spread was considered low if existing inventories 

demonstrated that noxious weed populations were not present along the unauthorized 

route.

3.9.3.4 Noxious Weeds Methodology by Action

1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest.

Indicator(s):

• Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to noxious weed sites.

• Total number of weed sites within 100 feet of an existing unauthorized route.

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails and /or 

areas) to the NFTS. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest.

Indicator(s):

• Number and miles of proposed trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent 

to noxious weed sites.

• Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail. 

• Total number of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail.

3. Direct/Indirect effects of identifying vehicle class and season of use on the NFTS. 

The timeframe, spatial boundary, indicators and methodology would be the same as those listed under 

number 2 above.

4. Cumulative Effects

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Plumas National Forest. 

Indicator(s): 

• Number and miles of proposed trails assigned a “high” risk of noxious weed spread.

3.9.4 Affected Environment

Twenty five invasive plant species are considered to be a high management concern for the Plumas 

National Forest. Of these, fifteen have been documented on the PNF. These weed species, which are 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

398 – Plumas National Forest

known from about 1,280 locations, occupy a total area of almost 700 acres. Of these known 

occurrences, 551 (or 43 percent) are within 100 feet of an existing National Forest System road. The 

weed sites on the PNF range in size from 1 square foot to over 150 acres, with the majority of 

infestations (over 80 percent) occupying an area less than 0.25 acre.

Table 157 lists all noxious weed species that are managed by and known to occur on the Plumas 

National Forest. Also included in the table are the ratings from the California Department of Food and 

Agriculture’s noxious weed list (CDFA 2007) and the California Invasive Plant Council’s invasive 

plant inventory (Cal-IPC 2006). The CDFA list divides noxious weeds into three categories: A, B and 

C. A-listed weeds are those for which eradication or containment is required at the State or County 

level. Eradication or containment of B-listed weeds is at the discretion of the County Agricultural 

Commissioner and C-listed weeds require eradication or containment only when found in a nursery or 

at the discretion of the County Agricultural Commissioner. Cal-IPC categorizes invasive plants as 

high, moderate or limited, based on the species’ negative ecological, rather than economic or 

management, impact in California. 

Table 157. Plumas National Forest noxious weed species.

Species Common Name CDFA 

rating

Cal-IPC 

rating

Number 

of PNF 

locations

Total 

acres on 

the PNF

Aegilops triuncialis barb goatgrass B High 5 0.8

Cardaria draba hoary cress B Moderate 2 0.1

Carduus nutans musk thistle A Moderate 1 < 0.001

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed A High 18 1.8

Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle C High 207 269

Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed A Moderate 8 1.8

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Moderate 597 139

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom C High 97 131

Genista monspessulana French broom C High 64 20.5

Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad B Moderate 3 0.1

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed B High 128 8.7

Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica Dalmation toadflax A Moderate 4 0.1

Rubus armeniacus Himalaya blackberry None High 2 0.05

Spartium junceum Spanish broom None High 5 0.6

Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead C High 123 98

3.9.4.1 Habitat Vulnerability

A large portion of the PNF is considered relatively free of noxious weeds, with most infestations 

concentrated along roads (43 percent) or in areas of past and present disturbance, such as timber 

harvest units, skid trails, temporary roads, unauthorized routes, mining claims and grazing allotments. 

The lower elevations on the Forest and the mid-elevation valleys contain many of the high noxious 

weed concentrations. These areas often provide entry points or “seed sources” for weeds moving into 

the less-invaded parts of the Forest. 

Motorized vehicle travel both on and off roads and trails has been a part of Forest 

recreation for many years. This activity has created disturbed conditions that greatly increase the 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 399

vulnerability of the landscape to noxious weed invasion and spread. The PNF has been heavily 

influenced over the last 150 years by activities that include mining, livestock grazing, timber harvest, 

fire exclusion, large high-severity wildfires and non-motorized recreational activities such as 

camping, hiking, biking and horseback riding. Undeniably, the additive effects of recent and past 

actions have shaped the present landscape and corresponding noxious weed infestations. 

Over the past few years, a number of large wildland fires have occurred on the Forest. These 

recent events increase the vulnerability of the landscape to weed establishment and spread by 

increasing the availability of resources, such as light and nitrogen; and decreasing competition from 

native plant species. In their comparison of low-severity and high-severity burns, Turner et al. (1997) 

found that the density of the invasive Canada thistle after severe surface and crown fires was two to 

four times greater than the density of Canada thistle after a light surface fire.

Beyond these recent events, the effect of specific past management actions on noxious weed 

species is largely unknown. Targeted noxious weed surveys at the project-level first began relatively 

recently on the Forest. While it is often difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effects 

of past project activities on noxious weeds, the high level of past activity, combined with the current 

level of weed infestation, suggest that past activities have had a significant effect on noxious weed 

introduction and spread across the PNF.

Of the 1,280 noxious weed locations (covering approximately 700 acres) that have been 

documented to date on the PNF, about 160 locations are treated annually using mechanical, cultural

and in some limited cases, chemical methods. In addition, one future project is designed to treat 

noxious weeds found within 50 feet of existing roads. While these ongoing and future actions would 

decrease the potential for these occurrences to spread along roads, the actions would not greatly 

reduce the extent of noxious weed infestations over the Forest landscape.

3.9.4.2 General Types of Impacts

Noxious weed species pose a serious threat to biological diversity because of their ability to displace 

native species, alter nutrient and fire cycles, decrease the availability of forage for wildlife and 

degrade soil structure (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Noxious weed species have the 

potential to affect native plant species indirectly through allelopathy (the production and release of 

plant compounds that inhibit the growth of other plants) (Bais et al. 2003), as well as through direct 

competition for nutrients, light and water (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Noxious weed 

infestations can also reduce the recreational or aesthetic value of native habitats.

Noxious weed species are oftentimes classified as “pioneer” species or invaders. Therefore, 

disturbance, such as that associated with motorized vehicle use, often creates ideal conditions for

weed introduction and establishment. Natural areas that have experienced minimal levels of human 

disturbance are generally less invaded by noxious weeds than those areas that have been directly 

disturbed (Rejmánek 1989 in Daehler 2003). Noxious weed colonization into disturbed sites is often 

due to the removal of natural barriers that frequently keep invasive species in check, such as 

unsuitable light, soil or moisture conditions (Parendes and Jones 2000). 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

400 – Plumas National Forest

Motorized vehicles greatly increase the amount of disturbance along and in the vicinity of the 

proposed trails. Indirect effects from motorized vehicle use, such as soil compaction, increased 

erosion and modification of soil properties, can impact the distribution, abundance and vigor of native 

vegetation (Brooks 1995 in Ouren et al. 2007). The removal of native vegetation increases light levels 

and reduces the amount of competition for water and nutrients, making these edge-habitats highly 

susceptible to noxious weed invasion. 

3.9.4.3 Increased Vectors as a Result of Proposed Trail Designation

Motorized vehicle routes contribute to dispersal of noxious weed species because they (1) create 

suitable habitat by altering environmental conditions, (2) make invasion more likely by stressing or 

removing native species and (3) allow for easier movement by wild or human vectors (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000). 

High concentrations of noxious weeds have been observed in close proximity to roads and areas 

of motorized vehicle use in many different ecosystems (Gelbard and Harrison 2003, Parendes and 

Jones 2000 and others). One study in the Mohave Desert determined that non-native, early 

successional species were more common at sites disturbed by off-highway motorcycles (Davidson 

and Fox 1974). Another study in the Mohave Desert, found that the biomass of a non-native grass 

increased in plots disturbed by off-highway vehicle use and grazing when compared to areas excluded 

from these activities (Brooks 1995). 

Roads, whether they are major highways, general Forest roads or motorized vehicle trails, are 

often the primary conduit for weed introduction and establishment. For example, in their study of 

invasive species along roads and streams in Oregon, Parendes and Jones (2000) found weed species 

along nearly all of the high and low-use roads that they sampled. 

Seeds and propagative plant parts often get lodged in the tires or undercarriages of motor vehicles 

and can be transported along and between routes into un-invaded portions of the forest. In one 

National Park in Australia, weed seed was found to be most often transported into and around the 

park by visitor’s vehicles that had been driven off-road (Lonsdale and Lane 1994). Maintenance (i.e. 

brush clearing) of routes can also facilitate the spread of noxious weeds by disturbing the soil, 

removing native vegetation and transporting soil and weed seed to new locations.

At the site-specific level, the risk of noxious weed establishment and the potential for spread is 

largely dependent upon the type and frequency of disturbance associated with each route. For 

example, plant communities adjacent to routes that receive high vehicle traffic would be expected to 

be more invaded than those adjacent to infrequently used areas (Parendes and Jones 2000). Also, the 

risk of weed introduction would be highly dependent upon if a vehicle had been in an area infested 

with noxious weeds in the recent past.

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences: Effects of Alternatives on Noxious Weed 

Species

The following sections provide a discussion of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each 

alternative on noxious weeds. It is important to note that the analysis below represents what is known 

about motorized vehicle impacts along unauthorized routes at this point in time. Designation of a trail
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 401

is expected to increase and concentrate motorized vehicle use; this has the potential to increase the 

risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. Proposed trails, infestations and control measures will 

need to be re-evaluated on a continual basis to assess and address the risk from noxious weeds.

3.9.5.1 Alternative 1 (No-action)

3.9.5.1.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 carries the highest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. The largest impact of 

this alternative is from cross-country travel, which has the potential to introduce new noxious weeds 

to areas that are not currently infested and to aid in the expansion of existing infestations. 

Under this alternative, it is impossible to quantify when and where noxious weeds will be 

encountered, spread or introduced by motorized vehicles; therefore the 1,073 miles of unauthorized 

routes were used as a representation of current motorized vehicle use on the Forest. There are 

presently 159 noxious weed locations (68 acres) documented within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

and existing system trails (Table 158). This represents 13 percent of the noxious weed locations 

documented on the PNF.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

402 – Plumas National Forest

Table 158. High priority noxious weed species documented within 100 feet of an unauthorized route or 

existing system trail and their percentage relative to the total percent and acreage on the Plumas National 

Forest.

Species

Number (and acres) of noxious 

weed infestations within 100’ % of known PNF 

infestations

% of total PNF 

Unauthorized acres

Routes

Existing 

System Trail

Centaurea maculosa

(spotted knapweed)

5 infestations

(0.2 acres) 28 11

Centaurea solstitialis

(yellow starthistle)

41 infestations 

(26.2 acres)

8 infestations

(8 acres) 24 13

Cirsium arvense

(Canada thistle)

38 infestations

(6.7 acres)

3 infestations

(0.9 acres) 7 5

Cytisus scoparius 

(Scotch broom)

11 infestations

(4.8 acres) 11 4

Genista monspessulana

(French broom)

2 infestations

(11.6 acres) 3 57

Isatis tinctoria

(Dyer's woad)

2 infestations

(0.04 acre) 67 40

Lepidium latifolium

(perennial pepperweed)

1 infestation

(0.02 acre) 1 0.2

Linaria dalmatica ssp. 

dalmatica (Dalmatian toadflax)

3 infestations

(0.1 acres) 75 100

Rubus armeniacus

(Himalaya blackberry)

1 infestation 

(0.002 acres)

1 infestation

(0.05 acre) 100 100

Taeniatherum caput-medusae

(medusahead)

34 infestations

(9.4 acres)

9 infestations 

(0.25 acre) 35 10

TOTAL 138 infestations

(59 acres)

21 infestations 

(9.25 acres) 13 10

Under this alternative, motorized vehicles traveling on and off unauthorized routes would 

continue to create areas of disturbance that are highly vulnerable to weed invasion. Noxious weeds 

would continue to reduce the quality of native plant communities by displacing native species, 

altering nutrient and fire cycles, degrading soil structure and decreasing the quality and availability of 

forage for wildlife (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Under this alternative, all but the most 

inaccessible habitats would be at risk of noxious weed invasion and spread from cross-country 

motorized vehicle travel.

3.9.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects

As the number of Forest visitors and subsequently the number of unauthorized routes, continues to 

grow each year, the risk of new invasive species introductions also increases. The high number of 

past, on-going and planned activities on the Forest also increases the vulnerability of the landscape to 

noxious weed spread. Existing vectors for spread, which are unrelated to the motorized vehicle travel, 

include mining, livestock grazing, timber harvest, fire exclusion, large high-severity wildfires and 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 403

non-motorized recreational activities such as camping, hiking, biking and horseback riding. These 

would continue to aide in the dispersal and spread of noxious weed species across the forest. 

Standard management practices, such as cleaning off-road vehicles and flagging and avoiding 

weed infestations, are often used to reduce the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. While 

these practices can be effective in reducing cumulative impacts in most projects, they are not practical 

for trail designation. Some of the PNF standard management guidelines and noxious weed prevention

measures (i.e. the requirement to use weed-free materials for erosion control, maintenance and 

revegetation) would reduce the risk of weed invasion from trail reconstruction and maintenance; 

however, in general, those alternatives that avoid or treat existing weed infestations have a lower risk 

of weed spread than those alternatives that do not. 

3.9.5.2 Action Alternatives (2 through 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences for Individual 

Species

The following sections provide a discussion of the effects of each action alternative (2 through 5) on

those noxious weed species with the highest potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the 

proposed project (Table 159). The general effects, described under the “General Types of Impacts” 

section, also apply to these weed species. The following summarizes information about the noxious 

weed species that are known to occur within 100 feet of a proposed trail.

Table 159. The number of noxious weed infestations within 100’ of a proposed trail displayed by action 

alternative. 

Species

Action Alternatives

2 4 5

Centaurea solstitialis 8 0 4

Cirsium arvense 8 2 5

Cytisus scoparius 2 2 2

Rubus armeniacus 1 1 1

Taeniatherum caput-medusae 12 1 2

TOTAL 31 6 14

3.9.5.2.1 Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle)

Yellow starthistle is considered a high priority for control and eradication in Plumas County as well 

as on the PNF (Karl Bishop, Plumas-Sierra Counties Agricultural Commissioner, personal 

communication). In California alone, this invasive species is estimated to cover approximately 

12 million acres of rangeland and wildland.

Yellow starthistle reproduces exclusively from seed, with most long-distance dispersal (greater 

than 16 feet) attributed to wildlife or human-related factors. The control or eradication of this species 

requires elimination of seed production as well as depletion of the soil seedbank (seeds residing in the 

soil that have not germinated). The size of the seedbank is dependant upon the age of the infestation; 

on average it takes 5 to 10 years to deplete the seedbank. This species is actively treated on the PNF

where control methods have ranged from hand pulling to limited herbicide control.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

404 – Plumas National Forest

3.9.5.2.1.1 Effects from the Proposed trails 

There are eight yellow starthistle infestations within 100 feet of the proposed trails under Alternatives 

2, 4 and 5 (Table 160).

Table 160. Yellow starthistle occurrences within 100’ of the proposed trails. 

Site ID Trail ID Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

infestation 

(acres)

Proposed 

treatment1

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

CESO3_198 10M39 0.02 0.2 1.5 X

CESO3_201 10M40 0.4 0.3 0.8 FP X X

CESO3_292 11M25 0.002 0.002 HP X X

CESO3_309 5M06 0.1 0.9 HP X

CESO3_332 10M36 0.04 0.04 HP X X

CESO3_333 10M36 0.002 0.002 HP X X

CESO3_339 10M42 0.1 0.3 X

CESO3_344 6M08 0.1 0.1 0.4 HP (O) X

1HP: Hand-pull individuals within infestation prior to trail designation; HP (O): Hand-pull individuals within infestation / trail open 

for designation; FP: Infestation proposed for treatment under future project

The five infestations situated less than 30 feet from the proposed trails will have the highest risk 

of spread from motorized vehicles. Although seed dispersal in yellow starthistle is generally poor, 

with most seeds falling within two feet of the mother plant, dispersal distances of over 16 feet have 

been documented (Roché 1991). Long-distance dispersal events are often attributed to wildlife or 

human factors, such as dispersed camping, vehicle use or hiking along trails. Experimental results 

suggest that seeds remain viable in the soil for three to ten years (DiTomaso 2004). These factors, in 

combination with the close proximity (less than 100 feet) from the trails, place all of the seven trails 

listed above at high risk due to yellow starthistle. 

None of the infestations in Table 160 are currently treated on an annual basis. One infestation, 

CESO3_201, is proposed for treatment under the Keddie Hazardous Fuels Project. Four additional 

infestations (CESO3_292, CESO3_309, CESO3_332 and CESO3_333) require mechanical treatment 

(i.e. hand-pulling) prior to the trail being open for motorized use. One of these infestations, 

CESO3_292, occurs on an old, disturbed landing, which also appears to be used as a dispersed 

campsite (Coppoletta, personal observation 2007). This site is the starting point for unauthorized 

route 11M25 and would likely be utilized for staging off-road vehicles, making the risk of yellow 

starthistle spread from this infestation along trail 11M25 and the adjacent 11M24 trail high. 

Yellow starthistle infestations are also found along some of the National Forest system roads and 

existing system trails that are adjacent to the proposed trails (e.g. 5M09, 5M32 and 6M08). 

Restricting motorized vehicle access on these trails through the trail designation process would not 

remove the risk of spread from other licensed vehicles utilizing these existing roads and trails; 

however, in a few of the higher risk situations, trails have been proposed for designation (i.e. they will 

be open to the public) with the intent of mechanically treating the noxious weeds along the access 

routes. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 405

3.9.5.2.2 Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle)

This perennial thistle spreads rapidly by producing long horizontal underground roots that give rise to 

aerial shoots (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Canada thistle has an extensive root system; 

the species has been shown to produce over 66 feet of new roots over a two-year period, some of 

which have been shown to grow 15–20 feet deep. This species is considered particularly difficult to 

eradicate. Several insect species have been identified as possible biocontrol agents, but none of them 

have been shown to be effective controls (Bayer 2000, Nuzzo 1997, Tu et al. 2001). Mechanical 

methods, such as hand pulling or mowing, are generally not recommended because they may 

exacerbate the problem by spreading root fragments to new locations (Bossard, Randall and 

Hoshovsky 2000). The most effective method is herbicide control, which is oftentimes used in 

conjunction with revegetation activities (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000).

3.9.5.2.2.1 Effects from the Proposed trails

There are ten Canada thistle infestations within 100 feet of the proposed trails under Alternatives 2, 4 

and 5 (Table 161).

Seven of the Canada thistle infestations are situated less than 30 feet from a proposed trail, 

making the risk of spread from motorized vehicles very high. Canada thistle poses a large threat to 

native plant communities on the PNF due to its abundance and distribution, particularly in the 

northern portion of the Forest. The rates of Canada thistle spread that are documented in scientific 

literature range from less than 2 feet per year to over 40 feet per year (Donald 1990; USGS 2005; 

Nuzzo 1997; Bond and Turner 2004). 

Table 161. Canada thistle occurrences within 100’ of the proposed trails. 

Site ID Trail ID Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

infestation 

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment1

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

CIAR4_040

13M03 0.1 0.2

2.2

X

13M04A 0.002 X

CIAR4_081 10M40 0.002 0.002 FP X X

CIAR4_089 10M43 0.01 0.005 X

CIAR4_270 11M42 0.02 0.01 0.04 X

CIAR4_355 12M22 0.005 0.2 0.2 FP X X

CIAR4_358

12M21 0.05

0.05

FP X X

12M21A 0.04 FP X X

CIAR4_372 12M34 0.003 0.003 FP X X

CIAR4_390 12M34 0.01 0.01 FP X X

CIAR4_495 11M42 0.3 0.05 0.5 X

CIAR4_546 12M24 0.1 1.4 14.8 X

1 FP: Infestation proposed for treatment under future project

Canada thistle is a shade-intolerant species and its growth is shown to be discouraged in areas 

where there are low levels of disturbance and sufficient competition from native species. For 

example, in Rocky Mountain National Park, it was found that dry upslope conditions, thick canopies 

from woody species and well-established grass meadows inhibited Canada thistle invasion and 

population size over time (Beck 1994). However, it was also noted that only a minor amount of 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

406 – Plumas National Forest

disturbance (such as from elk grazing) was necessary to promote Canada thistle invasion and 

establishment.

This species is considered particularly difficult to eradicate and none of the infestations listed 

above are treated on an annual basis. Mechanical methods, such as hand pulling or mowing, are 

generally not effective (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). At present, the most successful 

control method for Canada thistle is herbicide treatment (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). 

Canada thistle sites that are not actively treated will continue to expand along roadsides, trails and 

into riparian and other native plant communities. 

One infestation, CIAR4_081, is proposed for treatment under the Keddie Hazardous Fuels 

Project. Four additional infestations (CIAR4_355, CIAR4_358, CIAR4_372 and CIAR4_390) are 

being considered for treatment under a future weed treatment project. To reduce the high risk of 

spread along these proposed trails, some of these trails would remain closed until future treatments 

are complete. 

3.9.5.2.3 Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom)

Scotch broom is an invasive shrub that currently occupies more than 700,000 acres in the central to 

northwest coastal and Sierra Nevada foothill regions of California (Bossard 2000). In disturbed areas, 

this species has been shown to form dense thickets that decrease native plant diversity and have the 

potential to modify fire frequency and intensity. Scotch broom spreads by producing large quantities 

of seed; one medium-sized plant can produce over 12,000 seeds (Bossard 2000). Scotch broom is also 

capable of stump sprouting after cutting, freezing or fire. 

3.9.5.2.3.1 Effects from the Proposed trails

There are two scotch broom infestations within 100 feet of the proposed trails under Alternatives 2, 4 

and 5 (Table 162).

Table 162. Scotch broom occurrences within 100’ of the proposed trails. 

Site ID Trail ID Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

infestation 

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

CYSC4_147 9M50 0.01 0.3 X X X

CYSC4_154 9M50 0.03 0.07 0.1 X X X

CYSC4_147 and CYSC4_154 are situated opposite the proposed trails on a paved NFS road. 

These two sites have been treated annually since 2005. To date, the mechanical methods used to treat 

Scotch broom on the Forest have been effective. This on-going treatment, as well as the location of 

these infestations in relation to the proposed trails, lowers the risk of spread along the proposed trails.

3.9.5.2.4 Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry)

This robust shrub effectively and rapidly displaces native species by forming impenetrable thickets 

along disturbed roadsides, right-of-way corridors and riparian areas. It can grow in a wide variety of 

conditions and on a number of different soil types, including barren and infertile soils (Hoshovsky 

2000). Himalayan blackberry has rapid growth rates; canes have been shown to grow up to twentythree feet in a single growing season (Hoshovsky 2000). It spreads both vegetatively and through the 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 407

production of large quantities of seed, which are readily dispersed by mammals, birds and via rivers 

and streams. The most effective treatment methods for Himalayan blackberry are mechanical 

removal, burning and in some cases herbicide application (Hoshovsky 2000). 

3.9.5.2.4.1 Effects from the Proposed Trails

There is one Himalayan blackberry infestation within 100 feet of a proposed trail under Alternatives 

2, 4 and 5 (Table 163).

Table 163. Himalayan blackberry occurrences within 100’ of the proposed trails. 

Site ID Trail ID Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

infestation 

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

RUAR_002 8M36 0.002 0.002 X X X

This small infestation is situated less than 30 feet from the proposed trail and poses a high risk of 

spread from motorized vehicles. Himalayan blackberry has rapid growth rates and spreads both 

vegetatively and by seed. At present, this species is not actively treated on the Plumas National Forest

and efforts to document infestations are in the early stages. 

3.9.5.2.5 Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead)

Over the past 10 years, managers of public lands in the western United States have witnessed an 

explosive spread of this invasive grass species (Bisson 1999). This species spreads primarily by seed, 

which is dispersed by wind and water, although it can be dispersed to more distant sites by grazing 

animals, machinery, vehicles and clothing (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Medusahead is 

able to grow in a wide range of climatic conditions and has been documented in plant communities up 

to 7,000 feet in elevation. 

Traditional methods of control (such as mowing and hand pulling) are not considered practical for 

medusahead because they are nonselective, oftentimes fail to remove the active portion of the plant 

where new growth originates and are not recommended along roadsides after seed set because of 

increased potential for seed dispersal (CDFA 2004). Other management options, such as biological, 

cultural and chemical control methods, have also shown variable effectiveness (CDFA 2004). 

3.9.5.2.5.1 Effects from the Proposed trails

There are twelve medusahead infestations within 100 feet of the proposed trails under Alternatives 2, 

4 and 5 (Table 164).

Table 164. Medusahead occurrences within 100’ of the proposed trails. 

Site ID Trail ID Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

infestation 

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

TACA8_031 10M22 0.05 0.2 X

TACA8_051

10M20 0.01 0.02 X X X

10M21 0.02 X X

TACA8_085 10M39 0.02 0.2 1.5 X

TACA8_087 10M39 0.001 0.005 X

TACA8_088 10M39 0.02 0.03 X

TACA8_094 10M38 0.01 0.02 X
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

408 – Plumas National Forest

Site ID Trail ID Number of acres with potential 

for impact

Size of 

infestation 

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment

Action Alternatives

Within 0-30’ Within 30-100’ 2 4 5

TACA8_097 10M38 0.03 0.03 X

TACA8_098 10M38 0.01 0.009 X

TACA8_172 10M14 0.03 0.2 1.5 X X

TACA8_186 10M42 0.002 0.002 X

TACA8_187 10M42 0.07 0.07 X

TACA8_188 10M42 0.01 0.01 X

Under these alternatives, the seven medusahead infestations that are situated less than 30 feet 

from the proposed trails have a very high risk of spread from motorized vehicles. This invasive grass 

is primarily dispersed by wind and water, although it can be dispersed to more distant sites by 

machinery, vehicles and clothing (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Medusahead is of 

significant concern on the PNF because it occurs in areas of high visitor use where there is increased 

potential for spread and traditional treatment methods (mechanical, chemical, biological, etc) are not 

practical or effective for large-scale control. These factors, in combination with the close proximity 

(less than 100 feet) from the trails, place all of the seven trails listed above at high risk due to 

medusahead.

TACA8_051 and TACA8_172 are situated directly off County Roads; therefore restricting

motorized vehicle access on trails through the trail designation process may not remove the entire risk 

of spread from other licensed vehicles utilizing the road. Many of these trails (10M20, 10M21 and 

10M22) occur in an area that is heavily infested with medusahead. There are currently no feasible or 

effective treatment measures to control the spread of this invasive species; therefore the risk of spread 

is high in these areas. 

3.9.5.3 Action Alternatives (2 through 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences

The following section presents an overview of the effects analysis for each action alternative. In 

general, the greater the number of motorized vehicle trails (and miles) and the less treatment 

proposed, the higher the risk of noxious weed spread. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 2 carries

the highest risk from noxious weeds, whereas Alternative 3, which designates no unauthorized routes, 

has the lowest risk of weed introduction and spread. In comparison to these alternatives, the risk of 

noxious weed spread and introduction from the proposed trails under Alternative 5 is closer to the 

middle.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 409

3.9.5.3.1 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

3.9.5.3.1.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

Table 165. Summary of noxious weed indicator measures for Alternative 2.

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to noxious weed sites

1.2 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

noxious weed sites

20 trails

Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 5 acres

Total number of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 31 locations

Alternative 2 prohibits cross-country travel, adds approximately 361 miles of unauthorized routes to 

the trail system and makes no changes to the existing system trails. In comparison to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 2 poses the greatest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread due the 

high number of trails within or adjacent to noxious weed infestations (20 trails), the total number (31

sites) and acreage (5 acres) of weed infestations within 100 feet of a proposed trail and the lack of 

feasible treatment and control options for some of these infestations (Table 165).

The following noxious weeds have been documented within 100 feet of a proposed trail under 

Alternative 2: yellow star-thistle (8 locations), Canada thistle (8 locations), Scotch broom (2 

locations), Himalayan blackberry (1 location) and medusahead (12 locations). A detailed discussion 

of the risk associated with these individual species is provided in the section above (“Action 

Alternatives (2 through 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences for Individual Species”). 

Of the 31 noxious weed sites that are located within 100 feet of a trail proposed under Alternative 

2, twelve are proposed for treatment either prior to or concurrent with the trail being open to the 

public. Of those 19 infestations that are not proposed for treatment, three (CYSC4_147, TACA8_051 

and TACA8_172) are situated on a paved NFS road on the side opposite of the proposed trail; the risk 

of spread from these infestations onto the proposed trails is considered moderate. Five of the 

remaining untreated sites are Canada thistle and nine are medusahead; these two weed species do not 

have practical treatment options available that fall within the scope of this project. Under this 

alternative, those locations that are left untreated will greatly increase the risk of spread along the 

proposed trails and into adjacent unoccupied habitat. 

3.9.5.3.1.2 Cumulative Effects

In comparison to Alternative 1, the risk of noxious weed spread under this alternative is far less, 

primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel; however, in comparison to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 2 carries one of the highest cumulative risks from noxious weed introduction 

and spread. This is largely due to the number (20 proposed trails) and mileage (12.8 miles) of “high 

risk” proposed trails. Under this alternative, the 31 noxious weed sites that are located within 100 feet 

of a proposed trail and are not actively treated will have a high risk of spread from motorized vehicle 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

410 – Plumas National Forest

use. These noxious weed infestations would continue to expand along trails and into uninvaded native 

plant communities and would act as sources of seed for new weed introductions to nearby trails. 

As the number of forest users continues to grow each year, the risk of new invasive species 

introductions also increases. The high number of past, on-going and planned activities on the Forest 

also increases the vulnerability of the landscape to noxious weed spread. Existing vectors for spread, 

unrelated to motorized vehicle use, would continue to aide in the dispersal and spread of noxious 

weed species across the Forest. 

3.9.5.3.2 Alternative 3

3.9.5.3.2.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

Table 166. Summary of noxious weed indicator measures for Alternative 3.

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to noxious weed sites

0 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

noxious weed sites

0 trails

Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 0 acres

Total number of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 0 locations

Alternative 3 prohibits cross-country travel, adds no proposed trails to the trail system and makes no 

changes to the existing trail system. In comparison to the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 has 

the lowest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread due to the fact that it proposes no new system 

trails that intersect noxious weed occurrences (Table 166). 

Of those species that have been documented along a proposed trail under Alternatives 2, 4 or 5, 

the following four are known to occur along existing system trails: yellow star-thistle (8 locations), 

Canada thistle (3 locations), Himalayan blackberry (1 location) and medusahead (9 locations). Use of 

the existing system trails will increase the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread onto PNF 

lands; however, motorized use of existing system trails would continue under all of the action 

alternatives. No additional risk of noxious weed spread and introduction would occur under 

Alternative 3 because there are no proposed trails to the trail system. 

Cumulative Effects

Overall, cumulative effects to noxious weeds under this alternative are far less than those under 

Alternative 1 or the action alternatives. This is primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel and 

elimination of all proposed trails. No trails are proposed under this alternative; therefore none of the 

noxious weed infestations that have been documented along unauthorized trails pose a risk under 

Alternative 3. 

3.9.5.3.3 Alternative 4

3.9.5.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 prohibits cross-country travel, adds approximately 141 miles of unauthorized routes to 

the trail system and makes no changes to the existing trail system. In comparison to the other action 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 411

alternatives, Alternative 4 has the second lowest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread due to 

the lower number of trails within or adjacent to noxious weed infestations (3 trails) and the reduced 

number (6 sites) and acreage (0.2 acres) of weed infestations within 100 feet of a proposed trail 

(Table 167).

Table 167. Summary of noxious weed indicator measures for Alternative 4.

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or 

adjacent to noxious weed sites

0.14 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

noxious weed sites

3 trails

Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 0.2 acres

Total number of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 6 locations

The following noxious weeds have been documented within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternative 4: Canada thistle (2 locations), Scotch broom (2 locations), Himalayan blackberry (1 

location) and medusahead (1 location). Refer to the analysis in the section above (“Action 

Alternatives (2 through 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences for Individual Species”) for a 

detailed discussion of effects to these individual species. 

Of the seven noxious weed sites that are located within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternative 2, three are proposed for treatment either prior to or concurrent with the trail being open 

to the public. Of those four infestations that are not proposed for treatment, three (CYSC4_147, 

TACA8_051 and TACA8_172) are situated on a paved NFS road on the side opposite of the proposed 

trail; the risk of spread from these infestations onto the proposed trail is considered moderate. The 

remaining infestation is Himalayan blackberry, which is not currently treated on the PNF. 

In comparison to Alternatives 2 and 5, the exclusion of a number of “high risk” unauthorized 

routes and the proposed weed treatments greatly reduce the risk of noxious weed spread along and 

among the Alternative 4 proposed trails. 

3.9.5.3.3.2 Cumulative Effects: 

In comparison to Alternative 1, the risk of noxious weed spread is far less under this alternative, 

primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel. In comparison to the other action alternatives, 

Alternative 4 carries the second lowest cumulative risk of noxious weed introduction. This is largely 

due to the lower number (2 trails) and mileage (0.7 miles) of “high risk” trails.

Under this alternative, the seven noxious weed sites that are located within 100 feet of a proposed 

trail and are not actively treated have a high to moderate risk of spread from motorized vehicle use. 

These noxious weed infestations could continue to expand along trails and into uninvaded native 

plant communities and may act as sources of seed for new weed introductions to nearby trails. 

As the number of Forest visitors continues to grow each year, the risk of new invasive species 

introductions also increases. The high number of past, on-going and planned activities on the Forest 

also increases the vulnerability of the landscape to noxious weed spread. Existing vectors for spread, 

unrelated to motorized vehicle use, would continue to aide in the dispersal and spread of noxious 

weed species across the Forest. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

412 – Plumas National Forest

3.9.5.3.4 Alternative 5

3.9.5.3.4.1 Direct/Indirect Effects:

Table 168. Summary of noxious weed indicator measures for Alternative 5.

Indicator Measure Value

Miles of proposed trail open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

noxious weed sites

0.6 miles

Number of trails open for public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

noxious weed sites

13 trails

Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 1.6 acres

Total number of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of a proposed trail 14 locations

Alternative 5 prohibits cross-country travel, adds approximately 234 miles of proposed trails to the 

trail system and makes no changes to the existing trail system. In comparison to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 5 has the second highest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread due 

the high number of proposed trails within or adjacent to noxious weed infestations (14 proposed 

trails) and the high number (14 sites) and acreage (1.6 acres) of weed infestations within 100 feet of a 

proposed trail (Table 168).

The following noxious weeds have been documented within 100 feet of a trail proposed under 

Alternative 5: yellow star-thistle (4 locations), Canada thistle (5 locations), Scotch broom (2

locations), Himalayan blackberry (1 location) and medusahead (2 locations). Refer to the analysis in 

the section above (“Action Alternatives (2 through 5): Summary of Environmental Consequences for 

Individual Species”) for a detailed discussion of effects to individual species. 

Of the 14 noxious weed sites that are located within 100 feet of a trail proposed under Alternative 

5, ten are proposed for treatment either prior to or concurrent with the trail being open to the public. 

Of those four infestations that are not proposed for treatment, three (CYSC4_147, TACA8_051 and 

TACA8_172) are situated on a paved NFS road on the side opposite of the proposed trail; the risk of 

spread from these infestations onto the proposed trail is considered moderate. The remaining 

infestation is Himalayan blackberry, which is not currently treated on the PNF.

In comparison to Alternative 2, the exclusion of a number of “high risk” unauthorized routes and 

the proposed weed treatments greatly reduce the risk of noxious weed spread along and among the 

Alternative 5 proposed trails. 

3.9.5.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects

In comparison to Alternative 1, the risk of noxious weed spread under this alternative is far less, 

primarily due to the ban on cross-country travel; however, in comparison to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 5 carries the second highest cumulative risk from noxious weed introduction 

and spread. This is largely due to the number (10 proposed trails) and mileage (5.2 miles) of “high 

risk” proposed trails.

Under this alternative, the 14 noxious weed sites that are located within 100 feet of a proposed 

trail and are not actively treated will have a high to moderate risk of spread from motorized vehicle 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 413

use. These noxious weed infestations could continue to expand along proposed trails and into 

uninvaded native plant communities and may act as sources of seed for new weed introductions to 

nearby trails. 

As the number of Forest users continues to grow each year, the risk of new invasive species 

introductions also increases. The high number of past, on-going and planned activities on the Forest 

also increases the vulnerability of the landscape to noxious weed spread. Existing vectors for spread, 

unrelated to motorized vehicle use, would continue to aide in the dispersal and spread of noxious 

weed species across the Forest. 

3.9.6 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives

The proposed trails would greatly increase the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread by 

creating disturbed conditions that favor noxious weed establishment and spread. Implementation of 

standard management prevention practices is not practical for this project and the limited number of 

noxious weed control measures that are available do not completely eliminate the risk of noxious 

weed spread along and among proposed trails. 

The risk of noxious weed introduction and spread varies among the proposed alternatives due to 

the number and mileage of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to noxious weed infestations and 

the total number and acreage of weed infestations within 100 feet of a proposed trail. Alternative 1 

has the highest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread, primarily due to the allowance for 

cross-country travel, which provides potential access to all but the most inaccessible weed 

infestations and native plant habitats (Table 169). Out of the action alternatives, Alternative 2 poses 

the highest risk from noxious weeds, while Alternative 3, which designates proposed trails, has the 

lowest risk of weed introduction and spread. In comparison to these alternatives, the impacts from 

Alternative 5 fall closer to the middle of the spectrum of potential effects.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

414 – Plumas National Forest

Table 169. Summary of Noxious Weed risk under each Alternative

Indicators–Noxious Weeds

Rankings of Alternatives for Each 

Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Miles of unauthorized routes or proposed trails open for 

public motorized vehicle use within or adjacent to 

noxious weed sites.

1 2 5 4 3

Acres of noxious weed infestations within 100 feet of 

unauthorized or proposed trails. 

1 2 5 4 3

Total number of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of 

unauthorized or proposed trails. 1 2 5 4 3

Overall Risk of Noxious Weed Spread 1 2 5 4 3

1 

3.9.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the lowest risk of noxious weed spread (in relation to the indicator measure); A score 

of 1 indicates the alternative is the worst for noxious weeds (highest risk).

Alternative 1 does not prohibit cross-country travel and carries a high risk of noxious weed spread 

and introduction. This alternative is not consistent with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 

2081.03), which requires the identification of noxious weed control measures in areas of high risk. 

The action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction. A noxious weed 

risk assessment has been completed for each alternative (FSM 2081.03 and USDA Forest Service

2004); the public has been informed of the risk and effects from motorized vehicle travel and noxious 

weeds (USDA Forest Service 2004); and under some of the alternatives, noxious weed control 

measures (i.e. route closure or restricted access) have been identified in areas of high risk (FSM 

2081.03). 

3.9.8 Control Measures

Standard weed prevention practices, such as cleaning off-road vehicles and flagging and avoiding 

weed infestations, are not practical for trails designation. Weed prevention practices that are practical 

include: education, outreach and continued cooperation with federal, state and private entities; 

requirements for use of weed-free materials for erosion control, trails maintenance and revegetation; 

cleaning of equipment used in trails maintenance; and monitoring. Educational materials that 

emphasize weed prevention measures should be incorporated into the final MVUM maps or 

associated materials. In addition, the weed treatments (i.e. hand-pulling) listed in Appendix A and in 

Table 160 and Table 161 have been designed to reduce the risk of noxious weed spread along the 

proposed trails. 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 415

3.10Cultural Resources

3.10.1 Introduction

The Plumas National Forest is responsible for stewardship of a large share of the region’s cultural 

resources including a wide variety of archaeological sites, buildings, structures, objects and cultural 

landscapes. The Forest also manages natural resources, which are critical to the continuation of the 

lifeways of indigenous peoples (referred to as traditional cultural properties). Preserving the important 

cultural, educational and scientific values of these nonrenewable resources for future generations is a 

Forest Service priority. The proposed project was designed to ensure compliance with federal historic 

preservation laws, and management strategies were developed to balance resource protection, cultural 

values and recreation opportunities. The following provides a summary of the effects of the proposed 

project to cultural resources, as well as proposed mitigation measures, where needed. Although the 

analysis is presented from the perspective of each alternative as a whole, all individual routes have 

been analyzed. Site-specific analysis is provided in the following reports, which are part of the project 

record and incorporated by reference: Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, OHV Route 

Designation Survey, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Butte and Plumas, 

California (Moore 2008); Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, OHV Route Designation Survey, 

Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County California (Weinberg 2008); 

Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, OHV Route Designation Survey, Beckwourth Ranger 

District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas and Sierra Counties, California. (Kliejunas 2008); Heritage 

Resource Survey for the Plumas National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation Project 

(McCombs 2008).

The Congress in 1966 declared it to be our National policy that the Federal government

“administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit 

of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations” (National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470-1(3)). This need was made more explicit when the National 

Historic Preservation Act was amended in 1980 and Section 110 was added to expand and underscore 

Federal agency responsibility for identifying and protecting historic properties and avoiding 

unnecessary damage to them. Many historic properties are fragile and once damaged or destroyed 

they cannot be repaired or replaced.

Section 106 of the NHPA compels federal agencies to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60) (Historic Properties). The Travel 

Management Rule requires that the effects on cultural resources be considered, with the objective of 

minimizing damage, when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National 

Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.55(a), 212.55(b)(1)).

3.10.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction

Direction relevant and specific to the alternatives as they affect cultural resources includes:
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

416 – Plumas National Forest

The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic properties 

by several laws. However, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 

et seq.) (NHPA), provides comprehensive direction to federal agencies about their historic 

preservation responsibilities. Executive Order 11593, entitled Protection and Enhancement of the 

Cultural Environment, also includes direction about the identification and consideration of historic 

properties in Federal land management decisions.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 

1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to include resources that are of State and local significance, 

expands the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and establishes the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO). NHPA Section 106 directs all 

Federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and 

authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. The Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations (36 CFR 800) implements NHPA Section 106. NHPA 

Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for Federallyowned historic properties.

The Forest Service’s policy for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in travel management 

with respect to route designation for motor vehicle use was issued in 2005: USDA Forest Service 

Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor 

Vehicle Use (2005). This policy was developed in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. It outlines minimal requirements for considering possible effects to historic properties 

that may be associated with designating routes and areas as part of a National Forest’s Transportation 

System (NFTS). This policy statement recognizes that Forests with programmatic agreements for 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA will follow the terms of those agreements.

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHPs implementing regulations, Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their 

undertakings on historic properties, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to 

comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide alternative 

procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. Region 5 has such an agreement: Programmatic 

Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and 

Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in California (2006) (Motorized 

Recreation PA). This agreement defines the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.4(a)(1)) 

and includes a strategy outlining the requirements for cultural resource inventory, evaluation of 

historic properties, and effect determinations; it also includes protection and resource management 

measures that may be used where effects may occur.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued May 

13, 1971, directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to nominate 

to the National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 417

due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that Federal 

plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-Federally owned properties. 

3.10.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

3.10.3.1 Geographic Scope of Analysis

The geographic analysis area for cultural resources includes all trails identified under Alternatives 2 

(Proposed Action), 4, and 5. These alternatives include all unauthorized or user-created routes 

proposed for adding to the NFTS as trails under the action alternatives. The location of historic 

properties is the unit of spatial analysis used to consider effects with one exception: a possible Native 

American Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) in the vicinity of a route on the Feather River Ranger 

District required consideration of the setting beyond the historic property’s location in order to 

address potential auditory and visual effects from OHV use in the area. 

3.10.3.2 Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources Analysis

1. Unauthorized, user-created routes and areas have already affected historic properties within 

route/area prisms.

2. Under the action alternatives, use will continue at current levels or increase over time on the 

designated system with the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel.

3.10.3.3 Data Sources

Three types of data were gathered to provide the basis for understanding the nature and extent of 

cultural resources within project area, and the effects of the proposed additional trails to the NFTS on 

these resources:

1. Archival and literature sources were reviewed and data from Forest Service cultural resource 

records, maps and GIS layers compiled to provide a prehistoric and historic overview of the 

geographic region, identify major historical themes and events, and to provide information on

previous archaeological inventories, known site locations, and the likelihood of unidentified 

resources within the project area. Tribal consultation occurred concurrently with other public 

involvement activities. The project was discussed at multiple meetings with the Concow Maidu 

Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria, the Estom Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria, Greenville 

Rancheria, the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, the 

Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria, and the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada. 

2. All routes proposed under the action alternatives for which there was no previous survey 

coverage have been inventoried. Survey coverage includes a 30-meter corridor centered on each 

route, and complete survey of proposed use areas, including a 30-meter buffer around these use 

areas. 

3. Archaeological site monitoring was completed for all known sites within the project area unless 

current data on the effects of motor vehicle use was available. Data collection focused on 

characterizing the type, nature and severity of effects.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

418 – Plumas National Forest

3.10.3.4 Basis for Analysis/Cultural Resources Indicators

All cultural resources identified within the APE are considered historic properties, as defined by the 

NHPA (36 CFR 60), for purposes of this undertaking (Motorized Recreation PA) unless they have 

already been determined not eligible in consultation with the SHPO or through other agreed upon 

procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800).

Site characteristics identified in the NHPA and the following NRHP eligibility criteria form the 

basis for effects analysis. Of the four National Register Criteria, the following are applicable to most 

resources within the project area: criterion (c) which includes resources that embody distinctive 

characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, that represent the work of a master, and 

that possess high artistic values, that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction (e.g. historic structures); and criterion (d) which includes 

resources that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history 

(e.g. prehistoric and historic archaeological sites) (36 CFR60.4(a-d)). Criterion (a), which includes 

events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, and criterion (b), 

resources that are associated with people important to our history, apply to the Beckwourth National 

Historic Trail. Integrity measures are based on effects to important site characteristics, including 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association (36 CFR 800.5(a) (1)).

The following cultural resources indicators will be used to assess effects:

• Degree to which the integrity of historic property values discussed above are diminished.

• Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use.

• Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if additional proposed trails or areas 

are created.

For purposes of this analysis, cultural resources effects are defined as follows:

1. Direct effect is or will be caused by motor vehicle use or the consequences of such use, including 

physical damage resulting from erosion, down-cutting or displacement of resources (Table 170).

2. Indirect effects are associated with motor vehicle uses outside unauthorized routes and areas, for 

example, adjacent camping areas or areas where motorized travel off of unauthorized routes or 

areas may occur. The proximity of sensitive cultural resources to unauthorized routes is an 

important factor when determining where resources are at greater risk. Indirect effects could 

include those listed for direct effects, but may also include other destructive actions like 

vandalism and looting.

3. Types of effects: None, Direct, Indirect, Cumulative

4. Nature of effects: Erosion, down-cutting, rutting, displacement, disturbance, damage, 

deterioration, vandalism, removal/alteration of historic structures, visual/auditory/atmospheric 

effects to historic setting or cultural landscape.

5. Severity of effects: Low, Moderate, High, Extreme

• Low—only minor disturbances confined to unauthorized routes; no obvious 

displacement of artifacts, features or archaeological deposits other than original 

unauthorized route placement (i.e. slight disturbance but no apparent effect to integrity 

of NRHP values).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 419

• Moderate

•

—Less than 2 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone 

(i.e. slight affect to artifacts/features, but overall site integrity and NRHP values are 

retained.

High

•

—Estimated 3-5 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; 

displaced artifacts (i.e. localized or multiple areas of effects). Overall site integrity and 

NRHP values are damaged or altered.

Extreme

Table 170. Cultural resources effects category crosswalk between the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and severity determination for this Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

—Estimated 5+ cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; 

displaced artifacts in several locations and or vandalism noted (i.e. severe effects to 

NRHP values, artifacts and features associated with NRHP values have been diminished 

or altered.

NEPA NHPA Severity

None No Effect None-Negligible

Direct Effect No Adverse Effect Low

Adverse Effect Moderate-High-Extreme

Indirect Effect No Adverse Effect Low

Adverse Effect Moderate-High-Extreme

Cumulative Effect No Adverse Effect Low

Adverse Affect Low-Moderate-High-Extreme

3.10.3.5 Cultural Resources Methodology by Action

3.10.3.5.1 Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. 

The prohibition of motor vehicle use off of existing NFTS and areas would have a beneficial effect on 

cultural resources throughout the Forest in both the short and long term. It would curtail ongoing 

effects and reduce the threat to cultural resources and historic properties that would occur should past 

unauthorized use patterns continue. Prohibiting cross-country travel would eliminate the effects 

resulting from the creation of additional unauthorized routes. Under this prohibition, most if not all, 

future permitted or other unauthorized motorized vehicle travel off of the NFTS would be subject to 

NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural resources and historic properties could 

be identified at that time.

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest scale where motor vehicle use is not already prohibited by law (e.g., 

wilderness).

Indicator(s): (1) Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use; 

and (2) Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if proposed trails or areas are created.

Methodology: GIS analysis to identify: (1) the number of historic properties at risk within existing 

unauthorized routes (estimate of on-going direct/indirect effects curtailed); and (2) the average 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

420 – Plumas National Forest

number of historic properties per acre that would be protected from any unauthorized routes created 

in the future without a prohibition (estimate of indirect effects).

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA.

3.10.3.5.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes and/or areas) to the NFTS, 

including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: Location of historic property.

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site record 

files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of 

unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects.

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA.

3.10.3.5.3 Changes to the existing NFTS (this can include deletions of facilities and changing the vehicle class 

and season of use).

None of these actions are considered an undertaking subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance 

(USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: 

Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005)). Motor vehicles can already use NFTS roads. 

Allowing or prohibiting non-highway vehicle use will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on 

cultural resources.

3.10.3.5.4 Cumulative Effects

Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm timeframe.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest administrative boundary (outside of designated wilderness).

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site record 

files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of 

unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects.

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA.

3.10.4 Affected Environment

Archaeology can provide valuable contextual information for assessing existing conditions on the 

Forest. Cultural resources provide a record of the dynamic relationship between humans and the 

natural landscape—a relationship in the project area which has spanned thousands of years. Cultural 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 421

remains in the analysis area include a wide-array of objects, sites, buildings, and cultural landscapes 

from both the prehistoric and historic period, and natural/traditional cultural resources, which are used 

by modern indigenous peoples.

3.10.4.1 Ethnographic Period

The study area encompasses a region described as a ‘contact zone’ between two geomorphic 

provinces and ethnographic areas—the Sierra Nevadas and the Western Great Basin (PAR 1996, 

Kroeber 1925). Most of the study area is within the traditional homelands of the Maidu, though the 

eastern margins of the PNF were occupied and used by the Northern Paiute and Washoe. Because of 

similar cultural traits, the sharing of ideas, and use of similar natural environments, the identification 

of historic cultural boundaries between Native American groups in the area is difficult to identify 

archaeologically (D’Azevdo 1986, Fowler & Liljeblad 1986, Riddell 1978).

The Maidu had three distinctive linguistic and cultural groups, which also coincided with 

geographical locations (Dixon 1905). These groups included: the Mountain or Northeastern Maidu, 

the Konkow or Northwestern Maidu, and the Nisenan or Southern Maidu (Riddell 1978). Maidu 

territory included the drainages of the Feather and Susan Rivers, and was bounded by Lassen Peak to 

the north, Sierra Buttes to the south, present-day Quincy to the west, and the Great Basin to the east 

between Honey and Eagle Lakes. One or more permanent villages were established in Big Meadows 

(now under Lake Almanor), Butt, Genesee, Indian, Mountain Meadows, and Red Clover Valleys 

(Riddell 1978:370-372).

Ethnographic literature suggests that political organization within Maidu communities was based 

on a settlement pattern of villages (Kroeber 1925:397-398; Riddel 1978:373). A central village 

included a circular, semi-subterranean assembly structure, now commonly referred to as a 

Roundhouse. A community was composed of 3 to 5 villages, and villages were relatively selfsufficient. Kroeber (1925:397) estimated village populations to be less than 200 prior to contact.

The fundamental basis of the Maidu economy was subsistence hunting, fishing, and collection of 

plant foods. Acorns were a dietary staple, and were typically collected from oak groves at lower 

elevations (Riddell 1978). Heavily utilized oak varieties included black oak (Quercus kelloggii), 

canyon or golden oak (Q. chrysolepis), and interior live oak (Q. wislizenii). The Maidu also gathered 

nuts from the sugar pine and yellow pine. In the northeastern part of their territory, near present day 

Susanville, nuts from the huckleberry oak (Q. vaccinifolia) and chinquapin (Chrysolepis 

sempervirens) were also collected. Other vegetal resources included hazelnuts, buckeye, wild nutmeg, 

grass seeds, berries, and various underground roots and bulbs. Salmon, eel, birds/waterfowl, 

grasshoppers and other insects, as well as large and small mammals, were also consumed. Large 

animals included deer, elk, and bear.

A wide variety of tools and implements were employed to gather and process food resources.

Among these the bow and arrow, traps, nets, slings, snares, clubs, and blinds for hunting land 

mammals and birds; and salmon gigs, traps, and nets for fishing. Woven tools, including seed beaters, 

burden baskets, and carrying nets, as well as sharpened digging sticks, were used to collect plant 

resources. Baskets were either coiled or twined. Snowshoes were used for winter travel, and dugout 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

422 – Plumas National Forest

canoes or log rafts were used for navigating or crossing the mountain waterways (Riddell 1978:373-

379).

Prior to the discovery of gold in 1848 at Sutter’s Mill near Coloma on the American River, Maidu 

lifeways were little affected by European exploration. Konkow territory was entered occasionally by 

Spanish explorers and American trappers. With the discovery of gold, tens of thousands of gold 

seekers came into the region and with them, the mass introduction of diseases into California native 

populations. A great epidemic swept the Sacramento Valley in 1833 and all but decimated the 

Konkow Maidu. Even the remote territories of the Mountain Maidu were overrun in the early 1850s 

with explorers and miners. The spread of disease and direct acts of violence inflicted on Native 

peoples were devastating, as was the loss of land and territory, including traditional hunting and 

gathering locales.

Today, the PNF works closely with descendents of the original inhabitants of this region to ensure 

that tribal cultural resource values are properly considered in land management activities. The Forest 

consults regularly with seven federally-recognized tribes including Greenville Rancheria, Susanville 

Rancheria, the Estom Yemeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria, the Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek 

Rancheria, the Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria, the Washoe Tribe of California and 

Nevada, and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria. In addition to managing many 

important ancestral sites, the Forest Service also manages natural resources critical to the continuation 

of traditional lifeways. 

3.10.4.2 Prehistoric Period

Prehistoric sites represent activity by Native Americans prior to European contact. Intensive 

archaeological research has generally not occurred with the exception of documentation of resources 

associated with Forest Service undertakings. For the most part, available data is not sufficient to 

adequately define prehistoric complexes or to establish reliable cultural chronologies. Cultural themes 

and interpretations for the area are heavily reliant on extrapolations from studies in surrounding 

regions, though it is known that there is significant time-depth of human occupation on the Forest, 

and high potential for archaeological work to reveal critical information about the history of the 

natural environment and human adaptation in the northern Sierra Nevada.

Based on evidence from the eastern Sierra Nevada, Elston (1986) proposed that human 

occupation of the region spans from the Early Holocene (approximately 10,000 years before present 

(BP)) to the present time. Prehistoric cultural complexes which have been documented in the northern 

Sierra Nevada mountains include: the Tahoe Reach (10,000-8,000 BP), Spooner (7,000-4,000 BP), 

Martis (4,000 BP to 1,500 BP), Kings Beach (1,500 BP to 1850), and Historic (after 1850) (Kowta 

1988, Moratto 1984). 

The Tahoe Reach Complex dates to the early Holocene during which the environment was in a 

warming trend after the last ice age (Wallace 1978). The most notable artifacts from this time period 

are large Parman-style projectile points (Moratto 1984). Other diagnostic artifacts of this cultural 

complex include basalt bifaces, crescents, and scrapers. Cultural material from this time period 

remains sparse, which may demonstrate a small human population (PAR 1996). 
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 423

The Spooner Complex is thought to mark the initial occupation of the high Sierras (PAR 1996, 

Moratto 1984). There is thought to have been a general warming and drying of the environment 

during periods when Lake Tahoe did not overflow. Characteristic artifacts include large basalt 

projectile points, milling stones, manos, and unshaped pestles. There are not many significant 

differences between the Spooner and Martis Complexes.

The Martis Complex is further broken down into the Early (4,000-3,500 BP), Middle (3,500-

2,500 BP), and Late (2,500-1500 BP) Complexes. It is believed that the Martis Complex is 

“represented on both sides of the Sierran crest from south of Lake Tahoe northward to the south end 

of Honey Lake” (Kowta 1988). Projectile points, scraping, and cutting tools, most commonly made of 

basalt, demonstrate the importance of hunting large and small game. Diagnostic projectile points 

include contracting stemmed, corner-notched, eared, and large side-notched points. Seed grinding 

tools, the milling stone and mano, are also present. Mortars and pestles, associated with acorn and 

larger seed grinding, show up later in the Martis complex. Areas revisited or occupied over a long 

period of time have a wide variety and quantity of artifacts, which included bedrock milling features 

and midden (dark colored culturally-affected soil). Population size increases are evident in the size of 

permanent base camps and winter settlements (PAR 1996). Evidence of circular houses with sunken 

floors also appears in the archaeological record during this time. 

The Kings Beach Complex is also further broken down into Early (1,500-800 BP) and Late (800 

BP to historic) complexes (Kowta 1988). Smaller and lighter projectile points are more commonly 

made of chert, jasper, and obsidian and demonstrate the introduction of the bow and arrow (Moratto 

1984). Diagnostic projectile point types include small desert side notched, cottonwood triangular, and 

rosegate series. Local faunal food sources include deer, mountain sheep, rabbits, and ground squirrels.

Hopper and bedrock mortars as well as the continued use of milling stones and manos demonstrate 

that seeds and other plant resources like piñon nuts and grass seeds are still utilized (PAR 1986).

Other artifacts include pine nut beads, olivella shell beads, steatite pipes, bone tubes, cordage, and 

basketry.

Prehistoric resources documented on the PNF to date include flaked-stone artifacts scatters 

reflecting resource procurement activities and seasonal campsites, and habitation sites with diverse 

cultural deposits, and in some instances, house pits.

3.10.4.3 Historic Period

The California Gold Rush was the initial catalyst for early Euro-American settlement in what would 

become Plumas County. Many early gold seekers undoubtedly passed westward through the area in 

1849 but, so far as is recorded, none settled that year (Farriss and Smith 1882). However, strikes 

along the Middle and North Forks of the Feather River in early 1850 resulted in the first settlements 

both along the river terraces and within the attractive and temperate locations of American and Indian 

Valleys. Many land claims and permanent settlement were well established the following year. 

Jim Beckwourth, of African-American heritage, first surveyed an overland trail through the 

northern Sierra Nevada in the summer of 1850 (Young 2004). From modern day Sparks, NV, his trail 

first extended northwest then east across Beckwourth Pass skirting the northern edge of Sierra Valley 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

424 – Plumas National Forest

then followed Grizzly Creek northwest into Grizzly Valley. The trail continued northwest diagonally 

through the valley to Emigrant Creek where it made one of the most difficult crossings along its 

length over Grizzly Ridge. From here the trail continued down into American Valley and then 

westward to end at Bidwell’s Bar. The route saw extensive one-way traffic though Grizzly Valley 

throughout the 1850s including the movement of great numbers of cattle to the markets of 

California’s northern gold camps (Lawson 2005).

For the first few years of mining (1849–1852), activity focused on working the natural 

watercourses by pan, rocker, and sluice box. By 1853 areas away from these streambank diggings, as 

they were initially called, had become important, and a rush for water claims ensued. The hydraulic 

mining technique began at this time and small-scale drifting (“drifts” or “tunnels” as they were often 

called) into the gravel banks of the ancient river channels was also underway (Sinnott 1977:11, 314).

An important first step towards the successful mining of the gravel deposits was the transport of water 

to mining sites. The years 1853 and 1854 saw a rush for water claims since water was needed to wash 

the drift dirt and undertake hydraulic operations (Baker and Shoup 1985: 25). The rush for water in 

1853 to 1854 resulted in the creation of a number of major ditch and flume systems throughout the 

project area (Baker and Shoup 1985: 26). Hydraulic mining was carried out by applying a stream of 

water under high pressure onto a gravel bank. The water blasted the bank down, and the gravels 

containing the gold were then directed into a sluice box, which caught the heavier gold. The water 

and mud went into a stream or river. Using this system, a few men could process hundreds of tons of 

earth a day, making it economical to mine gravel worth only a small amount per square yard (Baker 

and Shoup 1985: 26).

Drift mining was used when lava or other hard rock made hydraulic mining impractical, or when 

the gold in the gravel was mostly on bedrock. Thus, adits or “tunnels,” as they were usually called, 

were more frequently used to penetrate the bank, using rails and ore cars to bring the pay gravel out 

of the mine. The first real boom in drift mining came in the late 1850s (Baker and Shoup 1985: 26). 

The founding and early development of drift mines marked another stage in a transition, which was 

underway during the mid and late 1850s. This transition had a number of aspects, which collectively 

marked the demise of the Gold Rush and the rise of a much different type of political economy and 

society. The most important of these aspects included more capital-intensive mining, the rise of 

reasonably stable small towns, occupational diversification in these towns, improved transportation 

and communication in these towns, an alteration of the dominant cultural forms, the arrival of women 

and children, better mining technology, and the development of sawmills and logging (Baker and 

Shoup 1985: 27).

Agricultural products were soon in high demand due to the rise of the Comstock in Nevada 

beginning in the late 1860s. During the following decade many small dairies were established in the 

valleys of the northern Sierra Nevada to tap this lucrative market. Despite significant transportation 

challenges, many of these small operations found considerable profit until the mining boom ended in 

the mid-1880s. Facing a shrinking market and a downturn in the national economy beginning in the 

early 1890s, most of these small dairies did not survive into the new century.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 425

When the Western Pacific Railroad was completed through Plumas County in 1909 many 

sawmills were developed. Among these was the Feather River Lumber Company (FRLC), formed in 

1905 (Vaughan 1989). By 1910 the main sawmill and box factory had been established at Delleker, 

west of Portola. The FRLC engaged in extensive logging operations in the forested hills in the late 

1910s and early 1920s on both private and PNF land. After about 1915 the company began using a 

narrow gauge railroad to bring logs to its mill.

3.10.5 Environmental Consequences

3.10.5.1 Existing Conditions

The existing condition of cultural resources identified in the APE provides baseline information with 

which to assess potential effects. The first indicator of existing conditions is the total number of 

historic properties located within the APE, regardless of effects. There are 227 known sites within the 

project area. This total includes all properties where any segment of a user-defined route bisects the 

boundary of the historic property, regardless of scale or impact.

A second, more important indicator of existing conditions is the number of at-risk historic 

properties currently identified with the APE. This group is a subset of the total properties. An “at-risk 

historic property” is defined in the Motorized Recreation PA as:

...a property that the Forest Heritage Resource Manager (HRM) identifies as susceptible to being 

adversely affected as a result of designation a motor vehicle OHV route or specifically defined 

area, or using or maintaining the designated motorized recreation OHV system. An at-risk 

historic property is identified based on property characteristics and proximity to designated OHV 

routes or specifically defined areas (e.g. trail corridor, trailhead, vista point (2006).

As a result of archaeological investigations, a number of effects and potential effects to cultural 

resources were identified. These are discussed for purposes of comparison by alternative below, and 

are also summarized in the following tables.

Table 171. Quantity and assessment of historic properties identified within APE

Properties Number

Total “Not At-Risk Properties Identified Within APE 192

Total “At-Risk Properties Identified within APE 35

Total Properties Identified within the APE 227

Table 172. Cultural resource effect severity summary

Low Moderate High Extreme Total

192 29 3 3 227
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

426 – Plumas National Forest

3.10.5.2 Alternative 1

3.10.5.2.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

As described in Chapter 2, under the No-action alternative, current management plans would continue 

to guide management of the project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS and no 

cross-country travel prohibition would be put into place. This No-action alternative has the greatest 

potential to directly affect historic properties due to the large number of sites located within route 

corridors (227 known sites), as well as the probability that these and additional sites would be 

impacted by unrestricted, random impacts from cross-country travel. However, it is difficult to 

quantify when and where cultural resources would be impacted by motor vehicles over time. In the 

short term, disturbances on unauthorized routes would not change.

3.10.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis was limited to the Forest’s administrative

boundary because impacts to cultural resources accumulate at their specific locations, irrespective of

actions in surrounding areas. A minimum of 35 historic properties would be adversely affected if no 

mitigation action was taken. Another 192 sites identified within the area where cross-country travel 

was allowable is more likely to continue under Alternative 1 than the action alternatives. Cumulative 

effects would likely occur under Alternative 1.

3.10.5.3 Alternative 2

3.10.5.3.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

For the action alternatives, the prohibition of motor vehicle use off designated transportation systems 

and areas would have a beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the forest in the short and 

long terms. It would curtail ongoing potential for adverse effects and reduce the threat to cultural and 

historic properties that would occur if use were to continue on all unauthorized roads and trails. It 

would also help eliminate potential effects resulting from the creation of any new routes and trails if 

cross-country motorized vehicle use was not prohibited. Under this prohibition, most if not all future 

permitted or other authorized motorized vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads will be subject to 

NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural and historic properties can be 

identified at that time.

New inventory was completed for 2,371 acres within the project area (acreage is based on linear 

distance of routes and the 30 meter corridor that was surveyed). New and previous inventories have 

resulted in identification of 227 sites within the project area, all of which were monitored or newly 

documented (including documentation of indirect and direct effects of off-highway vehicle use) to 

assess potential impacts from motor vehicle use. Detailed results of the inventory and monitoring 

efforts are provided in multiple archaeological reconnaissance reports (McCombs 2007; Moore 2008; 

Weinberg 2008; Kliejunas 2008). For all routes within the action alternatives that would be added to 

the NFTS, Appendix A provides a summary of resource impacts by route. All routes which have 

moderate, high or extreme effects to cultural resource values are listed below in Table 176.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 427

Of the 227 sites identified within the project area, the vast majority have not been affected by 

motor vehicle use: 85% of the sites that were monitored had negligible effects, if any. Thirty-five (35) 

sites were identified with indirect and direct effects ranging from low to extreme.

Under Alternative 2, five (5) proposed trails were identified as having extreme adverse effects on 

historic properties. Three (3) of these proposed trails affect segments of the Beckwourth National 

Historic Trail (FS Site #051151500001). National Historic Trails are designated by Congress because 

of their far-reaching effects on broad patterns of American culture and history. The National Historic 

Trail System is managed for its educational and interpretive values, as well as recreation values 

(generally, non-motorized depending on the historical use of the trail in question). Designating 

portions of the Beckwourth Trail for motorized use would adversely affect characteristics of the 

property which form the basis for its significance as a pioneer trail. Another proposed trail was 

deemed to have extreme effects to four historic properties, including the Beckwourth Trail and a 

geologic feature which is associated with Maidu creation stories, and is culturally important to 

modern Native Americans. One other proposed trail dissects the Letterbox Townsite. There is an 

extensive web of unauthorized routes throughout the site area, and evidence of intensive site 

vandalism. 

Table 173. Number of sites by ranking for Alternative 2 effects to cultural resources

Moderate High Extreme

29 3 3

3.10.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 2 because the NFTS would be well defined 

and all identified and potential effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This

assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis

Methodology sections above.

3.10.5.4 Alternative 3

3.10.5.4.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

As previously discussed, the prohibition of motor vehicle use off of NFTS and areas under 

Alternative 3 would have a beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the Forest in both the 

short and long term. It would curtail ongoing effects and reduce the threat to cultural resources and 

historic properties that would occur, should past unauthorized use patterns continue. It would also 

help eliminate effects resulting from the creation of any additional unauthorized routes if crosscountry use was allowed. Under this prohibition, most if not all, future permitted or other 

unauthorized motor vehicle travel off of the NFTS would be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance

and potential effects to cultural resources and historic properties could be identified at that time.

3.10.5.4.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 3 because the NFTS would be well defined 

and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This 

assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

428 – Plumas National Forest

3.10.5.5 Alternative 4

3.10.5.5.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

This action alternative favors resource protection by minimizing impacts to natural and cultural 

resources. Most of the sites within this alternative exhibit little or no evidence of effects from 

motorized uses. Conversely, direct and/or indirect effects requiring mitigation have only been 

identified at six (6) sites within the APE.

3.10.5.5.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 4 because the NFTS would be well defined 

and all identified and potential effects will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions 

listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.

Table 174. Number of sites by ranking for Alternative 4 effects to cultural resources

Moderate High Extreme

6 0 0

3.10.5.6 Alternative 5

3.10.5.6.1 Direct/Indirect Effects

This alternative would add 234.1 miles of routes to the NFTS. As with the other action alternatives, 

the prohibition of motor vehicle use off designated transportation systems and areas would have a 

beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the forest in the short and long terms. Effects to site 

integrity as a result of motorized-vehicle use have been identified at 18 sites within this alternative.

3.10.5.6.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 5 because the NFTS would be well defined 

and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This 

assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology section above.

Table 175. Number of sites by ranking for Alternative 5 effects to cultural resources

Moderate High Extreme

18 0 0
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 429

3.10.5.7 Effects of Specific Routes to Cultural Resource Sites

Table 176. Effects to sites by route.

Route ID Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Site Number 

Site 

Type Type of Effect

Nature of 

Effect

Severity of 

Effect

Specialized Protection 

Measures/Mitigation

5M06  5115400840 HIS Indirect and 

Direct

Looting 

(indirect) and 

site 

displacement 

(direct)

High Restriction Category H* for cultural 

resources/L if specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.3.(a-b) and 

Adaptive Management (II.A. 4.(d) (MRPA). 

Route dropped for watershed concerns.

5M28E  5115400388 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate to 

High

Restriction Category H for cultural 

resources/L if specialized protection 

measures implemented (Adaptive 

Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA). Route 

dropped for watershed concerns.

6M05  5115400212 PRE Direct Rutting, site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (Adaptive 

Management (II.4.(d) (MRPA).

6M08  5115400227 HIS Direct Rutting, site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category H for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (Adaptive 

Management (II.4.(d) (MRPA).

6M14  5115400574 MUL Direct Rutting, site 

displacement, 

artifact 

disturbances

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (Adaptive 

Management (II.4.(d) (MRPA).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

430 – Plumas National Forest

Route ID Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Site Number 

Site 

Type Type of Effect

Nature of 

Effect

Severity of 

Effect

Specialized Protection 

Measures/Mitigation

6M26  5115400062 

5115400063 

5115400103 

MUL Direct and 

Indirect

Site 

displacement, 

artifact/feature 

disturbances, 

vandalism 

(graffiti), 

possible 

audio/visual 

effects to 

Tribal cultural 

resource.

Moderate to 

Extreme

Restriction Category E for cultural resources. 

Route dropped due to cultural resource 

concerns.

6M27  5115400062 

5115400063 

5115400103 

MUL Direct and 

Indirect

Site 

displacement, 

artifact/feature 

disturbances, 

vandalism 

(graffiti), 

possible 

audio/visual 

effects to 

Tribal cultural 

resource.

Moderate to 

Extreme

Restriction Category E for cultural resources. 

Route dropped due to cultural resource 

concerns.

6M29   5115400190 

5115400192

HIS Direct Site 

displacement, 

damage to 

artifacts

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

6M30 W    5115400595 PRE Direct Erosion Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 431

Route ID Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Site Number 

Site 

Type Type of Effect

Nature of 

Effect

Severity of 

Effect

Specialized Protection 

Measures/Mitigation

6M35  5115400162 HIS Direct and 

Indirect

Maze of OHV 

activity 

through 

historic 

townsite, 

looting, artifact 

disturbances

Moderate to 

Extreme for all

Category E for cultural resources. Route 

dropped due to cultural resource concerns.

6M47  5115400275 

5115400480 

5115400765

MUL 

PRE 

PRE

Direct Site 

displacement, 

artifact/feature 

disturbances

Moderate for 

all

Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

8M17  511500001 HIS The Beckwourth Trail is part of the National 

Historic Trail System designated by Congress. 

NHTs are Nationally-significant because of their 

far-reaching effects on broad patterns of American 

culture and history. The trail is managed for its 

educational and interpretive value, and nonmotorized recreation values.

Category E for cultural resources. Route 

dropped due to cultural resource concerns.

8M18  511500001 HIS The Beckwourth Trail is part of the National 

Historic Trail System designated by Congress. 

NHTs are Nationally-significant because of their 

far-reaching effects on broad patterns of American 

culture and history. The trail is managed for its 

educational and interpretive value, and nonmotorized recreation values.

Restriction Category E for cultural resources. 

Route dropped due to cultural resource 

concerns.

8M25    511560077 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

432 – Plumas National Forest

Route ID Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Site Number 

Site 

Type Type of Effect

Nature of 

Effect

Severity of 

Effect

Specialized Protection 

Measures/Mitigation

9M03  5115300296 HIS Direct Erosion Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M05 W    5115300935 

5115300956

HIS Direct Site 

displacement, 

artifact damage

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M07  511530014 HIS Direct Site 

displacement, 

artifact damage

Moderate Restriction Category H for cultural resources. 

Route dropped due to private property issues.

9M12   5115300466 HIS Direct Soil 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M14s  5115300466 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M14a  5115300466 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural resources. 

Mitigation not proposed, already system road.

9M15   5115300730 

5115300735

HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M16   5115300849 

5115300364

HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 433

Route ID Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Site Number 

Site 

Type Type of Effect

Nature of 

Effect

Severity of 

Effect

Specialized Protection 

Measures/Mitigation

9M16a  5115300822 

5115300634

HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M17  5115300025 

5115300404

HIS Indirect and 

Direct

Site 

displacement 

(direct), 

looting 

(indirect)

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L if specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.3.(a) and 

Adaptive Management (II.A. 4.(d) (MRPA). 

Route dropped for watershed concerns.

9M18  5115300025 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L if specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.3.(a-b) and 

Adaptive Management (II.A. 4.(d) (MRPA). 

Route dropped for watershed concerns.

9M20  5115300466 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural resources. 

Mitigation not proposed, route dropped for 

watershed concerns.

9M45   5115600258 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M46   5115600375 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category H for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

9M46A   5115600375 HIS Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category H for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

434 – Plumas National Forest

Route ID Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Site Number 

Site 

Type Type of Effect

Nature of 

Effect

Severity of 

Effect

Specialized Protection 

Measures/Mitigation

9M51    5115600267 HIS Indirect Route is 

situated 

adjacent to 

Stiver 

Cemetery

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

10M13   515600105 HIS Direct Site 

displacement, 

artifact/feature 

disturbances

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

13M10

all 

13M10 

Routes

 51155000048 PRE Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

13M32  5115500614 MUL Direct and 

Indirect

Site 

displacement, 

artifact/feature 

disturbances

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

13M36   5115100387 PRE Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).

13M38   5115500349 PRE Direct Site 

displacement

Moderate Restriction Category M for cultural 

resources/L after specialized protection 

measures implemented (II.A.2.(a-d) and/or 

Adaptive Management (II.A.4.(d) (MRPA).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 435

TABLE DEFINITIONS:

PRE Prehistoric

HIS Historic

MUL Multi-compnent (prehistoric and historic)

L (Low) only minor disturbances confined to unauthorized routes; no obvious displacement of artifacts, features or 

archaeological deposits other than original unauthorized route placement (i.e. slight disturbance but no apparent effect to 

integrity of NRHP values).

M (Moderate) less than 2 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone (i.e. slight affect to 

artifacts/features, but overall site integrity and NRHP values are retained. *Route will not be published on the initial Motorized 

Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM.

H (High) estimated 3-5 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; displaced artifacts (i.e. localized or 

multiple areas of effects). Overall site integrity and NRHP values are damaged or altered. **Route will not be published on 

initial MVUM. 

E (Extreme) estimated 5+ cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; displaced artifacts in several 

locations and or vandalism noted (i.e. severe effects to NRHP values, artifacts and features associated with NRHP values have

been diminished or altered.

From Section II, Appendix B (Motorized Recreation PA (MRPA)):

Applicable Specialized Protection Measures (SPMs)

2. Placement of foreign, non-archaeological material over archaeological deposits to prevent surface and subsurface 

impacts:

a) engineering will design the foregin material depth to acceptable profressional standards;

b) engineering will design the foreign material use to assure that there will be no surface or subsurface impacts to 

archaeological deposits;

c) the foreign material must be easily distinguished from and cannot mix with the underlying archaeological deposits;

d) the foreign material must be removable should research or other heritage needs require access to the archaeological 

deposits at a later date.

3. Installation of physical barriers and protection devices within the boundaries of historic properties:

a) Nonintrusive barriers:

(i) wooden and other barriers anchored with rebar;

(ii) rocks/boulders or other items placed on the surface;

(iii) certified weed-free straw bales/straw bales anchored with rebar.

4. Adoption or implementation of use controls:

(d) Adaptive Management (protocol that proceeds through stages managed to reduce or eliminate any effect) that 

includes monitoring, education, signage, and closure in a sequential process.

3.10.5.8 Summary of Effects

Table 177. Summary Rankings of Alternatives by Indicator and Overall Average

Indicators – Cultural Resources

Rankings of Alternatives for Each 

Indicator

Alt. 1

1 

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Degree to which the integrity of historic property values 

are diminished 1 3 5 3 3

Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes 

at risk from ongoing use 1 2 5 4 3

Average number of historic properties per acre 

protected from creation of new routes 1 2 5 4 2

Average for Cultural Resources 1 2 5 4 3 1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the best for cultural resources related to the indicator; a score of 1 indicates the 

alternative is the worst for cultural resources related to the indicator
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

436 – Plumas National Forest

3.11Other Disclosures

3.11.1 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). All action 

alternatives have the potential to improve the long-term productivity of the landscape by reducing the 

number of existing routes on the landscape. Routes not designated for public motor vehicle use would 

have the potential to revert to vegetated conditions, gradually reducing adverse effects on forest 

resources related to motor vehicle use of these routes. Based on average route widths (10 feet for allvehicle trails, 10 feet for less than 50-inch vehicle trails and 3 feet for motorcycle trails), this 

represents an improvement in productivity on up to 1,152 acres in Alternative 3; 990 acres in 

Alternative 4, 901 acres in Alternative 5, 784 acres in Alternative 2, and 0 acres in Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 propose to add existing unauthorized routes to the Forest transportation 

system and designate those routes for public motor vehicle use. Although these designations may be 

revised in the future in response to changing conditions, the designation of routes is considered to be 

a long-term use of the environment, with long-term impacts on productivity within the route tread. 

However, as described in the section below on unavoidable impacts, mitigations are proposed as 

needed in the action alternatives to ensure adverse effects the productivity of the environment are 

avoided, eliminated, or minimized.

3.11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse effects are expected with implementation of Alternative 1, as described in the 

resource analyses contained in this Chapter. Alternative 1 (no action) would allow continued use of all 

unauthorized routes, including those known to be adversely affecting forest resources, and would not 

propose mitigations to reduce, avoid, or eliminate those effects. 

Implementation of Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would result in some unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects; however, mitigations are proposed as needed to ensure effects are avoided or 

minimized to acceptable levels in all alternatives (e.g., species viability is maintained, Best 

Management Practices standards are met, etc.). Overall, these effects are not expected to be 

significant, because the alternatives were designed using site-specific information regarding the 

nature and location of sensitive natural and cultural resources. Routes with resource concerns that 

could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. Alternative 3

would have no unavoidable adverse effects as no unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS. The 

environmental consequences section for each resource area discusses these effects in more detail.

3.11.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of 

time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a 

powerline right-of-way or road.
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 437

None of the alternatives are expected to result in irreversible impacts. The action of adding 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails or changing vehicle class on existing NFTS roads 

would not result in any impacts that cannot be regained. However, roads and motorized trails 

represent a commitment of the soil resource, in that the route tread is dedicated to use as a 

transportation facility. As a result, the designation of existing unauthorized routes for public motor 

vehicle use is expected to result in an irretrievable commitment of the soil and plant and animal 

habitat occupied by the routes. The routes under consideration are low standard, native surface routes 

maintained primarily by continued passage of motor vehicles. Based on an average width of 10 feet 

for all-vehicle trails, 10 feet for less than 50-inch vehicle trails and 3 feet for motorcycle trails, trails 

would encumber 368 acres in Alternative 2; 251 acres in Alternative 5; and 162 acres in Alternative 4, 

and 0 acres in Alternative 3. While Alternative 1 would not add trails to the NFTS, existing 

unauthorized routes would continue to encumber 1,152 acres. These effects are considered

irretrievable for as long as the trail is designated for public motorized use, in that continued passage 

by motor vehicles would keep the route tread free of vegetation. If trails are closed to motor vehicle 

use in future travel management decisions, the area occupied by the trail would gradually revegetate 

and assume the characteristics of surrounding habitat as described in the resource effects analyses in 

this Chapter. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

438 – Plumas National Forest

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This EIS is being distributed primarily online at the Plumas National Forest website on the internet:

http://fs.usda.gov/plumas

Letters announcing the web site posting are being sent to numerous individuals, Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views.

Hard copies are being distributed to individuals who specifically requested a copy of the 

document. In addition, this EIS is being sent to:

• USDA National Agricultural Library, Acquisitions and Serials Branch

• US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities

• Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

• US Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

• Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria

• Estom Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria

• Greenville Rancheria

• Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria

• Susanville Indian Rancheria

• Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria

• Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada

4.2 List of Preparers

The following is a list of primary contributors to this EIS. Numerous other people have also 

contributed in many ways to this document. Their help is greatly appreciated.

• Mark Beaulieu: Public Service Staff/Forest Engineer, 21 years, BS Forest Engineering, MF 

Forest Engineering

• Jane Beaulieu: Forest Environmental Coordinator, 20 years, BA Technical Journalism, 

Forestry Minor

• Julie Burcell: Forest Heritage Program Manager, 18 years, BA Anthropology, MA Cultural 

Resources Management

• Michelle Coppoletta: Mount Hough Ranger District Assistant District Botanist, 9 years, BS 

Plant Biology, MS Ecology

• Michael Friend: Beckwourth Ranger District Botanist, 10 years, BS Environmental Science

• George C Garcia: Forest Wildlife Program Manager, 21 years, BS in Natural Resource 

Management, emphasis in Fish and Wildlife

• Pete Hochrein,: Forest Transportation Planner, 30 years, BS Forestry, MF Forest 

Engineering

• Joseph A Hoffman Forest Hydrology Program Manager, 10 years, MS Environmental 

Engineering
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 439

• Tina Hopkins: Forest Fisheries Biologist, 25 years, BS Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, 

studying towards a Masters in Conservation Biology

• Maurice Huynh: Beckwourth Ranger District Assistant District NEPA Planner, 3 years, BS 

Forestry, MS Forestry

• Michael Kobelt: INFRA, 37 years, BS Civil Engineering

• Jamie Moore: Feather River Ranger District Archaeologist, 17 years, BA Anthropology and 

Geology Minor, MA Anthropology

• Joel Schultz: Beckwourth Ranger District Biologist, 11 years, BS Wildlife Biology

• Sabrina Stadler: Beckwourth Ranger District Senior NEPA Planner, 20 years, BS Wildlife 

Management, MS Natural Resources Planning and Interpretation

• Kelly Whitsett: Feather River Ranger District Hydrologist, 9 years, BS Geology, MS 

Geology/Geophysics
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

440 – Plumas National Forest

Index

access, 6, 7, 30

affected environment, 38

alternatives, ii, 1, 12

Alternative 1 description, 17

Alternative 2 description, 18

Alternative 3 description, 29

Alternative 4 description, 29

Alternative 5 description, 30

development, 12

eliminated from detailed analysis, 31

American marten, 227, 254

aquatic biota, 140

affected environment, 150

effects, 152

methodology, 143

summary of effects of all alternatives, 

204

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 320

bald eagle, 263

barren, 338

black-backed woodpecker, 293

botanical resources, 325, 395

affected environment, 330

analysis framework, 325

analysis methodology, 327

barren habitat, 338, 347

determinations summary, 391, 394

effects of Alternative 1, 345

effects of Alternative 2, 384, 409

effects of Alternative 3, 386

effects of Alternative 5, 389

environmental consequences, 340

fen habitat, 336, 345

fungi, 335

habitat groups, 336

interior forest habitat, 338, 347

meadow habitat, 337

meadows, 345

moss and lichen, 335

open habitat, 339, 348

rare species occurring on Plumas 

National Forest, 331

riparian habitat, 337, 346

serpentine habitat, 338, 346

summary of effects, 393

vascular species, 334

California red-legged frog, 144

affected environment, 156

effects of all alternatives, 160

carnivores, 220

Citizen's inventoried roadless areas, 65

conflicts between uses, 6

consultation and coordination, 438

cultural resources, 6, 415

affected environment, 420

effects of Alternative 1, 426

effects of Alternative 2, 426

effects of Alternative 3, 427

effects of Alternative 4, 428

effects of Alternative 5, 428

general effects, 425

methodology, 417

decision, 7, 8

deer herds, 280

emissions, 6

Endangered Species Act, 206

environmental consequences, iv, 38

comparison table, 36

fens, 336

foothill yellow-legged frog, 144

affected environment, 177

effects of all alternatives, 178

Forest Service direction, 72, 82, 206, 326, 

395

Forest Plan, 42, 71, 88, 93, 138, 205, 

414

laws, 42, 90, 140, 415

National Historic Preservation Act, 416

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 

42, 92, 141, 207

fox sparrow, 317

great gray owl, 227, 273

hairy woodpecker, 293

hardhead minnow, 146

affected environment, 201

affects of all alternatives, 202

inventoried roadless areas, 64, 65
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 441

irretrievable commitments of resources, 

436

irreversible commitments of resources, 

436

issues, ii, 10

law enforcement, 40

laws, 7, 41

list of preparers, 438

long term productivity, 436

management indicator species, 292

meadows, 337

migratory birds, 277

mitigation, 15

monitoring, 13

Monitoring, 13

mountain quail, 308

mountain yellow-legged frog, 144

affected environment, 190

effects of all alternatives, 192

mule deer, 294

Northern flying squirrel, 302

northern goshawk, 227, 247

northwestern pond turtle, 144

affected environment, 177

effects of all alternatives, 178

noxious weed risk assessment, 414

noxious weeds, 395

affected environment, 397

analysis methodology, 396

effects of Alternative 1, 401

environmental consequences, 400

species found on the Plumas National 

Forest, 398

off-highway vehicle use, 1, 2

old forest emphasis areas, 232

Pacific fisher, 227, 254

Pacific tree frog, 311

proposed action, ii, iii, 1, 7, 8, 9

description, 18

public involvement, 8, 12

public safety, 6

purpose and need, 1, 5

recreation, 30, 42

affected environment, 48

cumulative effects, 61

effects of Alternative 1, 51

effects of Alternative 2, 52

effects of Alternative 3, 55

effects of Alternative 4, 56

effects of Alternative 5, 59

general effects, 51

methodology, 43

summary of effects of all alternatives, 70

recreation opportunity spectrum, 43

research natural areas, 339

responsible official, 8

riparian, 337

serpentine, 338, 346

short term uses, 436

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 

326, 354, 356, 395

Sierra Nevada red fox, 220, 254

soil, 6, 97

soil and water, 89

affected environment, 109

effects of Alternative 1, 110

effects of Alternative 2, 112

effects of Alternative 3, 125

effects of Alternative 4, 128

effects of Alternative 5, 132

methodology, 93

methodology, 102

summary of effects of all alternatives, 

136

sooty grouse, 305

sound, 6

special interest areas, 340, 385, 387

spotted owl, 227, 234, 299

trail maintenance, 6

trails

added by alternative, 18

transportation facilities, 72

affected environment, 73

effects of Alternative 1, 78

effects of Alternative 2, 79

effects of Alternative 3, 79

effects of Alternative 4, 80

effects of Alternative 5, 80

environmental consequences, 76

Travel Management Rule, 2

unavoidable adverse effects, 436

vegetation, 6

visual resources, 82

affected environment, 85

effects of Alternative 1, 85

effects of Alternative 2, 86
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

442 – Plumas National Forest

effects of Alternative 3, 86

effects of Alternative 4, 87

effects of Alternative 5, 87

water, 98

wild and scenic rivers, 67

wildlife, 6, 206

willow flycatcher, 268

wolverine, 220, 254

yellow warbler, 314
Plumas National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 443

Appendices
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 444

Appendix A: List of Routes and Resource Impacts

A summary of the route assessments is presented in the table below. It contains a comprehensive list of every route proposed to be added to the NFTS 

as trails under one or more of the action alternatives. For these proposed trails, the route assessment in the table below identifies the number of miles, 

effects determinations by resource and any mitigation measures (including the season when the trail would be open and any mitigation measures that 

would be implemented on the trail prior to publication on a MVUM and allowing public use). An explanation of each effects determination is 

presented below. The effect after mitigation is provided for those trails with determinations that can be mitigated. Trails with an asterisk (*) after the 

trail number would need mitigation completed prior to being added to the MVUM and used by the public. Trails without an asterisk would have listed 

mitigation occur during the first scheduled trail maintenance. Trails with single asterisks will need mitigation performed on them prior to being added 

to the MVUM. Trails with double asterisks indicate trails that were deleted from Alternative 4 due to public concerns. 

Ratings for Resources, and Recommended Mitigations: 

L: Low resource effects with routine maintenance of the trail. 

M: Moderate resource effects that require site-specific maintenance to reduce current or potential future effects.. 

H: High resource effects that require site-specific mitigation to reduce effects. 

E: Extreme resource effects that cannot be mitigated without additional environmental analysis. 

Table 178. Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management list of proposed trails.

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

4M01* M FRRD 5/1-12/31 1.55 1.55

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for 

watershed. 

L L L H/L

4M02* M FRRD 0.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

5M01 M FRRD 5/1-12/31 2.16 2.16

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for deer 

and watershed. Note: deleted from 

Alternative 4 due to public input. 

M-Deer L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 445

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

5M02 M FRRD 5/1-12/31 2.74 2.54

Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

deer. Monitor for CRLF. Note: 

deleted from Alternative 4 due to 

public input.

M-Deer, 

M-CRLF L L M/L

5M04 M FRRD 5/1-12/31 1.92 1.92

Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

watershed. Note: deleted from 

Alternative 4 due to public input.

M-Deer L L M/L

5M05 M FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.88 0.88

Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

watershed. Note: deleted from 

Alternative 4 due to public input.

M-Deer L L M/L

5M06* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.47

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Treat weeds, 

monitor. SOU for watershed.

E-CRLFJack's CARH/MWeeds H/M E

5M07* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.29

Rolling dips, out-sloping, harden 

crossings and stabilize approaches 

for CRLF, watershed. Monitor for 

CRLF. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack's CAR L L H/L

5M08* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.45

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Install 

stream crossing structure and or 

harden and stabilize approaches to 

the crossing for CRLF. Monitor for 

CRLF. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack's CAR L L H/L

5M08A <50" FRRD 0.12 Note: Non-existent. Jack’s Car

5M09* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Treat 

weeds, monitor. Monitor for CRLF. 

SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack's CARM/MWeeds L M/L

5M10* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.28

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Monitor for 

CRLF. This trail has 3 ephemeral 

crossings. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack's CAR L L M/L

5M11* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Monitor for 

CRLF. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack's CAR L L H/L

5M12 M FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.69 1.69 1.69 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO.

M-CRLF, 

H/M-CSO L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

446 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

5M13* M FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.11 1.11 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO.

M-CRLF, 

H/M-CSO L L H/L

5M14 <50" FRRD 0.55

Non-existent, opened during and 

obliterated after the 2008 Canyon 

Complex fire.

5M15* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.05 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF. H-FYLF L L E

5M16 <50" FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.84 0.84 0.84 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

watershed. L L L M/L

5M17* M FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.90 0.90

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for 

watershed.

L L L M/L

5M18* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.00 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF. H-FYLF L L E

5M19* M FRRD 5/1-12/31 0.60 0.60 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

watershed. L L L H/L

5M20* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.85

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Monitor for 

CRLF/FYLF. SOU for CRLF/FYLF.

E-CRLF

H/M-FYLF, 

M/M-CSO

L L H/L

5M21* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.32 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF. H-FYLF L L E

5M22* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.60 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF. H-FYLF L L E

5M23* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.69 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF. H-FYLF L L E

5M24* M FRRD 8/16-10/14 1.17 1.17

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Monitor for 

CRLF/FYLF. SOU for 

CSO/CRLF/FYLF.

H/M-CRLF

H/M-FYLF

H/M-CSO

L L H/L

5M25* M FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.76 0.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO.

M-FYLF

H/M-CSO L L H/L

5M25A M FRRD 0.34 Note: No access thru private.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 447

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

5M26 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.49 0.49 0.49 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CSO. H/M-CSO L L M/L

5M27* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.22 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF.

H-NOGO, 

FYLF L L E

5M28 W M FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.43 0.43 0.43 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO.

M-NOGO

H/M-CSO L L M/L

5M28 E* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF.

H-NOGO, 

FYLF E-TES H/M E

5M30* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.42 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for FYLF. H-FYLF L L E

6M02* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.87

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Install a 

crossing for CRLF. Monitor for 

CRLF. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L H/L

6M03* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.23

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Install a > 48" 

culvert for CRLF. Monitor for CRLF. 

SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L H/L

6M04* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.39

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for 

CRLF.

E-CRLF, 

FYLFJack’s CARL L E

6M05* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.41 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Cultural 

SPMs needed. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L M M/L

6M08* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.52

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Cultural 

SPMs needed. Treat weeds, 

monitor. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CARM/MWeeds M H/L

6M09* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.37 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L M/L

6M10* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 5.48

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Monitor for 

CRLF. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L M/L

6M11* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.09 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

448 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

6M12* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.43 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L M/L

6M13 N* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.79

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings and stabilized 

approaches for CRLF and water. 

Monitor for CRLF, SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L M/L

6M13 S* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.62

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for 

CRLF.

H-CRLFJack’s CAR L L E

6M14* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 2.62

Rolling dips, out-sloping, hardened 

and stabilized approaches to 

crossings for CRLF, watershed. 

Survey for TES botany. Cultural 

SPMs needed. Monitor for CRLF. 

SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CARH/MTES M H/L

6M14A M FRRD 0.17 Note: Non-existent. Jack’s CAR

6M15* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.40 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L M/L

6M16* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 2.26

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened and stabilized 

approaches to crossings for CRLF 

and watershed. Survey for TES 

botany. Relocate trail 25’ uphill to 

avoid wet area. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CARH/MTES L H/L

6M16A* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.29

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Survey for 

TES botany. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L L H/L

6M16B M FRRD 0.11 Note: Non-existent.

6M17 M FRRD 1.00 1.00 1.00 L L L L

6M17A M FRRD 0.12 0.12 0.12 L L L L

6M19 M FRRD 9/16-12/31 3.02 3.02

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for 

NOGO.

M-MYLF, 

H/M-NOGO

M-CSO

L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 449

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

6M20 W M FRRD 9/16-12/31 0.95 0.95 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

NOGO.

H/M-NOGO

M-CSO L L M/L

6M20 E* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.82

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for 

MYLF.

E-MYLF L L E

6M21 M FRRD 0.86 Note: System road 23N18S.

6M22 N* M FRRD 1.90 1.90 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L H/L

6M22 S M FRRD 0.93 0.93 0.93 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

6M22A* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.65 0.65

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L H/L

6M23* M FRRD 0.99 0.99 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. M-MYLF L L H/L

6M24 M FRRD 0.23 0.23 0.23 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

6M25 All FRRD 0.20 Note: System road 23N63.

6M26* M FRRD 1.36

Cultural resource concerns. Rolling 

dips, out-sloping and hardened 

crossing.

L L E M/L

6M27* M FRRD 0.83

Cultural resource concerns. Rolling 

dips, out-sloping and hardened 

crossing.

L L E M/L

6M28 M FRRD 0.09 0.09 0.09 L L L L

6M29* <50" FRRD 8/16-10/14 3.25 3.25

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Install a 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for CSO.

H/M-MYLF

H/M-CSO L M H/L

6M29A* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.20 0.20 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

FYLF/MYLF.

H/MFYLF/MYLF L L H/L

6M29B* M FRRD 0.47 0.47 Note: Spur off 6M29. Trail drainage. L L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

450 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

6M29C* M FRRD 8/16-10/14 0.76 0.76

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for 

CSO/MYLF.

H/M-MYLF

H/M-CSO L L H/L

6M29D* M FRRD 9/16-10/14 0.52

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for 

CSO/NOGO.

H/M-MYLF

H/M-CSO, 

NOGO

L L H/L

6M29E* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 .65 0.65

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L H/L

6M30 E M FRRD 0.33 0.33 0.33 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

6M30 W* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.17 0.17

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L M H/L

6M30A M FRRD 0.30 0.30 0.30 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

6M31 W M FRRD 0.20 0.20 0.20 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-MYLF L L M/L

6M31 E* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.15 0.15

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L H/L

6M32 M FRRD 9/16-12/31 0.36 0.36 0.36 SOU for CSO/NOGO. H/M-CSO, 

NOGO L L L

6M33 <50" FRRD 9/16-12/31 0.65 0.65 0.65 SOU for NOGO. H/M-NOGO L L L

6M34 All FRRD 0.52 0.52 0.52 L L L L

6M34A* M FRRD 0.37 0.37 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings M-MYLF L L H/L

6M35* M FRRD 0.47 Cultural resource concerns. Rolling 

dips, out-sloping L L E M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 451

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

6M36* M FRRD 9/16-10/14 0.86 0.86

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for 

CSO/NOGO.

H/M-MYLF

H/M-CSO, 

NOGO

L L H/L

6M37 All MHRD 1.42 1.42 1.42 Clean corrugated metal pipe, water 

bar. M-MYLF L L M/L

6M38* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.38 Parallels stream, parallel access 

exists. SOU for MYLF. E-MYLF L L E

6M39* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.66 0.66

Stream in buffer, install a crossing 

for MYLF and Hydro. SOU for 

MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L H/L

6M47* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.56

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLFJack’s CAR L M M/L

6M51 M FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.77 0.77 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CSO. H/M-CSO L L M/L

7M01* All FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.59

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Monitor 

weeds. SOU for CRLF.

E-CRLF M/MWeeds L E

7M02 M FRRD 1.12

Majority of the trail is a system 

road. The non-system section, 

decommissioned during 2008 

Canyon Complex Fire, not 

accessible.

7M03 All FRRD 0.36 0.36 0.36 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

7M04* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.66 0.66

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L H/L

7M07* M FRRD 0.39 0.39 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L H/L

7M08 M FRRD 0.86 Note: Not surveyed.

7M09 All FRRD 0.26 Note: Not surveyed TES in area. E-TES
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

452 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

7M10* M FRRD 0.54 TES. Rolling dips, out-sloping. L E-TES L M/L

7M11 <50" FRRD 0.48 0.48 0.48 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

7M12 <50" FRRD 0.94 Note: System road.

7M13* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.70

Dry crosses stream, needs 

relocation outside of the analysis 

area. SOU for MYLF.

H-MYLF L L E

7M14 All MHRD 0.25 0.25 0.25 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

7M15 All MHRD 1.20 1.20 1.20 L L L L

7M16 All MHRD 0.94 0.94 0.94 L L L L

7M17 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.73 1.73 1.73 Very steep, needs out-slope, install 

dips. SOU for CSO. H/M-CSO L L M/L

7M18 All MHRD 0.66 0.66 0.66 L L L L

7M22 <50" MHRD 0.72 0.72 0.72 Note: Needs to be defined with the 

Lassen. L L L M/L

7M28 All FRRD 0.39 0.39 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M01 M FRRD 0.50

Note: Accesses private land. 

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings.

8M02 All MHRD 0.78 0.78 0.78

Trail in perennial stream riparian 

management area. Rolling dips, 

out-sloping and hardened 

crossings. No overnight camping. 

Install sign to keep OHVs away 

from stream.

M-CSO, 

M-MYLF L L M/L

8M03 All MHRD 1.57 1.57 1.57 Crosses ephemeral streams, needs 

hardened crossing improvement. M-CSO, L L L M/L

8M04* <50" MHRD 0.69 Note: Redundant access, 

nonexistent.

8M10 <50" MHRD 9/16-12/31 0.67 0.67 0.67 SOU for NOGO. M-Mdw

H/M-NOGO L L L

8M11* All MHRD 1.01 1.01 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 453

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

8M11A* M MHRD 0.84 0.84 0.84

Trail in perennial stream riparian 

management area. Rolling dips, 

out-sloping and hardened crossing.

M-MYLF L L H/L

8M13* <50" MHRD 0.96 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Private. L L L E

8M14* <50" MHRD 0.27 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

8M15 <50" MHRD 0.32 0.32 0.32 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-MYLF L L M/L

8M16 <50" MHRD 0.77 0.77 0.77 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-MYLF L L M/L

8M17* <50" MHRD 5/1-10/14 1.28 Hardened crossing. SOU for FYLF.

Note: Beckwourth Trail. H/M-FYLF L E M/L

8M18* <50" MHRD 0.41 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Note: 

Beckwourth Trail. L L E M/L

8M19 <50" MHRD 1.27 1.27 1.27 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M20* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.19

Redundant road, Rolling dips, outsloping, hardened crossings, and 

within meadow. SOU for MYLF.

H-MYLF L L E

8M21 All MHRD 0.72 Note: System road 25N56B.

8M22 All MHRD 0.48 Note: Non-existent.

8M23* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.49

Entrenched for 1,000’. Rolling dips, 

out-sloping. Avoid impacts to TES 

during maintenance. Asbestos 

survey needed. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF M/MTES L EAsbestos

8M24 <50" MHRD 8/16-12/31 2.71 2.71 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO. H/M-CSO L L M/L

8M25* All MHRD 1.03 1.03 1.03 Cultural SPMs needed. L L M L

8M26 All MHRD 1.01 1.01 1.01 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-Macros M/MTES L M/L

8M27 All MHRD 2.26 2.26 2.26 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Powerline 

access.

L L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

454 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

8M27(ex)* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.81 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO.

E-CSO, 

Macros L L E

8M27A All MHRD 0.33 0.33 0.33 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-Macros L L M/L

8M28 <50" MHRD 1.08 1.08 1.08 L L L L

8M28A <50" MHRD 0.10 Note: Redundant access.

8M29 <50" MHRD 0.66 0.66 0.66 L L L L

8M30 <50" MHRD 0.49 0.49 0.49 L L L L

8M31 <50" MHRD 1.11 1.11 1.11 L L L L

8M32 All MHRD 0.64 0.64 0.64 L L L L

8M33 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 0.96 L L L L

8M34 All MHRD 0.06 Note: Redundant access.

8M35 All MHRD 1.57 1.57 1.57 L L L L

8M36 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 0.96 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M L L M/L

8M37 All MHRD 0.82 0.82 0.82 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M L L M/L

8M37A All MHRD 0.08 Note: Redundant access.

8M37B All MHRD 0.15 0.15 0.15 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M38* All MHRD 0.54 0.54 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. M L L H/L

8M39 All MHRD 0.71 0.71 0.71 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M39A All MHRD 0.32 0.32 0.32 L L L L

8M40 All MHRD 0.34 0.34 0.34 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M41* All MHRD 0.33 0.33 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Powerline 

access.

L L L H/L

8M42* <50" MHRD 0.98 0.98 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings M-MYLF L L H/L

8M43 All MHRD 0.36 0.36 0.36 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M44 All MHRD 0.30 0.30 0.30 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M45 All MHRD 0.46 0.46 0.46 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M46 All MHRD 0.61 0.61 0.61 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 455

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

8M47 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.46 1.46 1.46 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO. H/M-CSO L L M/L

8M47A All MHRD 0.35 Note: Redundant access.

8M48* All MHRD 0.49 0.49 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-CSO L L H/L

8M49 All MHRD 0.32 0.32 0.32 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. M L L M/L

8M50 All MHRD 0.83 0.83 0.83 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M51 All MHRD 0.84 0.84 0.84 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

8M52 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.39 1.39 1.39

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for Bald 

Eagles.

M-BE L L M/L

8M53 All MHRD 0.66 0.66 0.66 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

8M54 All MHRD 0.82 0.82 0.82 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M01 <50" FRRD 0.91 0.91 0.91 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M02 M FRRD 0.39 0.39 0.39 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

9M03* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.56

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

E-MYLF L M E

9M04* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.18 0.18

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L H/L

9M05 W* <50" FRRD 1.57 1.57 1.57

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Cultural SPMs 

needed.

M-MYLF L M M/L

9M05 E* <50" FRRD 0.09

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Cultural SPMs 

needed.

M-MYLF L L E

9M06 <50" FRRD 0.14 Note: Private access issues.

9M07 M FRRD 0.08 Note: Private access issues.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

456 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

9M08 <50" FRRD 2.11 2.11 2.11 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M08A <50" FRRD 0.13 0.13 0.13 L L L L

9M09 <50" FRRD 0.84 0.84 0.84 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-MYLF L L M/L

9M10 <50" FRRD 1.65 1.65 1.65 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M11 M FRRD 0.65 0.65 0.65 L L L L

9M12* M FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.38 0.38

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Cultural SPMs 

needed. Evaluate after MYLF study 

complete. Install crossing for MYLF. 

SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L M M/L

9M13* All FRRD 8/16-10/14 0.48 0.48

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Evaluate

after MYLF study complete. SOU 

for CSO.

H/M-MYLF

H/M-CSO L L H/L

9M14 N* All FRRD 8/16-10/14 0.94 0.94

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for CSO.

H/M-MYLF

H/M-CSO L L M/L

9M14 S All FRRD 0.56 Note: System road 22N55Y.

9M14A All FRRD 0.58 Note: System road 22N55Y.

9M15* M FRRD 0.81 0.81

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Evaluate after 

MYLF study complete. Install 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed.

M-MYLF L M M/L

9M16* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.22 1.22

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Evaluate after 

MYLF study complete. Install 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L M M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 457

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

9M16A* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 0.57

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Evaluate after 

MYLF study complete. Install 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

H-MYLF L M E

9M17* All FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.38

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Evaluate after 

MYLF study complete . Install 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

H-MYLF L M E

9M18* All FRRD 0.05

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Cultural SPMs 

needed.

L L M E

9M19* All FRRD 0.67 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

9M20* All FRRD 5/1-10/14 1.39

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Eval after 

MYLF study complete. Install 

crossing for MYLF. Cultural SPMs 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

H-MYLF L M E

9M21 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.63 1.63 1.63 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for CSO.

M-MYLF

H/M- CSO

M-NOGO

L L M/L

9M22* All FRRD 8/16-12/31 0.38 Note: Trail ends where 9M23 

intersects. SOU for CSO.

E-CSO, 

NOGO L L M/L

9M23 All FRRD 8/16-12/31 1.06 1.06 1.06 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for CSO.

H/M-CSO, 

M -NOGO L L L

9M24* All FRRD 0.85 Sensitive Plants. Rolling dips, outsloping. L E-TES, 

SIA L M/L

9M25 <50" FRRD 1.72 Note: Non-existent.

9M25A <50" FRRD 0.14 Note: Non-existent.

9M26 <50" FRRD 0.90 Note: Non-existent.

9M27* <50" FRRD 0.24 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

458 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

9M32 W* All MHRD 0.53

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. , asbestos 

survey needed.

M-MYLF L L E-Asbestos

9M32 E* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.43

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. Asbestos survey 

needed. SOU for MYLF.

H-MYLF L L E

9M33* M MHRD 8/16-12/31 2.66 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO. H/M-CSO L L E

9M34 M MHRD 0.55 0.55 0.55 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

9M35 M MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.69 0.69 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CSO. M-CSO L L M/L

9M36 All MHRD 1.33 Note: Non-existent.

9M37* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.68 1.68 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for CSO.

H/M-CSO, 

M-Macros, 

tree frogs

L L H/L

9M37A All MHRD 0.43 Note: Redundant Access.

9M37B All MHRD 0.25 Note: Redundant Access.

9M38 <50" MHRD 1.61 1.61 1.61 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

9M39 All MHRD 1.13 1.13 1.13 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M39A All MHRD 0.69 0.69 0.69 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M40 <50" MHRD 1.01 1.01 1.01 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M41 M MHRD 0.67 0.67 0.67 L L L M/L

9M41A M MHRD 0.19 0.19 0.19 L L L L

9M42 N All MHRD 0.49 0.49 0.49 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M42 S* All MHRD 0.32 Rolling dips, out-sloping. E-NWPT L L M/L

9M42A All MHRD 0.17 0.17 0.17 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-NWPT L L M/L

9M42B All MHRD 0.52 0.52 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-NWPT L L M/L

9M43 All MHRD 0.26 0.26 0.26 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M44 All MHRD 0.49 0.49 0.49 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 459

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

9M45* M MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.61 0.61 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Cultural 

SPMs needed. SOU for CSO. H/M-CSO L M M/L

9M46* All MHRD 0.95 0.95 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Cultural 

SPMs needed. L L M L

9M46A* All MHRD 0.49 0.49 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Cultural 

SPMs needed. L L M M/L

9M47A All MHRD 0.47 0.47 0.47 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M48 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 0.96 Powerline access. L L L M/L

9M49 All MHRD 1.76 1.76 1.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M50 All MHRD 9/16-12/31 0.33 0.33 0.33

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for 

NOGO.

H/M-NOGO L L M/L

9M51* All MHRD 1.27 1.27 1.27

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. Cultural SPMs 

needed.

L L M M/L

9M52 All MHRD 0.63 0.63 0.63 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M53* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.59 Spotted Owl PAC. SOU for CSO. E-CSO L L M/L

9M53A* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.46

Note: Dead ends onto private. 

Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

CSO.

E-CSO L L H/L

9M54 All MHRD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M55 All MHRD 0.53 0.53 0.53 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M56* All MHRD 0.73 0.73 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L H/L

9M56A* All MHRD 0.38 0.38 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L H/L

9M57 All MHRD 0.82 0.82 0.82 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M57A All MHRD 0.17 0.17 0.17 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

460 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

9M58 All MHRD 1.11 1.11 1.11 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M58A All MHRD 0.63 0.63 0.63 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M58B All MHRD 0.55 0.55 0.55 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M59A* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.47 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for Deer.

E-deer, Mmacros

L L H/L

9M59C* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.18 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for Deer.

E-deer, Mmacros

L L M/L

9M59D* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.18 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for Deer.

E-deer, Mmacros

L L E

9M59E* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.43 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for Deer.

E-deer, Mmacros

L L M/L

9M60 All MHRD 0.42 0.42 0.42 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L M/L

9M62 All FRRD 0.48 0.48 0.48 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

9M65 All MHRD 0.63 0.63 0.63 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

10M01 M FRRD Note: Non-existent.

10M02* <50" FRRD 8/16-10/14 1.25 1.25

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF and FYLF. SOU 

for CSO.

H/M-MYLF, 

FYLF

H/M-CSO

L L H/L

10M07 <50" FRRD 2.64 Note: Overgrown.

10M09 All FRRD 0.84 Note: Non-existent.

10M11 All FRRD 0.67 0.67 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. CIRA. L L L M/L

10M12 All BKRD 0.95 0.95 0.95 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

10M13* All BKRD 0.20 0.20 Cultural SPMs needed. Rolling 

dips, out-sloping. L L M M/L

10M14 All MHRD 0.12 0.12 CIRA. Monitor for CRLF. M CRLF L L L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 461

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

10M15 All BKRD 0.54 0.54

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Dropped 

from Alt. 4 because it's near the 

Middle Fork.

L L L M/L

10M16* All MHRD 1.09 1.09 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Monitor 

for CRLF. M-CRLF L L H/L

10M19 All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.26 1.26 1.26 Culverts need cleaning. SOU for 

CSO. H/M-CSO L L M/L

10M20 All MHRD 1.31 1.31 1.31 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M20A All MHRD 0.48 0.48 0.48 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M20B* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.13 Note: Redundant access. SOU for 

Deer. E-Deer L L L

10M21* All MHRD 1.24 1.24 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L H/L

10M21AW* All MHRD 0.16 Steep hill climb, Rolling dips, outsloping and hardened crossings. L L L E

10M21AE All MHRD 0.11 0.11 Note: 10M21 is dropped from Alt. 4 L L L L

10M21B All MHRD 0.91 0.91 L L L L

10M21C* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.13 SOU for Deer. E-Deer L L L

10M22* All MHRD 0.50 Unmitigatable weed issue. L EWeeds L L

10M23 N All MHRD 0.52 0.52 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M23 S All MHRD 2.07 2.07 2.07 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M24* All MHRD 1.28 1.28 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L H/L

10M25 All MHRD 1.14 1.14 1.14 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M27* All MHRD 0.96 0.96 Rolling dips, out-sloping. H/MMacros L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

462 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

10M28 All MHRD 1.38

Non-motorized, single track, 

therefore not being analyzed as 

part of this Project. Rolling dips, 

out-sloping.

10M28A All MHRD 1.01

Non-motorized, single track, 

therefore not being analyzed as 

part of this Project. Rolling dips, 

out-sloping.

10M29* All MHRD 1.56 1.56 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L H/L

10M30 All MHRD 0.83 0.83 0.83 L L L L

10M30A All MHRD 0.24 0.24 0.24 L L L L

10M30B All MHRD 0.27 Note: Redundant access.

10M30C All MHRD 0.09 Note: Redundant access.

10M30D All MHRD 0.18 Note: Redundant access.

10M31 All MHRD 0.24 0.24 0.24 L L L M/L

10M32* <50" MHRD 1.26 1.26 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L H/L

10M33* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.70 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

Deer. E-Deer L L M/L

10M34 All MHRD 1.83 1.83 1.83 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

10M35* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.51 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for Deer. E-Deer L L M/L

10M36* All MHRD 1.01 1.01

Remove weeds, monitor. Rolling 

dips, out-sloping and hardened 

crossing.

L H/MWeeds L H/L

10M36A* All MHRD 5/1-12/31 0.17 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. SOU for Deer. E-Deer L L E

10M38* <50" MHRD 2.47 Unmitigatable weed issue. L EWeeds L M/L

10M39* All MHRD 0.17 Unmitigatable weed issue. L EWeeds L M/L

10M40* <50" MHRD 1.35 1.35 Remove weeds, monitor. Rolling 

dips, out-sloping. L H/M -Weeds L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 463

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

10M42* All MHRD 1.44 Unmitigatable weed issue. L EWeeds L M/L

10M43* All MHRD 1.15 Unmitigatable weed issue and wet 

meadow. E-WTM EWeeds L M/L

10M44 All MHRD 0.45 0.45 0.45 L L L L

10M45 All MHRD 0.67 0.67 0.67 L L L L

10M46 All MHRD 0.71 0.71 0.71 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M47 All MHRD 1.50 1.50 1.50 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

10M54 All MHRD 0.83 0.83 0.83 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

10M55* All MHRD 5/1-10/14 0.25

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings, install a 

crossing for MYLF. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF L L M/L

11M02 All BKRD 1.72 1.72 1.72 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-MYLF L L L

11M03 All BKRD 0.52 0.52 0.52 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M04 All BKRD 0.76 0.76 0.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M05 All BKRD 0.96 0.96 0.96 L L L L

11M06 All BKRD 0.42 0.42 0.42 Rolling dips, out-sloping, protect 

spring. M L L M/L

11M07 All BKRD 0.16 0.16 0.16 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M08* All MHRD 8/16-10/14 1.16

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing In and out of 

wild and scenic. SOU for

CSO/FYLF.

E-CSO, HFYLF, 

Macros

L L H/L

11M08A* All MHRD 8/16-10/14 0.27

In and out of scenic river segment. 

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for 

CSO/FYLF.

E-CSO, HFYLF, 

Macros

L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

464 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

11M08B* All MHRD 8/16-10/14 0.09 Note: In and out of scenic river 

segment. SOU for CSO/FYLF.

E-CSO, HFYLF, 

Macros

L L L

11M09* All BKRD 8/16-12/31 1.07 1.07

Railroad access. Rolling dips, outsloping and hardened crossing. 

SOU for CSO/FYLF.

H/M-CSO, 

M-FYLF, 

Macros

L L H/L

11M10 <50" BKRD 1.97 1.97 1.97 Trail drainage. L L L M/L

11M11 <50" BKRD 1.03 1.03 1.03 Trail drainage. L L L M/L

11M13 N <50" MHRD 0.80 0.80

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Users 

recommended dropping due to 

access issues, proponents 

proposed better access route. 

CIRA.

L M-SIA L M/L

11M13 SW <50" MHRD 0.23 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L M-SIA L M/L

11M13A All MHRD 0.35 0.35 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L M-SIA L M/L

11M13B <50" MHRD 0.53 0.53 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L M-SIA L M/L

11M13C <50" MHRD 0.06 0.06 CIRA. L M-SIA L L

11M13D* <50" MHRD 0.08 Proposed SIA and redundant. 

CIRA. L E-SIA L L

11M14* <50" MHRD 0.42 Proposed SIA. CIRA. L E-SIA L L

11M15 All MHRD 0.38 0.38 CIRA. L M-SIA L L

11M15A* All MHRD 0.25 Proposed SIA and redundant. 

CIRA. L E-SIA L L

11M16 <50" MHRD 0.65 0.65 0.65 Non-existent upper section, close to 

meadow. CIRA.

M-WTM, 

TRFR L L M/L

11M17 All MHRD 0.96 0.96 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L M/L

11M18 All MHRD 0.14 0.14 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L M/L

11M19 All MHRD 0.66 System road, update INFRA. L L L L

11M20 All MHRD 3.33 3.33 3.33 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M22 <50" MHRD 0.40 0.40 0.40 L L L L

11M23* <50" MHRD 0.67 0.67 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 465

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

11M24* All MHRD 0.47 0.47 Treat weeds, monitor. L H/M -

Weeds L L

11M25* All MHRD 0.43 0.43 Treat weeds, monitor. L H/M -

Weeds L L

11M30 All MHRD 0.58 0.58 0.58 Improve crossing. L L L M/L

11M34 All MHRD 0.73 0.73 0.73 L L L L

11M35* All MHRD 0.71 0.71 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L H/L

11M36 All MHRD 1.36 1.36 1.36 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-MYLF L L M/L

11M37 All MHRD 2.15 2.15 2.15 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M38 All MHRD 0.53 0.53 0.53 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M39 All MHRD 0.55 0.55 0.55 L L L L

11M40* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 0.64 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for CSO.

E-CSO, MMYLF L M/L

11M41 All MHRD 1.29 1.29 1.29 L L L L

11M41A All MHRD 0.35 0.35 0.35 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

11M42* All MHRD 0.16 Meadow and noxious weeds. L EWeeds L E-WTM

12M03 All BKRD 0.76 0.76 0.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

12M04 All BKRD 0.41 0.41 0.41 Rolling dips, out-sloping, install 

corrugated metal pipe.

M-FYLF, 

Macros L L M/L

12M06 All BKRD 0.85 Redundant.

12M07 All BKRD 0.44 0.44 0.44 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

12M08 All BKRD 0.72 0.72 L L L L

12M09* All MHRD 3.08 3.08 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. CIRA. M-Macros L L H/L

12M09A All MHRD 0.84 0.84 0.84 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. CIRA. M-Macros L L M/L

12M10* All BKRD 2.96 2.96 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. CIRA. M-Macros L L H/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

466 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

12M10A* All BKRD 0.35 0.35 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. CIRA.

H/MMacros L L H/L

12M12* All BKRD 0.67 0.67 Ford needed over Last Chance. 

CIRA. L L L H/L

12M13 All BKRD 0.40 0.40 0.40 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L M/L

12M14* All BKRD 0.58 Redundant access. Meadow. CIRA. L L L E-WTM

12M15* All MHRD 0.23 0.23

Rolling dips, out-sloping. Prevent 

trail from crossing Indian Creek for 

MYLF. CIRA. Install signs to inform 

public not to cross Indian Creek.

H/M-MYLF L L M/L

12M16* All MHRD 8/16-12/31 1.21

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. CIRA. SOU for 

CSO.

E-CSO, 

M-FYLF E-TES L M/L

12M17 All MHRD 0.16 0.16 0.16 L L L L

12M18 All MHRD 0.14 Note: Non-existent.

12M19 All MHRD 0.68 0.68 0.68 L L L L

12M20 All MHRD 0.11 0.11 0.11 L L L L

12M21* All MHRD 0.23 0.23 Treat weeds, monitor, out-slope, 

install dips. M-MYLF H/M -

Weeds L M/L

12M21A* All MHRD 0.05 0.05 Treat weeds, monitor. M-MYLF H/M -

Weeds L L

12M22* All MHRD 0.15 0.15 Treat weeds, monitor. L H/MWeeds L L

12M23 All MHRD 0.91 0.91 0.91 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L

12M24* All MHRD 0.28

Parallels, high quantity of noxious 

weeds. Rolling dips, out-sloping 

and hardened crossings.

H-Macros EWeeds L E

12M25* <50" MHRD 9/16-12/31 1.44 Crossing at the system road. 

Wildlife concerns. SOU for NOGO. E-NOGO L L M/L

12M26* <50" MHRD 1.55 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

12M27 <50" MHRD 0.91 0.91 0.91 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-MYLF L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 467

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

12M30 All MHRD 0.04 Redundant.

12M31* All MHRD 0.99 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-Macros L L H/L

12M32 All MHRD 0.16 0.16 L L L L

12M34 All MHRD 0.25 0.25 Monitor weeds. M-MYLF M/MWeeds L L

12M35 All BKRD 0.11 0.11 L L L L

12M37 All BKRD 0.17 0.17 L L L L

12M38 All MHRD 0.26 0.26 L L L L

13M01 All BKRD 1.07 1.07 1.07 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

13M03* All BKRD 0.45 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L E -

Weeds L E

13M04 All BKRD 0.49 0.49 0.49 Dispersed camping, out-slope, 

install dips. L L L M/L

13M04A* All BKRD 0.16 L EWeeds L M/L

13M04B All BKRD 0.11 0.11 0.11 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M05 All BKRD 0.58 Note: Non-existent.

13M06* All BKRD 1.63 1.63 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-Macros L L H/L

13M07 All BKRD 1.24 Note: Non-existent.

13M08* All BKRD 1.39 Note: Meadow. H-MIS, 

TRFR L L E- WTM

13M09 All BKRD 0.46 0.46 0.46 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Avoid TES 

locations during maintenance. L M/LTES L L

13M09A All BKRD 0.06 Note: Redundant access.

13M10* All BKRD 12.04 Redundant Access. Cultural SPMs 

needed. CIRA.

E-MIS, 

Macros E-TES M

ESeasonal 

WTM
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

468 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

13M10A* All BKRD 0.04 Redundant Access. Cultural SPMs 

needed. CIRA.

E-MIS, 

Macros

E-TES M E

13M10B* All BKRD 0.13 Redundant Access. Cultural SPMs 

needed. CIRA.

E-MIS, 

Macros E-TES M M/L

13M10C* All BKRD 0.04 Redundant Access. Cultural SPMs 

needed. CIRA.

E-MIS, 

Macros E-TES M M/L

13M11 <50" BKRD 1.97 Note: Non-existent in places.

13M12 All BKRD 1.50 1.50 1.50 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

13M12A All BKRD 0.25 0.25 0.25 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M13* All BKRD 9/16-12/31 1.07 1.07

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. SOU for 

NOGO.

H/M-NOGO L L H/L

13M14 All BKRD 9/16-12/31 1.33 1.33 1.33 Rolling dips, out-sloping. SOU for 

NOGO. H/M-NOGO L L M/L

13M15 All BKRD 0.81 0.81 0.81 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M16 All BKRD 0.54 0.54 0.54 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M17 All BKRD 1.02 1.02 1.02 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M18 N All BKRD 0.65 0.65 0.65 L L L L

13M18 S All BKRD 0.85 0.85 L L L L

13M19* All BKRD 1.19 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

13M20* All BKRD 0.22 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

13M21 S All BKRD 0.60 0.60 0.60 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-TRFR L L M/L

13M21 N* All BKRD 0.71 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. M-TRFR L L E

13M21A All BKRD 0.22 Note: Redundant access.

13M22* All BKRD 1.12 Note: Wet meadow. H-TRFR L L E

13M23* All BKRD 0.60 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. H-TRFR L L E
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 469

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

13M24* All BKRD 0.64 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossings. L L L E

13M25* All BKRD 5/1-10/14 0.70 0.70 Willow habitat. Swale needs 

rocking. SOU for MYLF.

H/M-MYLF, 

CAR L L M/L

13M26 All BKRD 0.59 0.59 0.59 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M27 All BKRD 0.93 Note: Non-existent.

13M28 All BKRD 0.45 0.45 0.45 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-TRFR L L M/L

13M29 All BKRD 2.24 2.24 2.24 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M30* M BKRD 0.43 0.43 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L H/L

13M31 All BKRD 2.33 2.33 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M31A <50" BKRD 1.56 1.56 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L M/L

13M32* All BKRD 0.21 Cultural SPMs needed. L L M M/L

13M34 All BKRD 0.54 0.54 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M36* All BKRD 0.13 0.13 Cultural SPMs needed. L L M L

13M37 All BKRD 0.57 0.57 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

13M38* All BKRD 0.47 0.47 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Cultural 

SPMs needed. L L M M/L

13M40 All BKRD 1.02 1.02 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-FYLF, 

TRFR L L M/L

13M41* All BKRD 0.82 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L H/L

13M42* All BKRD 0.08 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing.

H/MMacros L L H/L

14M01 All BKRD 1.76 1.76 1.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. L L L M/L

14M01A All BKRD 0.22 Note: Redundant.

14M01B All BKRD 0.17 Note: Redundant.

14M01C All BKRD 0.24 Note: Redundant.

14M02 W All BKRD 0.45 0.45 0.45 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

470 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

14M02 E All BKRD 0.81 Note: Non-existent.

14M04 All BKRD 0.70 0.70 0.70 Close off around the spring. M-TRFR L L M/L

14M05* All BKRD 0.72 0.72

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Avoid TES 

during maintenance.

L M/LTES L H/L

14M06* All BKRD 0.37 0.37

Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Avoid TES 

during maintenance. CIRA.

L M/LTES L H/L

14M07* All BKRD 0.49

Note: No access without 13M10, 

which has been dropped from Alt. 4 

and 5.

14M08* All BKRD 0.48

Note: No access without 13M10, 

which has been dropped from Alt. 4 

and 5.

14M09* All BKRD 1.41

Note: No access without 13M10, 

which has been dropped from Alt. 4 

and 5. CIRA.

14M10 All BKRD 0.57 0.57 0.57 L L L M/L

14M11 NW All BKRD 0.57 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. Private.

M-WIFL, MTRFR, 

Macro

L L M/L

14M11 NE All BKRD 0.57 0.37 0.37 Rolling dips, out-sloping.

M-WIFL, MTRFR, 

Macro

L L M/L

14M11 S All BKRD 1.70 1.70 1.70 Rolling dips, out-sloping.

M-WIFL, MTRFR, 

Macro

L L M/L

14M12 All BKRD 1.52 1.52 1.52 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

14M16 All BKRD 0.29 0.29 L L L L

15M01* <50" BKRD 1.46 Note: Sensitive plant. CIRA. L E-TES L M/L

15M01A* <50" BKRD 0.16 Note: Sensitive plant. CIRA. L E-TES L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 471

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

15M02* All BKRD 1.46

Proximity to stream channel. 

Relocation needed outside analysis 

area.

L L L E

15M02A* All BKRD 0.09

Proximity to stream channel. 

Relocation needed outside analysis 

area.

L L L E

15M02B* All BKRD 1.08 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L E

15M03* All BKRD 0.29 0.29

Rolling dips, out-sloping reroute 

away from stream. Channels. Avoid 

impacts to MIS during maintenance 

activities. Post for OHVs to stay out 

of sensitive wet areas. CIRA.

H/MMacros L L H/L

15M04 All BKRD 0.32 0.32

Rolling dips, out-sloping reroute 

away from stream. Channels. Avoid 

impacts to TES Plants during 

maintenance activities. CIRA.

M-Macros, 

CAR

M/LTES L M/L

15M05 All 2.18 2.18 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L M/L

15M07* All BKRD 0.76 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L H/L

15M08 All BKRD 0.40 0.40 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

16M01 All BKRD 1.78 Note: Non-existent.

16M03 All BKRD 0.77 0.77 0.77 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

16M03A All BKRD 0.12 Note: Redundant access.

16M03B All BKRD 0.27 Note: Redundant access.

16M04* All BKRD 2.08 2.08 Rolling dips, out-sloping and 

hardened crossing. M-Macros L L H/L

16M04A* All BKRD 0.54 0.54 Rolling dips, out-sloping. M-Macros L L H/L

17M01 <50" BKRD 0.28 0.28 0.28 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

17M02 All BKRD 0.66 System road 23N67

17M03 All BKRD 0.51 0.51 0.51 Rolling dips, out-sloping. L L L M/L

17M04 All BKRD 1.22 1.22 Rolling dips, out-sloping. CIRA. L L L M/L
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

472 – Plumas National Forest

Trail Vehicle 

Type District Season of Use (SOU)

Alt 2 

Miles

Alt 4 

Miles

Alt 5 

Miles Trail Mitigations/Remarks Wildlife Effects

Botany 

Effects

Cultural 

Effects

Soil/

Water 

Effects

17M05* All BKRD 3.87 Rolling dips, out-sloping. Sensitive 

plant. CIRA. L E-TES L H/L

17M06 All BKRD 0.72 Note: No right of way.

17M06A All BKRD 0.69 Note: No right of way.

Sly Creek* <50" FRRD 5/1-10/14 36 Ac Rolling dips, out-sloping, access. 

SOU for CRLF. E-CRLF L L H/L

Summary of Miles by Type of Motor Use

Mileage Summary Alt. 2 Alt. 4 Alt.5

All 216.07 108.14 156.35

<50" 62.81 22.42 38.71

Motorcycle 82.46 9.65 39.04

Total Miles 361.34 140.21 234.10

Table Acronyms and Codes

District Codes:

BKRD: Beckwourth Ranger District MHRD: Mt. Hough Ranger District FRRD: Feather River Ranger District

Botanical Resource Codes: 

TES: Threatened Endangered and Sensitive SIA: Special Interest Area

Wildlife Resource Codes: 

SOU: Season of Use CAR: Critical Aquatic Refuge CRLF: California red-legged frog 

MYLF: Mountain yellow-legged frog FYLF: Foothill yellow-legged frog NWPT: Northwestern pond turtle

TRFR: Tree Frog Macros: Stream Invertebrates NOGO: Northern Goshawk BE: Bald Eagle

CSO: California spotted owl WIFL: Willow Flycatcher HRCA: Home Range Core Area WTM: Wet Meadow

Cultural Resource Codes:

SPM: Specialized Protection Measures (refer to Section 3.10 for range of approved protection measures (Motorized Recreation PA).

Land Use Codes:

IRA: Inventoried Roadless Area CIRA: Citizen Inventoried Roadless Area
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 473

Relationship of Ratings to Maintenance and Mitigation 

L: Low resource effects with routine maintenance of the trail. 

Cultural Resources: Only minor disturbances confined to unauthorized routes; no obvious displacement of artifacts, features or archaeological deposits other than original 

unauthorized route placement (i.e. slight disturbance but no apparent effect to integrity of NRHP values).

M: Moderate resource effects that require site-specific maintenance to reduce effects. 

Wildlife: Season of Use Period

Botany: Avoid sensitive plants

Weeds: Pull noxious weeds

Cultural Resources: Less than two cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone (i.e. slight affect to artifacts/features, but overall site integrity and NRHP values 

are retained.

Watershed: Soil and water effects are currently less than adverse. Site-specific maintenance may include addition or modification of route out-slope; installation or modification of 

drainage features (rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts); or addition or modification of stream crossing structures. 

H: High resource effects that require site-specific mitigation to reduce effects.

Wildlife: Season of Use Period

Botany: Avoid sensitive plants

Weeds: Pull noxious weeds

Cultural Resources: Estimated 3-5 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; displaced artifacts (i.e. localized or multiple areas of effects). Overall site 

integrity and NRHP values are damaged or altered.

Watershed: Soil and water effects are currently adverse. Site-specific mitigations may include addition or modification of route out-slope, installation or modification of drainage 

features (rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts): addition or modification of stream crossing structures; relocation of short segments of the existing route; or designation of

acceptable seasons of use and vehicle class.

E: Extreme resource effects that are outside normal mitigation requiring additional environmental analysis. 

Cultural Resources: Estimated 5+ cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone, displaced artifacts in several locations and or vandalism noted (i.e. severe 

effects to NRHP values, artifacts and features associated with NRHP values have been diminished or altered.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 474

Table 179. Proposed Trails Not Included in Alternatives

Trail # MI Trail Mitigation/Remarks

Effects Determinations Soil/

Wildlife Botany Cultural Water

5M32 1.26

Relocation needed outside of analysis 

area. L L L E

6M20A 0.27 No access thru private. - - - -

6M48* 0.28

Rolling dips, out-sloping and hardened 

crossings. Install a > 48" culvert and 

stabilize approaches for CRLF. SOU for 

CRLF.

ECRLFJack’s 

CAR

L L H/L

6M49 0.50 Non-existent. - - - -

6M52 0.39 Heritage resource concerns. L L E M

7M27 0.34 Heritage resource concerns. L L E E

8M27 EX 0.80 Non-existent. - - - -

8M57 0.20

Meadow, relocation needed outside of 

the analysis area. L L L E

9M63 0.36

Excessive sediment delivery to stream 

channel. L L L E

9M64 0.14

Excessive sediement delivery to stream 

channel. L L L E

10M03 IRA and CIRA. - - - -

10M04 IRA and CIRA. - - - -

10M04A IRA and CIRA. - - - -

10M52 1.02

Improve surface drainage and stream 

crossings. H

11M20A 0.13 Non-existent. - - - -

12M11 1.71 Non-existent. - - - -

12M33 0.42

Relocation needed outside of analysis 

area. L L L E

12M36 0.54 System road - - - -

13M33 0.42 Redundant L L L M

13M35 0.08 Terrestrial Wildlife E L L M

13M39 0.32 Decommissioned, out-slope, install dips. - - - -

13M43 0.15 Non-existent. - - - -

14M13 0.26 No access thru private. - - - -

14M14 0.94 Spring in trail. L L L E

14M15 0.37 No access thru private. - - - -

15M09 0.42 No access thru private. - - - -

17M07 2.57 Non-existent. - - - -

17M08 0.58 System road 28N03K - - - -
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 475

Appendix B: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

The following table includes the Forest Plan standards and guidelines that apply to this project. The standards and guidelines are from the 1988 Plumas 

National Forest Plan and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework Record of Decision, which amended the Plumas Forest Plan.

Table 180. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

36 SN04 ROD Forestwide Inform forest users, local agencies, special use permittees, groups, and organizations in 

communities near national forests about noxious weed prevention and management.

38 SN04 ROD Forestwide As part of project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk assessment to determine risks for 

weed spread (high, moderate, or low) associated with different types of proposed 

management activities. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed 

Management Strategy to develop mitigation measures for high and moderate risk activities.

40 SN04 ROD Forestwide Minimize weed spread by incorporating weed prevention and control measures into ongoing 

management or maintenance activities that involve ground disturbance or the possibility of 

spreading weeds. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed 

Management Strategy.

62 SN04 ROD Forestwide As part of the project planning process, survey emphasis habitat within 5 miles of occupied 

willow flycatcher sites to determine willow flycatcher occupancy. Emphasis habitat is defined 

as meadows larger than 15 acres that have standing water on June 1 and a deciduous 

shrub component. Use established protocols to conduct these surveys. If these surveys 

determine willow flycatcher occupancy, add these to the database of occupied willow 

flycatcher sites and include them in the 4-year survey cycle of willow flycatcher sites 

described above.

69 SN04 ROD Forestwide Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails, and limited off highway 

vehicle (OHV) use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current forest plans or other 

specific area standards and guidelines, cross-country travel by over-snow vehicles would 

continue. (Does not apply to Alt. 1, applies to other alternatives. 

71 SN04 ROD Forestwide Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from 

existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road 

maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and 

recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb nest sites.

85 SN04 ROD Forestwide Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the fisher den site 

from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road 

maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and 

recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

476 – Plumas National Forest

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

87 SN04 ROD Forestwide Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the marten den site 

from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road 

maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and 

recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites.

88 SN04 ROD Forestwide Designate riparian conservation area (RCA) widths as described in Part B of this appendix. 

The RCA widths displayed in Part B may be adjusted at the project level if a landscape 

analysis has been completed and a site-specific RCO analysis demonstrates a need for 

different widths.

89 SN04 ROD Forestwide Evaluate new proposed management activities within CARs and RCAs during 

environmental analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at 

the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation 

measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic 

systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and 

animal species.

97 SN04 ROD Forestwide Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and other 

special aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt 

natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where 

necessary to restore connectivity.

98 SN04 ROD Forestwide Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or 

downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate water drafting sites to avoid 

adverse effects to in stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Where possible, maintain 

and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table 

elevation in meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features.

99 SN04 ROD Forestwide Prior to activities that could adversely affect streams, determine if relevant stream 

characteristics are within the range of natural variability. If characteristics are outside the 

range of natural variability, implement mitigation measures and short-term restoration 

actions needed to prevent further declines or cause an upward trend in conditions. Evaluate 

required long-term restoration actions and implement them according to their status among 

other restoration needs.

110 SN04 ROD Forestwide As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following the Regional Stream 

Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbing activities within suitable 

habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill and mountain 

yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog.

112 SN04 ROD Forestwide Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recreation sites, dispersed 

campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use sites during landscape 

analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and ripariandependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to ensure 

consistency with standards and guidelines or desired conditions.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 477

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

114 SN04 ROD Forestwide Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes 

that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and 

fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project 

analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities 

as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining 

bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss (Spagnum 

spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.) Complete 

initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing allotments prior to re-issuing 

permits.

118 SN04 ROD Forestwide Recommend restoration practices in: (1) areas with compaction in excess of soil quality 

standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that are either actively down 

cutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management practices, for example, road 

building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests, that may be contributing to the 

observed degradation.

150 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest lands according to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROS designations 

as shown on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map.

Primitive ROS Class - an essentially unmodified natural environment of 5,000 acres or more 

that is at least three miles from all motorized use, and that provides significant opportunity 

for isolation from the sights and sounds of man and a feeling of vastness of scale. Visitors 

have an opportunity to be part of the natural environment, encounter a high degree of 

challenge and risk, and use a maximum of outdoor skills.

Primitive (P) - Applies only t o the Bucks Lake Wilderness.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

478 – Plumas National Forest

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

151 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest lands according to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROS designations 

as shown on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map.

Roaded Natural ROS Class - a predominately natural environment where resource 

modifications and utilization practices are evident. Evidence of the sights and sounds of 

man is moderate and in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunities exist for both 

social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of man.

RN is defined as those original Roaded Natural areas that are also coded as Foregrund and 

Sensitivity Level I. These lands lie along the major travel ways and viewsheds. Nearly all 

developed sites are in this class. Paved roads and hardened sites are common. User 

interaction is moderate to high at developed sites.

Roaded Natural (RN): Meet applicable RN objectives. Design and maintain a all facilities for 

conventional motorized use. Allow Development Scale (see Appendix I) 2, 3,or 4 facilities 

(little site modification to site heavily modified) with 2-5 sites per acre. Keep use below 

capacity. Manage for a visitor capacity of 1.57 PAOT/usable acre outside of developed sites 

t o maintain the quality of RN experience.

152 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest lands according to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROS designations 

as shown on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map.

Roaded Natural ROS Class - a predominately natural environment where resource 

modifications and utilization practices are evident. Evidence of the sights and sounds of 

man is moderate and in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunities exist for both 

social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of man.

Roaded Modified (RM) is defined as those Roaded Natural areas that are also coded as 

Middleground. Background or Unsee, and Sensitivity Level II or III. This is the general 

resource management area of the Forest, typified by pick-up trucks and many miles of dirt 

and gravel roads. Other than trails or trailheads, virtually no improvements are present. 

Users experience low interaction.

Roaded Modified (RM): Meet applicable RM objectives. Allow Development Scale 2 or 3 

(little to moderate site development) facilities .Manage for a visitor capacity of 0.2 

PAOT/usable acre to maintain the quality.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 479

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

153 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest lands according to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROS designations 

as shown on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map.

Rural ROS Class a substantially modified natural environment. Sights and sounds of man 

are evident. Modification and utilization practices enhance specific recreation activities or 

provide the protection of vegetative soil cover.

Renewable resource

Rural: Meet applicable R objectives. Design facilities according to FSM 2330. Allow 

Development scale 3 or 4 (moderate to heavily modified facilities) with 3-10 sites per acre to 

maintain the quality of the RM experience.

Manage for a visitor capacity of 4.7 PAOT/usable acre outside of developed sites to 

maintain the quality of the R experience.

154 PFP 88 Forestwide Apply Prescriptions Rx-5 (Recreation Area Prescription) and Rx-6 (Developed Recreation 

Site Prescription) at mapped locations.

157 PFP 88 Forestwide Construct new trails according to management area direction.

159 PFP 88 Forestwide Open trails for public, outfitter/guide, and administrative uses. If planned and publicized, 

allow temporary closures of less than one year.

160 PFP 88 Forestwide Provide sanitation facilities at trailheads where needed to protect water quality.

167 PFP 88 Forestwide Pacific Crest Trail: Prohibit ORV use.

168 PFP 88 Forestwide Allow ORV use except where:

1. use is prohibited by law or regulation

2. use is incompatible with the management of other resources,

3. resource damage is likely,

4. rights-of-way are insufficient,

5. lands are designated administrative or developed recreation sites.

(Superceded by #69, applies to Alt. 1 only)

169 PFP 88 Forestwide Restrictioned acreages are summarized in Table 4-5 and shown on the accompanying Off 

Road Vehicle Closure map. (Superceded by #69, applies to Alt. 1 only)

170 PFP 88 Forestwide Cooperate with the State, other agencies, and user groups to identify, and where compatible 

with Forest Plan management objectives, develop segments of trail that supports the 

concept of a statewide trail system connecting use areas and providing the opportunity for 

long distance trail touring
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

480 – Plumas National Forest

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

171 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest land in accordance with the adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as 

mapped in detail in the Planning Records and depicted on the accompanying Visual Quality 

Objectives map and as defined below. Meet VQOs by applying techniques described in 

publications listed in Appendix K.

Preservation (P) - Allow for ecological changes only. Preclude management activity except 

use for recreation facilities, with very low visual impact.

Appendix K: Preservation (P): Only ecological change is allowed.

172 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest land in accordance with the adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as 

mapped in detail in the Planning Records and depicted on the accompanying Visual Quality 

Objectives map and as defined below. Meet VQOs by applying techniques described in 

publications listed in Appendix K.

Retention (R) - Provide a natural-appearing landscape where management activities are not 

visually evident.

Appendix K: Retention (R): People's activities are not to be evident to the casual forest 

visitor.

173 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest land in accordance with the adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as 

mapped in detail in the Planning Records and depicted on the accompanying Visual Quality 

Objectives map and as defined below. Meet VQOs by applying techniques described in 

publications listed in Appendix K.

Partial Retention (PR) - Provide a natural-appearing landscape where management 

activities remain visually subordinate.

Appendix K: Partial Retention (PR): People’s activities may be evident but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 481

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

174 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest land in accordance with the adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as 

mapped in detail in the Planning Records and depicted on the accompanying Visual Quality 

Objectives map and as defined below. Meet VQOs by applying techniques described in 

publications listed in Appendix K.

Modification (M) - Allow management activities to dominate the landscape: however, keep 

visual elements comparable to those of natural occurrences.

Appendix K: Modification (M): Activities may dominate the characteristic landscape but 

must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. Activities 

should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in the foreground or middleground.

175 PFP 88 Forestwide Manage all Forest land in accordance with the adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as 

mapped in detail in the Planning Records and depicted on the accompanying Visual Quality 

Objectives map and as defined below. Meet VQOs by applying techniques described in 

publications listed in Appendix K.

Maximum Modification (MM) - Allow management activities to dominate the landscape; 

however, keep background visual elements comparable to those of natural occurrences. 

Appendix K: Maximum Modification (MM): Activities may dominate the characteristic 

landscape but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background.

176 PFP 88 Forestwide When future resource use activity or wildfire degrades visual quality below the adopted 

VQOs restore visual quality by planting trees and/or other vegetation where regeneration is 

feasible.

177 PFP 88 Forestwide Employ a VQO of “Partial Retention” in those areas viewed as foreground from the Pacific 

Crest Trail, and allow a VQO of “Modification” in the middle and background.

178 PFP 88 Forestwide Identify potential locations of non-inventoried cultural resources (cultural, historic, and 

prehistoric) via documents, literature, and oral interviews, and inventory through 

archaeological survey or reconnaissance prior to potentially-disturbing project activities on 

non-inventoried lands. Consult with Native Americans and interested parties regarding 

cultural resources within these areas.

179 PFP 88 Forestwide Apply National Register (NR) criteria to determine whether a cultural resource is a Class I, II 

or III property.

180 PFP 88 Forestwide Determine probable project effects on Class I and II properties.

181 PFP 88 Forestwide Apply a test of archaeological interest to Class III cultural resources (according to ARPA 

criteria). Release properties of non archaeological interest. Determine if each cultural 

resource is eligible for listing on a local, State, or Federal register of significant properties.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

482 – Plumas National Forest

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

182 PFP 88 Forestwide Consult with Native American and other interested parties regarding eligible cultural 

properties.

183 PFP 88 Forestwide Protect and preserve NR and NR eligible cultural resources and those on State or local 

listings of significant properties, or recover the values that result in their eligibility (in 

accordance with NRHP or MOU with SHPO) and in consultation with local Native Americans 

and interested parties.

184 PFP 88 Forestwide Protect or recover those materials of archaeological interest.

185 PFP 88 Forestwide Allow scientific study of cultural resources for public education and enjoyment.

186 PFP 88 Forestwide Develop and implement agreements with the Advisory Council on historic Preservation for 

the management of identified Class I and II resources.

187 PFP 88 Forestwide Identify and determine contemporary value of areas and resources used for traditional 

cultural or religious practices by Native Americans or other ethnic groups. Do not restrict or 

deter continued use of important areas.

194 PFP 88 Forestwide Maintain suitability of occupied prairie falcon, osprey, and golden eagle nesting territories.

195 PFP 88 Forestwide Maintain and enhance the suitability of currently-occupied nesting territories, and provide 

sufficient potential nesting, foraging, and winter habitat to meet recovery goals of the Pacific 

States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Apply Rx-11 Bald Eagle Habitat Prescription

197 PFP 88 Forestwide Protect sensitive and special interest plant species as needed to maintain viability. Inventory 

and monitor sensitive plant populations on a project-by-project basis.

201 PFP 88 Forestwide Provide for fish passage on any drainage or stream where spawning activity occurs, except 

with concurrence by DFG.

225 PFP 88 Forestwide Implement FS Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet water quality objectives and 

maintain and improve the quality of surface water on the Forest. Identify methods and 

techniques for applying the BMPs during project level planning and incorporate them into 

the associated project plan and implementation documents (see Plan Appendix Q).

227 PFP 88 Forestwide Through the use of BMPs, keep water quality at a level that will allow a safe and satisfactory 

supply when given reasonable treatment by the purveyor.

243 PFP 88 Forestwide Develop specific soil evaluation and mitigation measures for each project site as needed.

246 PFP 88 Forestwide Develop and apply erosion control plans to road construction, mining, recreation 

development, and other site disturbance projects. Develop specific mitigation measures for 

each project site as needed.

248 PFP 88 Forestwide Document observations of slope failures, significant erosion of and from road surfaces, 

erosion of mine spoils, and any other sources of sediment that are affecting water quality or 

channel stability. Use for future erosion control planning.

264 PFP 88 Forestwide Avoid or provide special treatment of unstable areas to avoid triggering mass movement.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 483

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

265 PFP 88 Forestwide Use the PNF Land Stability Risk Classification data for preliminary assessment of instability 

problems on all projects which disturb the land surface. Provide geotechnical evaluation of 

projects with a moderate or higher potential to initiate or accelerate landslides.

266 PFP 88 Forestwide Allow no land-disturbing activities on extremely unstable land unless a geotechnical 

investigation determines certain activities are appropriate.

267 PFP 88 Forestwide Avoid earthquake fault zones whenever possible when designing roads and other facilities.

325 PFP 88 Forestwide Prevent violations of the law by making NF restrictions clear and reasonable, informing the 

public, and pursuing aggressive enforcement.

329 PFP 88 Forestwide Consider additional areas for RNA status as need and opportunity arise. Protect 

established, recommended, and candidate RNAs to preserve their research values.

334 PFP 88 Rx-1 Wilderness 

Prescription

Allow no motor vehicle use. Post boundaries and establish physical controls to prevent 

motorized entry.

368 PFP 88 Rx 2 - Wild and Scenic 

River Prescription

Scenic zone: Construct campgrounds and other developments which enhance recreation 

use. To the extent possible, design and manage recreation developments (including access) 

to avoid areas of high fire hazard and to prevent ignition and spread of wildfire.

372 PFP 88 Rx 2 - Wild and Scenic 

River Prescription

Wild zone: Construct or improve trails, or mark travel routes as needed, to properly disperse 

recreation use and promote safe travel in the zone

373 PFP 88 Rx 2 - Wild and Scenic 

River Prescription

Wild zone: Permit no additional motorized access routes to the river and no motorized 

transportation along the river. Permit motorized access on the Cleghorn Bar, Stag Point, 

Deadman Springs, and Little California Mine roads and close all others at their junctions 

with system roads.

387 SN04 ROD errata Rx 2 - Wild and Scenic 

River Prescription

Conduct field surveys for TEPS plant species early enough in project planning process that 

the project can be designed to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. Conduct 

surveys according to procedures outlined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 

2609.25.11). If additional field surveys are to be conducted as part of project 

implementation, survey results must be documented in the project file.

403 PFP 88 Rx-3 Feather Falls 

Scenic Area

Close all trails to motorized use. 

420 PFP 88 Rx-4 Challenge 

Experimental Forest

Prohibit ORV use.

444 PFP 88 RX-6 Developed 

Recreation Site

Confine vehicle use to interior roads and spurs. Allow ORV use of trails which lead to 

adjacent off-road vehicle routes or acceptable cross-country areas. (Superceded by #69, 

applies to Alt. 1 only)

463 PFP 88 Rx-8 Semi-Primitive Allow no motorized travel except over-the-snow and management access.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

484 – Plumas National Forest

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

498 PFP 88 Rx-11 Bald Eagle 

Habitat

Close the areas to ORV use.

540 PFP 88 Rx-17 Research 

Natural Areas

Manage recreational use according to the ROS class of SPNM. Prohibit recreational uses 

that would contribute to modification of the area.

541 PFP 88 Rx-17 Research 

Natural Areas

Maintain existing trails, but do not expand the trail system.

609 PFP 88 MA 4 Galen Restrict ORV use at Big Bald Rock.

646 PFP 88 MA 8 Kellogg Allow motorized use in the Wild Zone only on the Little California Mine 4WD trail.

670 PFP 88 MA 10 Feather Falls Prohibit ORVs below the MFFR canyon rim, on the Feather Falls NRT, and the South 

Branch Falls Trail.

701 PFP 88 MA 12 Pinchard Manage the Wild Zone [Middle Fork Feather River] consistent with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act; employ Rx-2. Allow ORVs on the Stag Point 4WD trail.

727 PFP 88 MA 14 Sawmill Prohibit ORVs below the MFFR Canyon Rim except on Cleghorn Bar Road.

740 PFP 88 MA 14 Sawmill Preserve and enhance the Fowler Lake area: employ Rx-7. Close existing road access to 

Fowler Lake and study the area for ORV closure. Provide directional signing from the PCT. 

Maintain a forage fish base for wildlife.

757 PFP 88 MA 16 Beartrap Maintain the Poker Flat and Mt. Fillmore 4WD roads.

788 PFP 88 MA 19 North Fork Coordinate trail management with the Lassen NF for shared routes with uses conforming to 

Appendix 0.

789 PFP 88 MA 19 North Fork Close the existing 4WD road extending northerly along the PCT from Three Lakes.

827 PFP 88 MA 21 Silver Maintain the Gold Lake and Rock Lake trails.

831 PFP 88 MA 21 Silver Areas closed to ORV use include Butterfly Valley, Snake Lake, and the Bucks Lake 

Wilderness.

889 PFP 88 MA 25 Bear Prohibit motorized use except on the Deadman Springs and Lost Cabin Springs 4WD roads. 

Provide for 4WD parking at the junction of the Deadman Springs 4WD road and the PCT.

923 PFP 88 MA 27 Indian Valley Preserve and enhance the scenic values of the Crystal Lake-Mt. Hough area: employ Rx-7. 

Provide minimal access and facilities. Allow low impact timber harvest activities. Limit road 

access to the saddle above the lake.

937 PFP 88 MA 29 Antelope Restrict wheeled vehicles to existing roads and trails in the Antelope Lake Recreation Area 

and the Diamond Mountain ORV Closure Areas as shown on the Off Road Vehicle Closure 

Plan for the Preferred Alternative map.

965 PFP 88 MA 30 Ward Designate the remainder of the as “open” to ORVs. (Superceded by #69, applies to Alt. 1 

only)
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 485

No. Source Area Standard/Guideline Text

990 PFP 88 MA 33 Nelson Creek Exclude 4WD's along the East Branch of Nelson Creek in the vicinity of McRae Meadows.

1024 PFP 88 MA 35 Lakes Basin Confine wheeled ORVs to designated routes. Allow motorized over-the-snow travel, but 

consider restricting to designated areas if conflicts develop with other users or resources.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 486

Appendix C: Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The following projects were considered as present and reasonably foreseeable future actions for 

cumulative effects analysis.

Table 181. Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on National Forest System lands

District Project Name Project Description Location

Forest-wide Temporary OHV Forest 

Order Project CE 

31.b(1)

Implement interim OHV forest 

orders that prohibit wheeled 

vehicle travel off of existing 

inventoried roads, areas, and 

trails for an interim period, until 

site specific designation can 

occur utilizing appropriate 

levels of NEPA.

Forest-wide

Forest-wide Backcountry Discovery 

Trail

Designation of Backcountry 

Discovery Trail (BCDT) on 

existing roads within the 

Plumas National Forest to tie 

together statewide motorized 

trail.

Forest-wide

Forest-wide Robert Van Court 

Ironman Dual Sport 

Motorcycle Rec Event

Two recreation events are 

planned using existing Forest 

Service system roads for a 

dual sport motorcycle (street 

legal) tours. One is on the 

Lassen and Plumas (two day 

event), and the other is on all 

three districts of the Plumas (3 

day event).

Forest-wide

Beckwourth 

and Mount 

Hough

Antelope Reforestation 

Project

Site prep, planting, and 

subsequent hand release on 

approximately 5,000 acres of 

the 22,000-acre Antelope 

Complex, which burned in 

2007. 

Antelope Lake area

Beckwourth Mabie DFPZ Approximately 7,181 acres of 

DFPZ including underburning, 

hand thinning, and mechanical 

treatment. May include road 

relocation/obliteration.

South of Highway 70 and 

west of highway 89 near 

the communities of 

Graeagle, Portola, Clio, 

and Blairsden.

Beckwourth Freeman Project Reduce hazardous fuels, 

improve forest health, improve 

bald eagle habitat, support 

local communities, improve 

aspen stands, transportation 

improvements.

West of Lake Davis up to 

Grizzly Ridge.

Beckwourth Plumas-Sierra Rural 

Electric Co-op

Construction of 69kv powerline 

(3-6 miles) and access road 

construction (3 miles).

S. Hwy 16, south of 

Honey Lake.

Beckwourth Camp 14 Salvage and 

Reforestation Project

Approximately 249 acre 

salvage of dead and dying 

trees that resulted from the 

Antelope Complex Fire that 

occurred in July 2007.

The project is located 

approximately 12 miles 

northeast of Taylorsville, 

CA, about 2 miles east of 

Antelope Lake
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 487

District Project Name Project Description Location

Beckwourth Cold Fire Recovery and 

Roadside Safety Project

Recover economic value from 

the loss of fire-killed timber 

and increase public safety by 

reducing roadside tree 

hazards.

The project area is located 

on the south side of 

Eureka Ridge, west of 

Golden Creek drainage 

and south of the town of 

Sloat, CA.

Beckwourth Cold Fire Soil 

Stabilization and 

Fireline Rehabilitation

Project consists of post-fire 

rehabilitation for watershed 

improvement through soil 

stabilization utilizing contour 

felling along approximately 50 

acres of adjacent hillsides to 

Golden Creek and 

approximately 7 miles of dozer 

and handline rehab.

Cold Fire burn area along 

headwaters of Golden 

Creek

Beckwourth Horizon Wind Energy 

Site Testing

Issue a 3 year Special Use 

Permit to Horizon Wind Energy 

to install meterological test 

towers on several locations.

Several locations on the 

Beckwourth Ranger 

District.

Beckwourth Cedar Mining Claim 

(Placer)

The operators want to process 

on site less than 1,000 cubic 

yards of mineral material in 

search of gold on National 

Forest System lands.

North of Eureka Ridge, 

adjacent to Chris Creek.

Beckwourth Lake Davis Trails Build an interpretive trail from 

Catfish Cove to the lake. Build 

a trail around the lake using 

the old railroad grade and 

connecting inbetween these 

sections with new trail. The 

first section is between the 

24N10 intersection and 

lightning tree CG.

Lake Davis southeast side

Beckwourth Lake Davis Trail phase 

2 & 3

Continue the non-motorized 

Lake Davis Trail around Lake 

Davis from just south of 

Lightning Tree Campground

around the north and west 

sides of the lake

Lake Davis Recreation 

Area

Beckwourth Sulphur - Barry Stream 

Restoration Project

Restore approximately 0.5 

mile of Sulpher Creek (0.28 

mile) and Barry-Creek (0.24 

mile) using pond-and-plug 

technique. Project also 

includes a Timber Sale for the 

removal of encroaching 

conifers on cottonwood stands 

within the project area.

Middle Middle Fork 

Feather River HUC 5 

Watershed

Beckwourth Clark's Creek Aspen 

Restoration and 

Ecosystem 

Enhancement Project

Thin conifers from three 

meadows, plant willows and 

aspen. Desired result: Reestablish naturally occuring 

riparian vegetation in 

meadows to improve habitat 

for deer fawning, willow 

flycatchers, and other riparian 

species.

Situated in Clark's Creek, 

a 10,000 acre tributary 

watershed to Last Chance 

Creek, which flows to the 

North Fork of the Feather 

River.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

488 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Beckwourth Dotta KV Aspen and

Cottonwood Hand Thin 

Project

This project will hand thin 

conifer trees less than 11 

inches dbh within aspen and 

cottonwood stands and the

adjacent 50 foot buffer. This 

will help to maintain aspen and 

cottonwood stands and 

promote regeneration.

Northwest of Frenchman 

Lake in the Dixie State 

Game Refuge and 

between the Frenchman 

Work Center and 

Cottonwood Spring 

Campground.

Beckwourth Frenchman WC Aspen 

Hand Thin Project

Over the next several years 

Frenchman Work Center will 

conduct project work within 

aspen stands. Conifer trees 

less than 11 inches dbh will be 

hand thinned within aspen 

stands and within 50 feet of 

the stands

Located northwest of 

Frenchman Lake in the 

Dixie State Game Refuge 

and between the 

Frenchman Work Center 

and Cottonwood Spring 

Campground.

Beckwourth Wildlife Guzzler 

Replacement and 

Removal

Guzzlers catch and store 

water providing water to 

wildlife througout the year 

especially during hot summer 

months. This project will 

remove 2 wildlife guzzlers and 

replace 5 in the Eureka Ridge 

and Frenchman Lake areas.

Along Eureka Ridge, north 

of Fish Creek and east of 

Nelson Creek and south 

of Conklin Park in the 

Frenchman Lake vicinity.

Beckwourth Mills Peak Trail Construct a 7-mile nonmotorized trail on Beckwourth 

Ranger District. Starting at 

Forest Service (FS) Road 

22N98 and ending on FS road 

822 at Mills Peak. The trail 

would be 24 to 36 inches wide.

Lakes Basin Recreation 

Area Beckwourth Ranger 

District Plumas National 

Forest

Beckwourth Issue five year outfitting 

and guiding permit to 

High Sierra ATV Tours

In order to comply with the 

new outfitting and guiding 

directives, a five year outfitting 

and guiding permit would be 

issued to High Sierra ATV 

Tours. This company has been 

operating on one year 

temporary permits since 2006.

Chilcoot, Crystal Peak, 

Frenchman Lake, and 

Dixie Mountain areas

Beckwourth Smith Lake & Mt Elwell 

trails reroutes

The Smith Lake Trail reroute 

will move the trail to the north 

side of the lake and out of the 

wet reparian area. The Elwell 

Trail reroute would install 

sweeping switchbacks to 

eliminate the steep grade. A 

bridge installed at the creek 

crossings.

Lakes Basin Recreation 

Area

Beckwourth Elwell Trail Reroute Reroute sections of the Elwell 

Trail on the South side to 

eliminate over grade sections 

and provide a sustainable 

tread.

Lakes Basin
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 489

District Project Name Project Description Location

Beckwourth Nelson Creek Historic 

Trail

Reopen the historic Nelson 

Creek Trail from Zumwalt Flat 

to the La Porte Rd. A few 

sections of new trail to connect 

existing trail or correct over 

grade problems is also being 

planned. 

Nelson Creek area

Beckwourth Grizz Project Defensible Fuel Profile Zone 

(DFPZ), Group Selections 

(GS) and Individual Tree 

Selection (ITS). In th past, 

these types of projects have 

also involved the treatment of 

noxious weeds, road 

decommissioning and 

upgrades.

Along Grizzly Ridge, 

approximately 5 miles 

from Spring Garden and 

3.5 miles from Cromberg

Beckwourth Jackson Project (old 

name Happy Jack 

Project)

Defensible Fuel Profile Zone 

(DFPZ), Group Selection (GS) 

and Individual Tree Selection 

(ITS) in addition to, Wildland 

Urban Interface fuels 

reduction. Road 

reconstruction, 

decommissioning and 

construction.

Approximately 4-11 miles 

northwest of Portola and 

1-7 miles north of 

Graeagle.

Beckwourth Ingalls Project Defensible Fuel Profile Zone, 

group selection, riparian 

hardwood restoration, road 

reconstruction, 

decommissioning, temporary 

road construction and 

subsequent decommissioning.

Near Lake Davis, 5-10 

miles north of Portola.

Beckwourth Big Hill DFPZ Defensible Fuel Profile Zone 

(DFPZ), Group Selection (GS) 

and Individual Tree Selection 

(ITS) in addition to, Wildland 

Urban Interface fuels 

reduction. Road 

reconstruction, 

decommissioning and 

construction.

Approximately 3 miles 

north of the town of Old 

Sloat, California.

Beckwourth Red Clover DFPZ 

Underburn

Defensible Fuel Profile Zone 

(DFPZ) maintenance 

underburning

Red Clover Valley

Beckwourth Hopper Thinning Thinning of approximately 215 

acres of forested stands that 

are currently infested with bark 

beetles and stands at high risk 

to future bark beetle mortality 

in the developed recreation 

area of Lake Davis.

East shore of Lake Davis 

from Grizzly Valley Dam to 

Mallard Cove fishing 

access.

Beckwourth Corral Thin Addition The Corral Thin Addition adds 

an additional 4 acres to a 

current forest disease/fuel 

reduction treatment project. 

This addition is needed to 

make an effective contiguous 

treatment area.

Off Forest Service System 

Road 24N10, west of Lake 

Davis.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

490 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Beckwourth Dixie Valley and Little 

Dixie Sheep Allotments

Change the 12,880-acre Dixie 

Valley Allotment and the 

9,170-acre Little Dixie 

Allotment from vacant cattle 

allotments to sheep 

allotments.

10 to 14 miles northnortheast of the city of 

Portola, California.

Beckwourth Grizzly Valley, Grizzly 

Valley Community, and 

Humbug Allotments

Range Environmental 

Assessment.

Near Lake Davis.

Beckwourth NRCS EQIP Projects Range improvements, i.e. off 

site water, riparian pasture 

reconfiguration on Fitch 

Canyon and McKessick Peak 

Allotments.

Fitch Canyon and 

McKessick Peak areas.

Beckwourth Plinco Mine Off Site 

Water Developments

Develop two springs for off site 

water for livestock.

Plinco Unit McKesick 

Peak Allotment.

Beckwourth Last Chance Water 

Quality Improvement 

Projects

Stream channel stabilization 

and road improvements.

Last Chance watershed, 

Roads 25N66, 25N72, 

25N78, 25N08, 25N65, 

25N65A, 25N03.

Beckwourth Red Clover Water 

Quality Improvement 

Projects

Stream channel stabilization 

and road improvements.

Red Clover watershed, 

Roads 24N03Y, 22N22Y, 

25N05.

Beckwourth Frenchman Water 

Quality Improvement 

Projects

Stream channel stabilization 

and road improvements.

Frenchman watershed.

Beckwourth Lake Davis Water 

Quality Improvement 

Projects

Stream channel stabilization 

and road improvements.

Lake Davis watershed.

Beckwourth Nelson-Onion Water 

Quality Improvement 

Projects 

Stream channel stabilization 

and road improvements.

Nelson-Onion watershed.

Beckwourth Last Chance Meadow 

Restoration

Pond and plug to raise level of 

creek and reconnect the 

floodplain.

Last Chance watershed 

from Doyle crossing to 

Road 26N20.

Beckwourth Sulphur Creek and 

Barry Creek Meadow 

Restoration

Pond and plug to raise level of 

creeks and reconnect the 

floodplain.

Sulphur and Barry Creek 

at their confluence.

Beckwourth Red Clover and Poco 

Creeks Meadow 

Restoration

Pond and plug to raise level of 

creeks and reconnect the 

floodplain.

Red Clover and Poco 

Creeks.

Beckwourth Dotta Canyon Meadow 

Restoration

Pond and plug to raise level of 

creeks and reconnect the 

floodplain.

Dotta Canyon.

Beckwourth Red Clover and Dotta 

Creek Restoration 

Project

Project consists of restoring an 

eastside montane meadow 

(280 acres) and improving 

channel stability for 2.9 miles 

within the Upper Feather River 

Watershed on Red Clover and 

Dotta Creeks.

Red Clover and Dotta 

Creeks.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 491

District Project Name Project Description Location

Beckwourth Meadowview and 

Rowland Creek 

Restoration Project 

Project consists of restoring 

two eastside montane 

meadows (396 acres) and 

improving channel stability for 

4.4 miles within the Upper 

Feather River Watershed on 

Last Chance and Rowland 

Creeks.

Meadowview and 

Rowland Creeks.

Beckwourth Middle Fork Whitetop 

Project

Eradicate tall whitetop along 

the Middle Fork Feather River 

using both mechanical and 

chemical means to control and 

eradicate this invasive plant 

species.

Middle Fork Feather River.

Beckwourth Goat Grazing Tall 

Whitetop

Approximately100 goats would 

graze a total of approximately 

40 acres within the project 

area. The grazing would occur 

in 2009 for approximately 4 

weeks. Temporary electric 

fences would confine the goats 

to infested areas only.

South of Hwy 70, east of 

county road A23 in the 

town of Beckwith, CA.

Beckwourth Sticky Pyrrocoma 

Treatment

Improve the habitat for the 

sensitive plant species sticky 

Pyrrocoma (Pyrrocoma 

lucida). The proposed 

treatment would be at a known 

occurrence of this plant. The 

two acre site would be handthinned.

T22N R12E SW 1/4 of the 

NE 1/4 of Section 5.

Feather River Basin Group Selection Timber harvest of 

approximately 1,215 acres of 

group selection and 80 acres 

of individual tree selection 

harvest under the HergerFeinstein Quincy Library 

Group Forest Recovery Act 

pilot project.

Approximately 10 miles 

southwest of Quincy, CA.

Feather River Slapjack Project Construct Defensible Fuel 

Profile Zones and harvest 

trees using group selection 

and individual tree selection 

under the Herger-Feinstein 

Quincy Library Group Forest 

Recovery Act of 1998.

Southwest of Quincy, CA 

in the vicinity of 

Challenge, Clipper Mills, 

Feather Falls, 

Forbestwon, and Dobbins, 

CA.

Feather River Hughes Conifer 

Thinning Project

Thin out conifers less than 10 

inch dbh to enhance habitat for 

the California Red-legged 

Frog, a federally listed 

species.

French Creek watershed.

Feather River Burnt Bridge/Cottage 

Creek Blackoak 

Enhancement

Thin out small size conifers, 

less than 10 inch diameter, 

within a blackoak habitat area.

Dobbins watershed; near 

Challenge, CA.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

492 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Feather River Yuba Feather K-8 

School Expansion DM

Amend an existing special use 

authorization to allow 

construction & maintenance of 

restroom, relocate propane 

tank, install an emergency 

power generator, upgrade 

septic system, renovate play 

field, and install a track w/in 

boundaries of play field.

Feather River Ranger 

District.

Feather River Watdog Defensible Fuel Profile Zone 

and Group Selection Harvest 

as part of the HFQLG Pilot 

Project.

Southwest of Quincy, CA 

in the Fall River and South 

Branch Middle Fork 

Feather River watersheds.

Feather River Concow Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction Project 

(Revised Flea Project)

Reduce hazardous fuels and 

restore ecosystems affected 

by high-intensity wildfire near 

Paradise, Pulga, and Concow.

near Paradise, Magalia, 

Pulga, and Concow, CA.

Feather River St. Louis Fuels 

Reduction Project

To protect rural communities 

and forest natural areas from 

high-intensity wildfires this 

project proposes construction 

of DFPZs for hazardous fuels 

reduction.

Adjacent to the 

communities of LaPorte, 

Strawberry Valley and 

Clipper Mills.

Feather River On Top DFPZ and 

Group Selection

This project will establish 

DFPZs in various locations for 

fuels reduction and community 

protection. Group selection is 

used to test the effectiveness 

of uneven aged management 

to promote multi-storied 

ecologically fire resilient 

forests.

Bucks Lake area from 

Soapstone Hill on the 

west, to Mt. Ararat on the 

east.

Feather River Portwine Cemetery 

Salvage

Removal of recently burned 

trees from a historic cemetery.

Portwine historic cemetery 

near LaPorte.

Feather River French MP Thin 

Mastication

This project is proposing to 

thin and masticate plantation 

units to reduce the amount of 

woody material and conifers to 

improve long-term survival and 

development of conifers.

Rogers Cow Camp to 

Four Trees Road.

Feather River Rock Island Mastication 

Project

This project is proposing to 

masticate plantations within 

the Rock Island sale area 

boundary to enhance conifer 

growth and reduce woody 

vegetation and conifers within 

the plantation.

North of Rogers Cow 

Camp.

Feather River LaPorte Fuels 

Reduction and Black 

Oak Enhancement

This project proposes to 

reduce hazardous fuels that 

pose a risk to life and property 

to the communities of 

Strawberry Valley and LaPorte. 

Also, this project will enhance 

and protect black oak stands, 

an important food source to 

many species.

LaPorte and Strawberry 

Valley.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 493

District Project Name Project Description Location

Feather River LaPorte Pines North 

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction

This project is designed to 

reduce fuels for protection of 

the LaPorte communnity by 

providing connectivity with the 

LaPorte Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction and Oak 

Enhancement Project.

LaPorte area.

Feather River Canyon Complex 

Salvage, Site 

Preparation, and 

Reforestation Project

This project consists of fire 

and roadside salvage, site 

preparation, and reforestation 

within six of the fire areas of 

the Canyon Complex of 2008 

that had high fire severity. 

Approximately 1-2 million 

board feet will be salvage 

logged.

Near the Middle Fork of 

the Feather River, within

Butte and Plumas 

counties.

Feather River Concow Reforestation This project is to site prep, 

release, and plant a mixture of 

ponderosa and sugar pine and 

Douglas fir on approximately 

270 acres in the previously 

burned Concow community 

area.

Concow area.

Feather River Pike County Peak 

Microwave Relay

South Feather Water & Power 

Agency propose to construct 

and maintain a microwave 

system to include new 

equipment at Pike County 

Peak.

Feather River Ranger 

District.

Feather River Valley Creek Special 

Interest Area 

Interpretive Trail

A hiking trail in the Valley 

Creek Special Interest Area. 

This area is 0.5 miles north of 

American House. The trail 

would be 1.5 miles in length 

and would form a loop through 

the area, crossing Valley 

Creek at two locations.

Valley Creek Special 

Interest Area.

Feather River ARRA Trails 

Maintenance - Feather 

River Ranger District

Maintenance on portions of 

any or all of the following: 34 

miles of Pacific Crest Trail 

(PCT), plus approximately 15 

miles of PCT feeder trails and 

maintenance on approximately 

90 miles of other district trails.

District Wide - Feather 

River Ranger District.

Feather River Hawkeye Tunnel Mining 

Plan of Operation

Underground mining 

operation, gravel washing and 

incidental occupancy for 

purpose of minerals extraction.

Howland Flat.

Feather River Lower Middle Fork 

Feather River Water 

Quality Improvement 

Projects

Meadow improvement, stream 

stabilization, and road 

improvments.

Cleghorn Bar Road, 

Boulder Creek.

Feather River South Fork Feather 

River Water Quality

Improvement Projects

Meadow improvement, road 

improvements.

South Fork Feather River.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

494 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Feather River Challenge Work Center 

Invasive Species 

Management Project

This project is designed to 

control non-native invasive 

plant species at the Challenge 

Work Center Administrative 

Site utilizing IPM practices.

Challenge Work Center.

Feather River Golden Trout Crossing 

Camp rehabilitation

The project consists of 

maintenance, rehabilitation, 

modernization and resource 

protection within the footprint 

of an existing developed 

campground.

Campground located 

adjacent the north and 

south banks of the South 

Fork Feather River on 

22N24 Road.

Feather River Little Grass Valley 

Campground 

Restoration

This project involves 

interplanting conifers for forest 

health while providing privacy 

screening within the 

campgrounds.

Little Grass Valley 

Campground - Road 57.

Feather River Little North Fork 

Campground 

rehabilitation

The project consists of 

maintenance, rehabilitation, 

modernization and resource 

protections within the footprint 

of an existing developed 

campground. Dig a vault and 

install a new single seat vault 

toilet.

Little North Fork 

campground.

Feather River Milsap Bar Campground 

Rehabilitation

The project consists of 

maintenance, rehabilitation, 

modernization and resource 

protection within the footprint 

of an existing developed 

campground.

Milsap Bar campground.

Feather Rive Rogers Cow Camp 

Rehabilitation

The project consists of 

maintenance, rehabilitation, 

modernization and resource 

protection within the footprint 

of an existing developed 

campground.

Campground located 

adjacent Merrimac site off 

Oro-Quincy Hwy.

Mount Hough Empire Vegetation 

Management Project

Construction of a Defensible 

Fuel Profile Zone, Group 

Selections, and Individual Tree 

Selection. May involve 

temporary road construction, 

road reconstruction, and road 

closure/decommissioning.

North of Quincy, 

California.

Mount Hough Meadow Valley 

Defensible Fuel Profile 

Zone and Group 

Selection

Construction of a Defensible 

Fuel Profile Zone and Group 

Selections. May include 

temporary road construction 

and road decommissioning.

Surrounding the 

community of Meadow 

Valley, CA.

Mount Hough Canyon Dam Fuel 

Treatment Project

Mechanical/Hand Thinning 

and underburning to treat 

fuels.

Canyon Dam area.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 495

District Project Name Project Description Location

Mount Hough American Valley 

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction Project

Hand-thinning, piling and 

burning, mastication, and 

underburning to reduce 

hazardous fuels on 

approximately 346 acres of 

public land adjacent to private 

lands within the WUI around 

Quincy, CA.

East and South of 

American Valley and the 

community of East 

Quincy.

Mount Hough Webber's Milkvetch 

(Astragalus webberi) 

Habitat Enhancement 

Project Phase II

The project will treat 

approximately 15.75 acres of 

US Forest Service land using 

a combination of hand 

thinning, piling, pile burning, 

and underburning to enhance 

Webber's Milkvetch habitat.

Northwest of Quincy, CA 

adjacent to State Highway 

70 near Virgilia.

Mount Hough Bucks Fen Vegetation 

Regeneration Project

This project is proposed to 

install an exclosure around the 

Bucks fen and install log 

structure check dams within 

the exclosure in order to 

reduce or eliminate the flow 

channel out of the fen.

The Bucks Fen is within 

the Bucks Lake 

Wilderness adjacent to 

right hand Salt Rock 

Creek.

Mount Hough Snake Lake Meadow 

Thinning

13 acres of small conifer (less 

than or equal to 8 inches DBH) 

removal within grassy 

openings and shoreline at the 

east end of Snake Lake with 

the objective to retain meadow 

openings and edge.

East side of Snake Lake, 

Plumas County, California.

Mount Hough Copper Penny & Two 

Penny mining Plan of 

Operation

Mining Plan of Operation for 

placer mining and mining 

related activities along Lights 

Creek, on the Mt. Hough 

Ranger District.

On or near Lights Creek, 

on the Mt. Hough Ranger 

District; the nearest town 

is Greenville.

Mount Hough Abandoned Mine 

Closures

District-wide abandoned mine 

closures.

Mt. Hough Ranger District.

Mount Hough Advanced Geologic 

Placer Exploration

Proposed project is for six (6) 

separate Plans of Operation 

for six separate areas of placer 

mining exploration. Proponent 

would utilize a backhoe to dig 

trenches, remove material and 

process through a trommel 

using water from the creek.

Wolf Creek (2 sites), 

Forman's Ravine (2 sites), 

Cooks Creek, Rush 

Creek.

Mount Hough Dutch Hill Placer 

Exploration

Plan of Operations has been 

submitted to dig 20 test 

trenches in the Dutch Hill area. 

Material will be processed 

through a trommel using water 

from the creek. Proposal 

would involve maintenence of 

a short piece of existing road.

Dutch Hill Placer claim, 

north of Seneca.

Mount Hough Dutch Hill Tunnel This proposal would allow 

Dennis Scott (owner) and 

James Moffat (operator) to 

conduct underground placer 

mining on the Boomerang 

claim.

Along the 26N42Y road, 

Barker Gulch, Seneca, 

CA.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

496 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Mount Hough Pioneer Drift and 

Caribou Amend

Reissue a mining plan of 

operation. Operation would 

involve hand labor in exisiting 

mine tunnels and processing 

of mining material on site.

Near Belden off of 

Caribou Road.

Mount Hough CascadeTrailhead 

Improvements

Improvement of a trailhead for 

a trail commonly known as the 

“Cascade Trail” by local trail 

users. Trailhead improvements 

will include installation of a 

vault toilet restroom building, 

developing a parking area, and 

developing accessible parking.

Cascade Trailhead, near 

Quincy, CA.

Mount Hough Greenville Campground 

Trail Reconstruction 

Project

Trail reconstruction activities in 

two locations within and 

directly adjacent to the 

Greenville Campground to 

provide permanent sloped 

pedestrian access to a portion 

of Greenville Campground and 

Wolf Creek.

Within and adjacent to 

Greenville Campground 

and Wolf Creek in 

Greenville, CA.

Mount Hough UC Berkeley Forestry 

Camp Permit 

Amendment

Amendment to realign 200 feet 

of road and widening of the 

existing road within permit 

boundary to provide better 

access. Road project activities 

will require felling of 25 trees 

from 4-25 inches in diameter.

UC Berkeley Forestry 

Camp, Meadow Valley, 

CA.

Mount Hough Moonlight Road 

Relocation Project

The proposal is to relocate 

Forest Service Road 28N03 to 

a stable location. A landslide 

blocked access and indicates 

that the existing road location 

is on an unstable slope. To 

prevent further erosion, the 

existing road will be 

decommissioned.

The project is located 

about 10 miles north of 

Taylorsville, California on 

Forest Service Road 

28N03.

Mount Hough Rapala Ridge Road 

Construction Project

A 500 ft. road segment would 

be constructed on Forest 

Service land in order to 

provide access to SoperWheeler Company land.

The road segment would 

be constructed at the end 

of 24N26A Road south of 

Thompson Valley.

Mount Hough Moonlight Project 

Amendment

Amendment to current mining 

Plan of Operation for the 

Moonlight Project. American 

Sheffield Inc.has proposed to 

conduct approximately 6,000 

feet of additional exploratory 

drilling.

Proposed operations are 

in the area of Moonlight 

Valley.

Mount Hough Plan of Operation -

Dredger's Delight and 

High Grade Placer 

Claims

Approval of a plan of operation 

for placer mining activities 

which include suction redging, 

sluicing, and panning on 

Thompson Creek. Trail 

improvement and minor 

construction are required for 

access to mining operations.

Near Quincy on La Porte -

Quincy Highway, on 

Thompson Creek.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 497

District Project Name Project Description Location

Mount Hough Plan of Operation - El 

Rico Mining Claim

Extension of previously 

authorized Plan of Operation 

for one year.

2 miles outside of 

Greenville off of Wolf 

Creek Road.

Mount Hough Guzzler Installation 

Project

Install 4 guzzlers as a 

partnership between the 

USFS, Mule Deer Foundation, 

and National Wild Turkey 

Federation.

Johnson Hill, Massack, 

and Will Fire areas.

Mount Hough Corridor Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) Fuels 

Reduction Project

Reduce fuels within Quincy 

Wildland Urban Interface on 

approximately 550 acres 

through mechanical removal of 

biomass and merchantable 

material, under burning, 

mastication of brush, hand 

thinning, piling, and pile 

burning.

The project is located 

adjacent to the community 

of Quincy within the 1⁄4 

mile WUI of Chandler 

Road and Highway 89.

Mount Hough Hungarian Timber Stand 

Improvement Project

Mastication of small trees 

within these plantations would 

reduce stand density, thereby 

improving growth and vigor

of residual trees and 

enhancing the development of 

existing plantations into 

mature stands.

2 miles west of Quincy, 

CA.

Mount Hough Genesee Wildland 

Urban Interface (WUI) 

Fuels Reduction and 

Black Oak 

Enhancement Project

Reduce the amount of 

hazardous fuels and remove 

conifers which are 

encroaching and overtopping 

large diameter residual oak 

trees on approximately 130 

acres of Federal System land.

Approximately 3 miles 

northeast of the Genesee.

Mount Hough Genessee Valley Forest 

Rehabilitation Project

A Resource Advisory 

Committee (RAC) project on 

private land including: 

underburning on 80 acres, 

revegetation of native species 

on 80 acres, thinning and 

removal of live and dead trees 

up to 12” dbh to provide 

continuity of fuel reduction 

projects.

Private land off of 

Beckwourth Genessee 

road in Genesee Valley 

adjacent to NFS land.

Mount Hough Silver Fire Fuel 

Reduction Project

This project would reduce 

small fuels by hand thinning, 

piling and burning, modify 

small fuels by hand thinning, 

lopping and scattering, and 

provide opportunity for 

firewood gathering in 

designated areas within the 

area burned by the Silver Fire.

The Silver Fire burned 

approximately 307 acres, 

west of Meadow Valley, 

CA and can be accessed 

by NFS road 24N30A.

Mount Hough Keddie Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction Project

Construction of fuelbreaks 

known as Defensible Fuel 

Profile Zones, thinning and 

group selection harvests, road 

improvements, and noxious 

weed treatments.

Keddie Project is within 

the vicinity of Keddie 

Ridge, Round Valley 

Reservoir, and Mt. Jura. 

Communities within 

include Greenville, 

Crescent Mills, and 

Taylorsville, California.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

498 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Mount Hough Moonlight and Wheeler 

Fires Recovery and 

Restoration Project

Harvest dead trees utilizing 

ground-based, skyline, and 

helicopter logging systems. 

Construct about 25 miles of 

temporary roads to access the 

treatment units. Include 

reforestation on approximately 

17,000 acres.

The project area is located 

northeast of Greenville 

and north of Taylorsville in 

the Lights Creek and 

surrounding drainages.

Mount Hough 2009 Moonlight Fire 

Reforestation Project

Re-establish forested 

conditions within areas that 

burned with high vegetation 

burn severity through 

reforestation and cultural 

treatments.

2 to 11 miles northwest of 

Antelope Lake.

Mount Hough Rich Fire Recovery 

Project

Allow for economic recovery of 

fire-killed timber (Rich Fire), 

reduce hazardous fuels within 

the Twain Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) over the long 

term, and plant native 

seedlings to re-establish 

forested conditions.

Rich Gulch along Highway 

70 and Plumas County 

Road 317.

Mount Hough McFarland Ravine Drift 

Fence Project

This project would build a two 

mile drift fence to keep cows 

within the Bear Creek 

Allotment.

The two mile drift fence 

would be constructed 

within the Bear Creek 

Allotment.

Mount Hough Upper Indian Creek 

Water Quality 

Improvement Projects

Stream channel stabilization 

and road improvements.

Upper Indian Creek 

watershed, Roads 

27N25Y, 27N19Y, 

27N20Y, 27N22Y, 29N43.

Mount Hough Black Gulch Stream 

Stabilization Project

Stabilize the crossing of NFS 

road 25N95 at Black Gulch 

where the culvert is resulting in 

excessive erosion and 

obstructing aquatic organism 

passage. Actions include 

culvert removal, placement of 

large rock, and revegeation 

with riparian species.

Crossing of NFS road 

25N95 at Black Gulch.

Mount Hough Greenhorn Creek 

Restoration Project

A RAC project proposed to 

restore trout populations and 

bank stability to Greenhorn 

Creek in American Valley. Fish 

passage and bank stabilization 

improvements would be made 

in six locations along 

Greenhorn Creek.

The project area 

encompasses private 

lands and NFS land along 

Greenhorn Creek in 

American Valley.

Mount Hough Wildcat/Boulder 

Restoration Project

Stabilize stream bed, improve 

aquatic species passage, and 

reduce sediment transport 

rates.

Boulder Creek and 

Thompson Creek, north of 

Antelope Lake.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 499

Table 182. Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) on Adjacent 

Private Lands

District Project Name Project Description Location

Beckwourth

Pacific PeninsulaWhitehawk Sub THP 25 acres THP

T21N R13E Sec 5

T22N R13E Sec 32

Beckwourth Poplar THP 343 acres THP T22N R11E Sec 10,14,15

Beckwourth

Feather River Inn THP

Smith Creek THP 648 acres THP T22N R12E Sec 9, 17, 20

Beckwourth

Tan Tau Ranch THP

Woodbridge THP 468 acres THP T22N R13E Sec 29,30

Beckwourth

South Lava THP

Sloat THP 1,284 acres THP

T23N R11E Sec 5,6,16

T24N R12E Sec 25,29-

32,36

Beckwourth Hungry Creek THP 159 acres THP T26N R12E Sefc 6,7,8

Beckwourth Cradle Valley THP 94 acres THP T27N R13E Sec 3

Beckwourth Heisey THP 156 acres THP T28N R13E Sec 27

Beckwourth

THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.21 acre Conversion T22N R11E Sec 24

Beckwourth

THP Conversion 

Exemption 5.05 acres THP Conversion

T22N R12E Sec 

15,16,22,25

Beckwourth

THP Conversion 

Exemption 4.74 acres THP Conversion T22N R13E Sec 1,32

Beckwourth

THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.5 acres THP Conversion T23N R11E Sec 13

Beckwourth

THP Conversion 

Exemption 1.65 acres THP Conversion T23N R13E Sec 12,36

Beckwourth

THP Conversion 

Exemption 9.96 acres THP Conversion T23N R14E Sec 16,17,21

Beckwourth THP Conversion 

Exemption 1 acres THP Conversion

T24N R11E Sec 33

Beckwourth

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.4 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T21N R13E Sec 33

Beckwourth

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.5 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T22N R12E Sec 33

Beckwourth

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.3 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T24N R11E Sec 33

Beckwourth THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 5 acres THP

T21-24N R10-14E Various 

Sec 

Beckwourth THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 80 acres THP

T22N R12E Sec 12-14,23-

25

Beckwourth THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 0.5 acres THP

T22N R13E Sec 30

Beckwourth THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 33 acres THP

T23N R12E Sec 32

Beckwourth THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 2 acres THP

T23N R13E Sec 12

Beckwourth THP Dead, Fuelwood 0.1 acres Salvage THP T23N R13E Sec 36

Beckwourth THP Dead, Fuelwood 20 acres Salvage THP T28?N R12E Sec 36

Beckwourth THP Dead, Fuelwood 134 acres Salvage THP T28N R13E Sec 21,22,27

Beckwourth THP Fire Prevention 230 acres THP T22N R13E Sec 20,21
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

500 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Mt Hough

Poplar Valley 2 THP 528 acres THP

T23N R11E Sec 

20,21,28,29

Mt Hough Bucks THP

Norton THP 594 acres THP

T23N R7E Sec 1,2,3,10

Mt Hough Rocky THP 637 acres THP T23N R9E Sec 16

Mt Hough

Chandler THP 71 acres THP

T24N R9E Sec 2

T25N R9E Sec 35

Mt Hough Rapala Ridge THP 385 acres THP T24N R10E Sec 27,28

Mt Hough Williams THP 382 acres THP T24N R11E Sec 7,8,17-20

Mt Hough Middle Ridge THP 1,538 acres THP T24N R8&9E Various Sec

Mt Hough Baker Forest 2006 THP

Meadow Valley THP 500 acres THP

T24N R8E Sec 

10,11,14,15,22,26,27

Mt Hough Boyle Ravine THP 15 acres THP T24N R9E Sec 23

Mt Hough

Soda Creek THP 640 acres THP

T25N R9E Sec 6

T26N R9E Sec 31

Mt Hough 12 Meadows THP

Lehr THP 71 acres THP

T25N R8E Sec6,7,22,23

Mt Hough

Watertrough THP 3,662 acres THP

T26&27N R8&9E Various 

Sec

Mt Hough

Greenview THP

Greenville Red River 

THP 1,392 acres THP

T26N R9E Sec 

3,5,8,10,11,14,36

T27N R10E Sec 31,32

T27N R9E Sec 33,34,36

Mt Hough Humbug THP 1,237 acres THP T26N R7E Sec 4,5,7,8

Mt Hough Red Rock THP

Fant THP 3,195 acres THP

T27&28N R11&12E 

Various Sec

Mt Hough

Clearview THP 1,524 acres THP

T27N R8E Sec 

1,2,3,22,23,26,27

T28N R8E Sec 34,35

Mt Hough

Indicator THP 618 acres THP

T27N R10E Sec 3,10

T28N R10E Sec 15-35

Mt Hough Wilcox Valley THP 15 acres THP T27N R11E Sec 23

Mt Hough Ohio Valley THP 640 acres THP T27N R7E Sec 36

Mt Hough Hauns Creek THP 2,568 acres THP T27N R8&9E Various Sec

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.29 acres THP Conversion T22N R11E Sec 24

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 2.21 acres THP Conversion

T24N R10E Sec 19,20

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.5 acres THP Conversion

T24N R11E Sec 33

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.5 acres THP Conversion

T24N R11E Sec 33

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.5 acres THP Conversion

T24N R8E Sec 22

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.85 acres THP Conversion

T24N R9E Sec 2

Mt Hough THP Conversion 

Exemption 0.85 acres THP Conversion

T28N R71E Sec 7,36
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 501

District Project Name Project Description Location

Mt Hough THP Fire Hazard Trees 3 acres Hazard Tree Removal T24N R8E Sec 14,23

Mt Hough

THP Fire Hazard Trees

1.5 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T24N R9E Sec 23

Mt Hough THP Fire Hazard Trees 5 acres Hazard Tree Removal T26N R9E Sec 3,4

Mt Hough

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.5 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T27N R7E Sec 1

Mt Hough THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 20 acres THP

T23N R11E Sec 6

T24N R11E Sec 31

Mt Hough THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 5 acres THP

T23N R7E Sec 3

Mt Hough THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 5 acres THP

T24N R10E Sec 7,18

Mt Hough THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 155 acres THP

T24N R11E Sec 27-34

Mt Hough THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 2.6 acres THP

T24N R9E Sec 10,13,15

Mt Hough THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 1 acres THP

T27N R9E Sec 33

Mt Hough THP Emergency 

Operations 280 acres Salvage THP

T27N R11E Sec 1,2,12

Mt Hough THP Emergency 

Operations 130 acres Salvage THP

T28N R11E Sec 28,29

Mt Hough

THP Dead, Fuelwood 1,013 acres Salvage THP

T26N R9E Sec 4

T26N R10E Sec 35,36

T27N R9E Sec 25

T27N R10E Sec 30,31

T27N R11E Sec 34,35

Mt Hough THP Dead, Fuelwood 44,044 acres Salvage THP Various

Mt Hough THP Dead, Fuelwood 0.5 acres Salvage THP T26N R10E Sec 9,13

Mt Hough THP Dead, Fuelwood 15 acres Salvage THP T27N R10E Sec 13,24

Mt Hough THP Dead, Fuelwood 20 acres Salvage THP T27N R11E Sec 30

Mt Hough THP Dead, Fuelwood 0.5 acres Salvage THP T28N R7E Sec 25

Mt Hough THP Dead, Fuelwood 107,381 acres Salvage THP Various 

Mt Hough

THP Slash Removal

95 acres woody debris and 

slash removal THP

T24N R10E Sec 

20,21,27,28

Mt Hough THP Fire Prevention 25.5 acres THP T24N R11E Sec 33

Mt Hough THP Fire Prevention 6 acres THP T26N R9E Sec 10

Mt Hough

THP Damaged Timber 

(Unmerchantable) 693 acres THP

T27N R11E Sec 35,36

T27N R12E Sec 1,31

T28N R11E Sec 6,36

T28N R12E Sec 6

Mt Hough THP Damaged Timber 

(Unmerchantable) 190 acres THP

T27N R11E Sec 1,12

Mt Hough THP Damaged Timber 

(Unmerchantable) 200 acres THP

T27N R11E Sec1,2

Mt Hough Hungry Creek TMP 160 acres NTMP T26N R12E Sec 6,7,8

Mt Hough Indian Valley Forests 

THP 535 acres NTMP

T26N R9E Sec 12,13
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

502 – Plumas National Forest

District Project Name Project Description Location

Feather River Indian Ranch Road THP

Ingersoll THP

Thompson THP 767 acres THP

T18N R7E Sec 5,7,28,34

Feather River Woodleaf THP

A & B THP

Howard THP

Knox THP

Prater 2 THP 1,032 acres THP

T19N R7E Sec 

2,5,10,18,32

T20N R7E Sec 33

Feather River Frey THP

Midfall THP 598 acres THP

T20&21N R6&7E Various

Sec

Feather River

Harrison Ridge THP 1,001 acres THP

T20N R8E Sec 34,35

T21N R8E Sec 1-4,9,10

Feather River Soper Office THP

Camp Paradise THP

Jackass Flat THP

Big Oak 2 THP

Old Office THP 1,918 acres THP

T20N R7E Sec 13,23-

26,35,36

T20N R8E Sec 19,20,24-

26,29,31

Feather River Stanwood Junction 

House THP

Freds 7 Acres THP 300 acres THP

T21N R6E Sec 7,27

T22N R6E Sec 16,22

Feather River Sullivan N Bald Rock 

THP

Hard N Bald Rock THP 101 acres THP

T21N R5E Sec 25,36

Feather River

Rack THP

Wyles THP 414 acres THP

T22N R8E Sec 

16,17,22,23,26,27,29,30,3

2

Feather River Duffy Dome THP 401 acres THP T23N R6E Sec 16

Feather River Evers THP 40 acres THP T24N R4E Sec 8

Feather River THP Conversion 

Exemption 1 acres THP Conversion

T20N R5E Sec 2

Feather River THP Conversion 

Exemption 1.53 acres THP Conversion

T21N R5E Sec 35

Feather River THP Conversion 

Exemption 4.4 acres THP Conversion

T23N R3E Sec 11,27

Feather River

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.5 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T19N R6E Sec 11

Feather River

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.25 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T21N R9E Sec 4

Feather River

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.25 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T22N R3E Sec 15

Feather River

THP Fire Hazard Trees

0.5 acres Hazard Tree 

Removal

T23E R3E 1

Feather River THP Public Agency, 

Uitility Exemption 1 acres THP

T19N R7E Sec 9

Feather River THP Emergency 

Operations 370 acres Salvage THP

T21N R7E Sec 30

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 6,771 acres Salvage THP

T17-20N R6-8E Various 

Sec 

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 3,666 acres Salvage THP

T18&19N R6&7E Sec 

5,6,8,15,22,23,25,27,35,3

6,29,31
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 503

District Project Name Project Description Location

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 132 acres Salvage THP

T19&20N R6&8E Sec 

21,25,26

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 3,046 acres Salvage THP

T19&20N R7E Sec 1,9-

11,14,15,20,28,36

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 815 acres Salvage THP

T19N R6E Sec 4,9-

11,16,20

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 764 acres Salvage THP

T19N R7E Sec 

13,23,24,26

Feather River THP Dead, Fuelwood 40 acres Salvage THP T19N R9E Sec 21,22

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 3,712 acres Salvage THP

T20-22N R4-6E Sec 

30,7,6,1,11,13,14,7,22,27,

9

Feather River THP Dead, Fuelwood 26,999 acres Salvage THP T20&21N R6-8E Sec 1-35

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 12,632 acres Salvage THP

T20&21N R7&8E Sec 1-

4,9-15,21-30,30-33,35

Feather River THP Dead, Fuelwood 1,590 acres Salvage THP T20N R9E Sec 4-9,16-20

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 1,474 acres Salvage THP

T21&22N R4-6E Sec 

19,24,34,27

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 14,314 acres Salvage THP

T21&22N R7&8E Sec 1-

20,22-24,26-35

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 4,457acres Salvage THP

T21&22N R9&10E Sec 1-

6,8-10,16,23-27,30,32,34-

36

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 1,474 acres Salvage THP

T21&22N R4-6E 

VariousSec 

Feather River THP Dead, Fuelwood 17.5 acres Salvage THP T21N R5E Sec 27

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 1,612 acres Salvage THP

T21N R8&9E Sec 

13,18,20,23-26,30,31

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 966 acres Salvage THP

T22N R9E Sec 

11,14,15,22,23

Feather River THP Dead, Fuelwood 640 acres Salvage THP T23N R6E Sec 16

Feather River THP Dead, Fuelwood 304 acres Salvage THP T23N R7E Sec 16

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 960 acres Salvage THP

T23N R9E Sec 

25,26,35,36

T23N R10E Sec 30,31

Feather River

THP Dead, Fuelwood 1,600 acres Salvage THP

T24N R5E Sec 3,9-11,13-

16,22-28,34-36

Feather River THP Fire Prevention 88 acres THP T21N R9E Sec 4

Forest Wide

THP Dead, Fuelwood 557 acres Salvage THP

T21&23N R9&11E Sec 

1,3,5,6,16,31

Forest Wide

THP Dead, Fuelwood 12,918.5 acres Salvage THP

T22-25N R8-12E Sec 1-

4,6,7,10-15,17-

30,32,33,35,36

Forest Wide THP Dead, Fuelwood 20,708 acres Salvage THP Various
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

504 – Plumas National Forest

Forest Wide THP SUMMARY THP TYPE ACRES

THPs 30,755.7

Conversions 37.9

Fire Hazard Removal 12.7

Public Agency, Utility 310.1

Emergency Operations 780

Dead, Fuelwood 274,797.1

Other Exemptions 1,527.5

TOTAL 308,221
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 505

Appendix D: Society, Culture, and Economy

Introduction

The Plumas National Forest is located in portions of five northern California counties: Plumas, Butte, 

Sierra, Lassen and Yuba. Table 183 reports the total county size in acres and the proportion of land 

base within these counties managed by the Plumas National Forest. Because of the Forest’s 

geographic proximity to Nevada, Washoe County is also important to local residents in terms of 

socio-economics. Cities and towns in Washoe County are a critical source of goods and services for 

residents living in this portion of northeastern California, and conversely, residents of Washoe County

frequent National Forest lands managed by the Plumas for recreational and other activities. For 

purposes of this analysis, Washoe County is therefore considered part of the Plumas National Forest’s 

area of influence.

Table 183. Acres of Plumas National Forest Lands, by County

County Total Acres Plumas NF Acres 1 Percent of County 2

Plumas 1,672,320 1,000,260 60%

Butte 1,073,280 84,040 8%

Sierra 615,680 40,008 6%

Lassen 3,020,800 29,303 1%

Yuba 412,160 22,394 5%

1 Total acres calculated as total square miles in the county multiplied by 640 acres per square mile. Total square miles 

reported in http://en.wikipedia.org.

2

In comparison to some of the more urban counties of California, the Plumas Study Area is very 

rural. Thus, interactions between the Forest and local communities are likely to be very important for 

the social and economic well-being of the area. Three of the California counties (Plumas, Sierra and 

Lassen) are very different in terms of proximity to the Forest land base, demographics, economic base 

and tax structure when compared to the other two California counties (Butte, and Yuba) and the 

Nevada county (Washoe). This study looks at the 5 counties with Plumas National Forest acreage as 

the main influence on recreation with the knowledge that other counties in California and Nevada 

impact recreation on the Plumas NF.

Source: USDA Forest Service FS-383, January 2008

Population and Demographics

Historical Background

Archaeological and historical data indicate that people have lived in the geographic region of the 

Plumas National Forest (PNF) for thousands of years (See Cultural Resources, Chapter 3).

Today, people in the region derive their livelihood in diverse ways. Many American Indian 

families descended from the original inhabitants of the area still occupy the region. Ranching is still 

important to local communities, and many of the ranching families have historic ties to the area. 

National Forest lands are utilized primarily for logging and recreation. The Forest also issues permits 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

506 – Plumas National Forest

for mining, grazing, firewood cutting and other special uses. Hydroelectric, geothermal and wind 

power utilization and exploration are also occurring on the Forest.

Current Population and Growth Trends

Population, age and racial distributions of county residents are important socioeconomic 

considerations in land management planning. The following sections highlight demographic trends in 

the five county study areas. Population forecasts provide a projection of future population levels, 

which may help to indicate whether there is potential for increased demand on Forest resources. Age 

distributions provide insight into the socio-economic dynamic of the local area, and allow for an 

assessment of the proportion of individuals in the working age group versus retirees and minors who 

typically use local services in different ways. Similarly, the racial composition of residents has 

potential to affect natural and cultural resource uses of public lands.

Population

The following section highlights trends and considerations of the Plumas NF 5 County Aggregation.

Population projections predict what the population levels may be in the future. As mentioned, these 

numbers help to indicate whether there is the potential for increased pressure on Forest resources. For 

example, future population increases may change travel management patterns, and interest in 

recreational opportunities. Population increases may also lead to conflicts over natural resources such 

as water, timber, and minerals. In short, land managers may have to contend with changing societal 

interests, demands and economics in order to balance land use and resource management objectives.

The figure below reports the population in the Plumas NF 5 County Aggregation 1970 to 2006. In 

recent years, populations have remained relatively stable: Plumas, Sierra and Lassen Counties have 

experienced minimal population growth, while Butte and Yuba Counties have had slow, but steady,

growth since 1970. There have been no sharp increases or decreases in population to suggest 

significant changes in the economic or social structure of the counties.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 507

Figure 9. Population Estimates 1 and Projections 2 for Plumas National Forest Study Area Counties

Some rural areas in California have seen substantial population growth in recent years due to the 

attraction of nearby natural resources. Many retirees have left more congested areas to be closer to the 

visual and recreational amenities offered by National Forest System (NFS) lands. In the case of the 

Plumas National Forest, nearby counties have been experiencing slow growth. This is likely due to 

the remoteness of the area and immense distance from urban centers. Furthermore, retirees often 

require medical services not readily available in Plumas County, which could be a contributing factor 

in slower population growth in that County.

Age Distribution of the Population

The age distribution of the local population can have various influences over the demands for, and 

participation in, activities on national Forests. Different age groups are likely to gravitate toward 

different natural resource-based activities. The median age in each county of this region is higher than 

the median age for California (see table below). This suggests that residents in the Plumas National

Forest study area are older than residents in more urban areas of California. This is likely due to 

inadequate job opportunities to draw a younger demographic.

Table 184. Median Age by State and 5 county Aggregation (Source: US Census 2000)

Area Median Age

State of California 33.3

5 County Aggregation 35.6

In terms of the distribution of age groups, all counties in the Plumas National Forest study area 

are predominantly middle aged. The table below reports the age distribution for the 5 county 

aggregation. Most individuals lie within the under 20-year old age group, suggesting that the majority 

Population Trends

306,111

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003

Thousands of People
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

508 – Plumas National Forest

of residents in the study area are of school age and do not support themselves. Those areas with an 

older population typically have a higher percentage of retirees, and are thus less dependent on local 

employment conditions due to the influence of transfer payments from outside the local region.

Plumas and Sierra Counties have a substantial proportion of individuals over the age of 65, more so 

than State of California as a whole.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 509

Table 185. Age and Gender Distribution by 5 county Aggregation

Total Under 20 years 40 - 54 (Baby 

Boom in 2000)

65 years and 

over

Median 

Age

Density 

(Pop. 

per sq. 

mi.) Number Number Share Number Share Number Share

Total Population

2000 287,769 83,513 29% 58,654 20% 42,820 15% 35.6 50 

1990 263,405 75,855 29% 40,787 15% 41,522 16% 33.1 46 

10 Yr. 

Change

+24,364 +7,658 0% +17,867 +5% +1,298 -1% +2.5 +4 

10 Yr. % 

Change

+9% +10% +44% +3% +8% +9%

2000 Gender

Male 142,090 43,057 30% 28,759 20% 18,535 13% 33.7 

Female 145,679 40,456 28% 29,895 21% 24,285 17% 37.3 

Male/Female 

Split

49%/51% 52%/48% 49%/51% 43%/57%

Ethnicity

The following table reports the racial distribution percentages for the five-county analysis area and 

the state of California. The vast majority of residents around the Plumas National Forest are 

Caucasian. This is a very different ethnic composition than the state average for California. At the 

county level, all counties have a higher percentage of Caucasian residents than the state on a whole. 

Of the five counties, Yuba is the most ethnically diverse with nearly 35 percent of the population 

being something other than Caucasian.

Table 186. Racial Percentages of Total Population by County and State, Census 2000

Area Total 

Population

White Black/ 

AfricanAmerican

Am. Ind. 

& 

Alaska 

Native

Asian/ 

Pacific 

Islander

Other 

Race

Hispanic 

Origin (of any 

race)

California

1

33,871,648 46.7 6.4 0.5 11.1 2.9 32.4

Plumas 20,824 88.7 0.6 2.1 0.6 2.3 5.7

Butte 203,171 80.0 1.3 1.6 3.4 3.1 10.5

Sierra 3,555 90.3 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.7 5.9

Lassen 33,828 70.6 8.8 2.8 1.1 2.8 13.9

Yuba 60,219 65.3 3.0 2.2 7.6 4.6 17.3

Source: US Census 2000

1 People of Hispanic origin may identify with any race (http://www.census.gov/population/ www/socdemo/compraceho.html). 

Because of this, summing the ethnic distribution in an area often results in a sum of greater than 100%; this is the case in this 

table.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

510 – Plumas National Forest

American Indian Rights and Interests: Affected Environment

Laws Pertaining to American Indian Tribes

Laws pertaining to the rights of federally-recognized American Indian tribes acknowledge that these 

tribes have specific rights and interests, many unlike those accorded to other governments. An 

important distinction in U.S. law is that federally-recognized tribes are not a special interest group: 

they are sovereign governments distinct from Federal and state governments. This legal standing 

confers government-to-government relations between the Federal Government and each federallyrecognized tribe. Powers that Federal laws do not expressly limit remain inherent powers of 

individual tribes. Reservations, Rancherias, and Indian colonies all make up “Indian Country” as 

defined in the 1948 Indian Country Statute. American Indian governments have jurisdiction and 

authority over resources on Indian Country lands. On lands outside Indian Country, rights reserved 

for tribal governments may include: hunting and fishing; traditional natural resources gathering for 

plants, mushrooms and minerals; and water rights.

Federal policy for tribes emphasizes self-determination and government-to-government 

relationships. The table below lists major laws that shape how the Federal Government supports tribal 

self-determination interests and government-to-government consultation. In addition, a long tradition 

of case law has defined reserved rights for American Indians, including water rights and the trust 

responsibilities of the Federal Government, among others (Getches et al. 1998).

Table 187. Federal Laws Relevant to American Indian Concerns Regarding National Forest Management

Law Purpose

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Requires consideration of effects on cultural values and 

diversity.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as 

amended in 1994

Protects Indian religious practices and access to sacred 

sites.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Coordinates with Indian tribes to inventory, plan, and 

manage resources of value to tribes.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1976 Accounts for impacts of management on prehistoric and 

historic sites.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended in 1992

Protects archeological resources and requires that 

affected tribes be notified if archeological studies might 

harm or destroy culturally or spiritually important sites.

American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990

Requires consultation with tribes about disposition of 

American Indian remains, funerary objects, and other 

cultural relics.

American Indian groups exert influences at national, regional, and local levels. For this 

Environmental Impact Statement, their influence is most pronounced at the local level. There are 

seven Indian tribes and communities residing in or near the Plumas National Forest. Indian people 

make up approximately 3.8 percent of the total population within the Plumas National Forest region. 

This is high compared to the statewide average, which is 0.5 percent. The Forest Service consults 

with Federally recognized tribes, non-recognized tribes, organizations, and individuals to comply 

with the laws displayed in the table above.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 511

American Indians and the Plumas National Forest

The seven federally-recognized tribes of concern for this analysis are as follows (the tribes of origin 

for each separate entity are stated in parentheses):

1. Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria (Maidu)

2. Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria (Maidu)

3. Greenville Rancheria (Maidu)

4. Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria (Maidu)

5. Susanville Indian Rancheria (Mountain Maidu, Pit River, Paiute, and Washoe)

6. Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria (Maidu)

7. Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

Importance of National Forest Lands and Resources to American Indian People

Contemporary American Indian uses of the Forest include, but are not limited to, cultural events,

religious ceremonies, food gathering, and collection of medicinal plants and basketry materials 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/Plumas /about/Plumas-history).

There are several known Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) on the Forest. TCPs are places 

that are critical to the continuation of the cultural traditions, beliefs, practices, life ways, arts, crafts, 

and social institutions of tribal communities. For example, a TCP may be a location associated with 

the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature 

of the world. Only one TCP on the Forest is listed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Many more are known to exist, however, and may be nominated to the NRHP in the future (see 

NRHP Bulletin 38 www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins.htm for additional information).

While not specifically identified as TCPs, there are a number of sites on the Forest used for traditional 

ceremonies.

The Plumas National Forest also provides a variety of food resources that are vital to modern 

Indian communities. For example, acorns, berries, bulbs, and many other food sources are located on 

public lands. It is believed that such foods help to regulate health conditions for American Indians. As 

tribal people have been forced to abandon their traditional life ways, many negative health 

consequences have resulted including development of chronic conditions like diabetes and high blood 

pressure. Rancherias in the study area tend to be very small, with little in the way of natural resources. 

Access to public lands, and the resources managed by the Forest is an important issues to Tribes in 

the region.

Environmental Consequences for American Indian Population

Tribes are likely to continue to use Forest resources for the reasons discussed above. The ability to 

access and utilize Forest resources is clearly important to continuation of traditional life ways. Please 

see the Environmental Justice section below for further discussion.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

512 – Plumas National Forest

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

USDA civil rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, 

actions, or decisions that will affect federally-conducted and federally-assisted programs and 

activities. A Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) facilitates the identification of the effects of 

eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may 

adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their 

membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons 

who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetics, 

political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. 

Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. 

However, some groups could be impacted more than others. This assessment addresses such 

concerns.

Public Involvement and Scoping 

Public involvement concerning the proposed project began with travel analysis that focused on the 

identification of unauthorized routes and assessing the effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized 

travel on forest users. This initial phase of public involvement began during the summer and fall of 

2004, when an independent contractor reviewed and mapped routes and areas used by OHVs on the 

Forest. During 2004 and 2005, the Forest also sought route information from the public and validated 

route locations and mapped them. On May 14, 2005, the Forest provided on-the-ground training for 

the public to locate and map their favorite riding areas so they could effectively provide that 

information to the Forest Service. 

In December 2006, public meetings were held in Oroville, Portola, and Quincy explaining the 

temporary Forest Order (effective December 31, 2006) that restricted OHV use to mapped roads, 

trails and areas.

In the spring of 2007, a series of three public meetings and three workshops were conducted to 

identify which of the routes and areas should become part of the proposed action, the type of use that 

each would have, and locations to be considered for dispersed recreation use per the new Travel 

Management Rule. The concept of “mixed use” was also introduced during these meetings. At the 

first session of the two-part series, public meetings were held in Quincy (April 17) Portola (April 18), 

and Oroville (April 19). At the second set of workshops, individuals worked with Forest Service 

specialists to identify important routes. These meetings were held in Blairsden (May 2), Quincy (May 

3) and Oroville (May 10). Groups shared their ideas and their various concerns. Roughly 300 people 

participated in these workshops. In early 2007, an e-mail update was issued sharing information on 

the meetings and the outcome. The Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team took this information and 

developed the proposed action for the NOI. The proposed action was designed to include as many 

routes as possible that were requested by the public, including some with known or suspected 

resource impacts.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 513

Tribal consultation occurred concurrently with other public involvement activities. The project 

was discussed at multiple meetings with Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria, Estom 

Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria, Greenville Rancheria, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico 

Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria, and Washoe 

Tribe of California and Nevada. Letters were sent to the tribes throughout the planning process, as 

well.

Public scoping for this environmental impact statement began with a Notice of Intent published in 

the Federal Register on January 3, 2008. Scoping for the proposal was conducted through March 3, 

2008. Presentations to a variety of groups, phone calls, news releases, website postings and emails 

were used to alert the public of the opportunity to comment on the proposed action. Public meetings 

were held in Blairsden (January 15), in Quincy (January 22) and in Oroville (January 29) to explain 

the Proposed Action. Over 3,300 comments were received. Many were identical emails.

Following four years of work and over 20 public meetings and workshops, the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released for public comment. Interested parties, tribes 

and reviewing agencies were sent a letter on December 18, 2008. The DEIS, maps, and specialist 

reports were posted on the web the same day. Hard copies and/or CDs of the DEIS were sent to tribes 

and reviewing agencies requiring them. Remaining interested and agencies received a summary and 

website location for downloading documents and maps. A followup letter was sent to the same 

mailing list on December 22, 2008 to correct the expected notice of availability date in the original 

letter. The notice of availability was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal 

Register on December 29, which initiated the 45-day comment period. A legal notice was published in 

the Feather River Bulletin on January 7, 2009. The Forest Service received several comments 

requesting an extension to the comment period. The Forest Supervisor decided to extend the comment 

period an additional 30 days. On February 4, 2009, a legal notice explaining the extension was 

published in the Feather River Bulletin. A letter was sent to interested parties and reviewing agencies 

on February 6, 2009. The Forest Tribal Relations Specialist contacted tribal representatives by phone. 

The Environmental Protection Agency published an amended notice in the Federal Register extending 

the comment period on February 13, 2009. A 75-day comment period on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement was completed on March 16, 2009

Concerns and Mitigations Related to Potential Civil Rights Impacts

Through these public involvement efforts and interdisciplinary discussions, several concerns were 

raised and are addressed below:

Impacts on People with Disabilities and the Elderly. Throughout scoping, concerns have been 

raised about the impact of this travel management proposal on people with disabilities and the elderly.

Commenters have asserted that the proposal unfairly discriminates against these groups because they 

are more dependent on motor vehicles to access and enjoy our National Forests.

Comments from people with disabilities and the elderly, including references to specific sites or 

locations, were considered in the development of alternatives. Recreation opportunities and access 

needs for all users are some of the criteria used in the process of developing the selected alternative.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

514 – Plumas National Forest

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, including the prohibition of cross 

country travel, is forest-wide and applies to all forest users equally. Changes to the National Forest 

Transportation System are largely limited to changes in vehicle class. Motorized access on NFS 

routes is expected to be enhanced by the addition of unauthorized routes and the addition of vehicle 

classes on routes where such use has been prohibited.

There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, on 

trails, and in areas that are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are 

applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from 

designations for people with disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and 

other management objectives of travel management and would fundamentally alter the nature of the 

Forest Service's travel management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103).

Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. Consistent with 36 CFR 212.1, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, Section 507(c), of the Americans 

With Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and mobility devices, including those that are battery-powered, 

that are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that are suitable for 

use in an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on all NFS lands that are open to foot travel.

Impacts on People with Limited English Proficiency. In California, people of Hispanic origin 

comprise a large part of the population and enjoy access to the National Forests for a variety of 

recreation and business pursuits. Many of these users speak English as a second language and 

therefore may have limited ability to read maps or other publications pertaining to travel 

management. In particular, the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) is a concern since the 

MVUM will be the basis for enforcing vehicle restrictions. NFTS routes that are open for public use 

will be designated on the MVUM and users that leave designated routes will be subject to fines. 

There is a concern that people with limited English proficiency will be more vulnerable to citation if 

they are unable to read or understand the MVUM.

Employment and Income: Environmental Consequences

Per Capita Income

Per capita income is often used as a measure of economic performance, but it should be combined 

with changes in earnings per job for a realistic picture of economic health: Since total personal 

income includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income sources like transfer 

payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita income to rise, even if the average wage 

per job declines over time. In other words, non-labor sources of income can cause per capita income 

to rise, even if people are earning less per job. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 515

Figure 10. Per Capita Income for the Plumas Five-County Area

Per capita income, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $18,243 in 1970 to $26,542 in 2005. In 

2005, per capita income in Plumas NF Five-county Aggregation ($26,542) was lower than the state 

($36,936) and the nation ($34,471).

Butte, Lassen and Yuba Counties rank in the top most impoverished counties, as measured by 

individuals below the poverty line.

The table below reports the number of individuals below the poverty level and poverty rates for 

the five counties in the study area and California in 2000 and 2007. Plumas and Sierra counties have 

poverty rates less than that of the state. Poverty rates remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 

2007.

Table 188. Poverty Status by State and County, 2000 and 2005

State or County 2007 2000

Number Percent Number Percent

California 4,445,392 12.4 4,304,909 12.7

Plumas 2,340 11.5 2,290 11.1

Butte 36,435 17.1 34,558 17.2

Sierra 385 11.7 372 10.6

Lassen 4,240 17.2 4,312 17.5

Yuba 13,551 19.2 11,550 19.3

Source: US Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

The Forest supports employment opportunities from which local residents may generate income.

This includes direct employment for the Federal agencies and the harvest of products from the Forest.

Although the numbers may appear to be low when compared to the national levels, the effects to an 

individual or family may be profound if altered. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides reliable information about 

recreation visitors to National Forest System-managed lands at the national, regional, and Forest

Per Capita Income

-

26,542

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

Recession Bars Plumas NF 5 County Aggregation

Thousands of 2005 $
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

516 – Plumas National Forest

levels. Information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for national Forest

plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the 

National Recreation Agenda. To improve public service, the agency’s Strategic and Annual 

Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels. NVUM information 

assists Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound decisions that best 

serve the public and protect valuable natural resources by providing science based, reliable 

information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public lands. The 

information collected is also important to external customers including state agencies and private

industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled Forest 

Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation (English et al. 

2002) (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).

The Plumas National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM project 

from October 2004 through September 2005. There were approximately 587,000 national Forest

visits on Plumas National Forest during fiscal year 2005. The full Plumas National Forest NVUM 

report is available from the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Human Dimensions 

Module and can be found in the project record.

The table below presents participation rates by activity for the Plumas National Forest during the 

NVUM survey period. The Total Activity Participation (%) column of the table presents the 

participation rates by activity. Participation rates will exceed 100 percent since visitors can participate 

in multiple activities. The Percent as Main Activity column presents the participation rates in terms of 

primary activity.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 517

Table 189. Activity Participation on Plumas National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 

Activity Activity Emphasis for 

Road & Trail Use

Total Activity 

Participation (%) *

Percent as Main 

Activity (%) **

Snowmobiling Motorized 8.6% 7.9%

Driving for Pleasure Motorized 27.2% 2.9%

OHV Use Motorized 0.7% 0.1%

Other Motorized Activity Motorized 1.5% 0.2%

Motorized Subtotal 11.1%

Hiking and Walking Non-motorized 44.8% 13.4%

Bicycling Non-motorized 1.6% 0.5%

Other Non-motorized Non-motorized 17.2% 4.0%

Cross-country Skiing Non-motorized 1.7% 1.5%

Backpacking Non-motorized 1.1% 0.7%

Horseback Riding Non-motorized 0.3% 0.1%

Non-motorized Subtotal 20.2%

Downhill Skiing Other 0.0% 0.0%

Fishing Other 35.5% 27.8%

Viewing Natural Features Other 75.3% 12.1%

Relaxing Other 77.2% 12.0%

Motorized Water Activities Other 34.3% 12.0%

Hunting Other 0.8% 0.5%

Non-motorized Water Other 4.1% 1.1%

Developed Camping Other 12.5% 1.7%

Primitive Camping Other 2.7% 0.1%

Picnicking Other 10.5% 2.0%

Viewing Wildlife Other 60.9% 1.2%

Sightseeing Other 0.0% 0.0%

No Activity Reported Other 4.7% 4.7%

Resort Use Other 0.8% 0.6%

Visiting Historic Sites Other 8.9% 0.3%

Nature Study Other 4.9% 0.1%

Gathering Forest Products Other 5.7% 2.6%

Nature Center Activities Other 1.7% 0.0%

Other Subtotal 78.8%

Total 110.1%

* Survey respondents could select multiple activities, so this column may total more than 100%.\

* The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity.

** Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the Forest visit. Some 

respondents selected more than one, so this column totals more than 100%.

** The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity.

The EIS NVUM data measures only the number of visits in which OHV use was the principal activity. This number does not 

include visits in which OHV use was secondary to some other type of recreational activity (e.g. hunting, camping, fishing, 

hiking, etc.) The NVUM data only applies to OHV use for recreational purposes. Users of OHVs for commercial purposes (e.g. 

mining, maintenance of permitted infrastructure, collecting firewood, etc.) or transportation purposes (e.g. driving into town 

from a private inholding) would not be counted in the NVUM data. The NVUM data measures the number of visits, which is 

distinct and separate from the number of activity days. Consequently, a person who goes on a week-long vacation using their 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

518 – Plumas National Forest

OHV would be counted as only one visit according to NVUM data; but the forest may measure seven total visitor days for this 

visit.

Figure 11. Primary activities and other activities participated in on the Plumas National Forest 

The primary activity participation rates (Percent as Main Activity) displayed in Table 189were 

used to estimate use by activity emphasis. The emphasis areas were grouped into those emphasizing 

non-motorized, motorized, and other activities. Motorized activities were those that used motor 

vehicles on Forest Service roads and trails. Non-motorized activities still used the Forest’s roads and 

trails, but on foot or by non-motorized transportation such as cross-country skis or bicycles. All other 

activities are all the other Forest-based activities measured by the NVUM survey that didn’t use roads 

or trails to pursue their primary activity. Examples of “other” are downhill skiing, motorized water 

activities, etc. Motor vehicles may have been used to reach a destination or participate in the activity, 

but it was not the primary emphasis of the visit. The most popular activities on the Plumas National 

Forest are hiking/walking, fishing, viewing natural features, driving for pleasure, motorized water 

activities and relaxing.

Table 190 displays the number of visits for these activities. The number of visits is based on the 

primary purpose for the visit (Percent as Main Activity) displayed in Table 189 and the total number 

of visits of 587,000 reported in the Plumas National Forest NVUM report. Users were determined to 

be either local or non-local based on the miles from the user’s residence to the Forest boundary. If the 

user reported living within 50 miles of the Forest boundary, he or she is considered local; if over 50 

miles, he or she is considered non-local. It is critically important to distinguish between local and 

non-local spending as only non-locals bring new money and new economic stimulus into the local 

community. Local spending is already accounted for in the study area base data. It is impossible to 

predict how locals would have spent money if they didn’t have local recreation opportunities on the 

Primary vs. Participation: Plumas NF

- 250 500

No Activity Reported

Sightseeing

Gathering Forest Products

Relaxing

Visiting Historic Sites

Picnicking

Resort Use

Primitive Camping

Developed Camping

Downhill Skiing

Non-motorized Water

Motorized Water Activities

Nature Study

Nature Center Activities

Viewing Natural Features

Viewing Wildlife

Hunting

Fishing

Other Motorized Activity

Snowmobiling

Driving for Pleasure

OHV Use

Other Non-motorized

Cross-country Skiing

Bicycling

Horseback Riding

Hiking / Walking

Backpacking

Activity

Primary Visits Participation Visits
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 519

national Forest, but it is a safe guess that much of that money would not have been lost to the local 

economy. People tend to substitute other local recreation activities or change the time or place for 

continuing the same activity rather than traveling long distances and incurring high costs to do the 

same activity. The table indicates the most popular non-motorized use is hiking and walking, followed 

by other non-motorized activities. The most popular motorized use is snowmobiling, followed by

driving for pleasure. Table 191 indicates that non-local visitors spend more per visit than local visitors 

primarily because of overnight lodging expenditures. Motorized day use expenditures are generally 

higher than for non-motorized activities, but non-local overnight visitors engaged in non-motorized 

activities generally expend more than non-local motorized users (except for snowmobiling). 

Snowmobilers spend the most per visit, especially non-local visitors.

Table 190. Number of Visits, by Activity

Activity Non-local 

Day Use

Non-local 

Overnight

Local Day 

use

Local 

Overnight

Non-Primary

Motorized

Snowmobiling 2,962 5,500 24,117 5,500 4,231

Driving for Pleasure 932 1,398 11,028 466 1,709

OHV Use 59 123 257 75 21

Other Motorized Activity 118 246 514 150 43

Non-motorized

Hiking/Walking 5,741 12,201 45,214 4,306 4,306

Bicycling 214 455 1,687 161 161

Other Non-motorized 1,714 3,642 13,497 1,285 1,285

Cross-country Skiing 803 2,490 4,338 321 80

Backpacking 0 1,762 0 1,912 75

Horseback Riding 43 91 337 32 32

Other

Downhill Skiing 0 0 0 0 0

Fishing 16,378 35,734 74,446 16,378 5,956

Viewing Wildlife 6,481 16,201 27,218 4,536 10,369

Relaxing 5,784 14,139 30,850 10,283 3,214

Motorized Water Activities 7,070 14,782 30,850 8,998 2,571

Hunting 134 536 1,339 589 80

Non-motorized Water 471 1,002 3,712 353 353

Developed Camping 819 2,003 4,370 1,457 455

Primitive Camping 0 252 0 273 11

Picnicking 964 2,357 5,142 1,714 536

Viewing Wildlife 643 1,607 2,699 450 1,028

Sightseeing 0 0 0 0 0

No Activity Reported 2,266 5,538 12,083 4,028 1,259

Resort Use 48 118 257 86 27

Visiting Historic Sites 145 353 771 257 80

Gathering Forest Products 54 134 225 37 86

Nature Study 1,253 3,064 6,684 2,228 696

Nature Center Activities 0 0 0 0 0
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

520 – Plumas National Forest

Table 191. Expenditures per visit (dollars)

Activity Non-local 

Day Use

Non-local 

Overnight

Local Day 

use

Local 

Overnight

Non-Primary

Motorized

Snowmobiling 49 129 30 69 28

Driving for Pleasure 18 67 13 43 10

OHV Use 29 65 19 49 15

Other Motorized Activity 29 65 19 49 15

Non-motorized

Hiking/Walking 18 107 11 40 7

Bicycling 18 107 11 40 7

Other Non-motorized 18 107 11 40 7

Cross-country Skiing 19 120 15 87 14

Backpacking 0 40 0 36 0

Horseback Riding 18 107 11 40 7

Other

Downhill Skiing 19 70 15 49 12

Fishing 21 96 20 48 20

Viewing Wildlife 21 83 11 54 10

Relaxing 19 70 15 49 12

Motorized Water Activities 29 65 19 49 15

Hunting 38 116 30 79 26

Non-motorized Water 18 107 11 40 7

Developed Camping 19 70 15 49 12

Primitive Camping 0 40 0 36 0

Picnicking 19 70 15 49 12

Viewing Wildlife 21 83 11 54 10

Sightseeing 0 0 0 0 0

No Activity Reported 19 70 15 49 12

Resort Use 19 70 15 49 12

Visiting Historic Sites 19 70 15 49 12

Gathering Forest Products 21 83 11 54 10

Nature Study 19 70 15 49 12

Nature Center Activities 21 83 11 54 10

Economic Effects Analysis Procedures

Economic effects can be categorized as direct, indirect and induced. Direct effects are changes 

directly associated with spending by a recreation visitor. Indirect and induced effects are the 

multiplier effects resulting from subsequent rounds of spending in the local economy. Input-output 

analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced employment and labor income effects 

stemming from motorized and non-motorized use. Input-output analysis (Hewings 1985) is a means 

of examining relationships within an economy both between businesses as well as between businesses 

and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 521

period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one 

or several economic activities on an entire economy. This examination is called impact analysis. 

Input-output analysis requires the identification of an economic impact area. The economic area that 

surrounds the Plumas National Forest used for this jobs and income analysis was Plumas, Butt, Sierra, 

Lassen and Yuba Counties.

The IMPLAN Pro input-output modeling system and 2006 IMPLAN data (the most recent data 

available) were used to develop the input-output model for this analysis (IMPLAN Professional 

2004). IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes in 

economic effects, such as labor income and employment of the affected area’s economy. For the 

economic impact area, employment and labor income estimates that were attributable to all current 

recreation use, motorized, non-motorized and other activities for the Plumas National Forest were 

generated.

The expenditure and use information collected by the NVUM survey are crucial elements in the 

economic analysis. As reported earlier, the NVUM survey collects use and expenditure information 

for various activity types. The expenditure information is collected by twelve activity groups within 

four trip segments (non-local overnight trips, non-local day trips, local overnight trips, and local day 

trips) (Stynes and White 2005; Stynes and White 2006). The reported spending for each of the 

spending categories is allocated to the appropriate industry within the IMPLAN model (the allocation 

process, also referred to as “bridging,” was conducted by the USDA Forest Service, Planning 

Analysis Group in Fort Collins, CO). The bridged IMPLAN files were used to estimate economic 

effects (e.g., employment and labor income) related to changes in spending (i.e., changes in spending 

– technically referred to as changes in final demand - are caused by changes in use).

Estimated Economic Effects

Estimated economic effects (full and part-time jobs and labor income) are presented. Estimated 

employment and labor income by motorized and non-motorized activity types are presented.

Table 192 indicates the following: First, economic effects tied to local visitation generate lower 

employment and labor income effects. This is a result of local visitors spending less per visit in 

comparison to non-local visitors (see Table 191). Second, economic effects vary widely by motorized 

and non-motorized activity types. The lowest employment effect is tied to local hiking and walking, 

bicycling, other non-motorized, and horseback riding activities (Note: The economic effects are 

identical for these categories since they share the same spending profile). Third, the largest economic 

effect is associated with non-local cross-country skiing, but is followed fairly closely by non-local 

snowmobiling. In general, economic effects vary by the amount of spending and by the type of 

activity, but it cannot be generalized that motorized or non-motorized activities contribute more or 

less to the local economy on a per-visit basis. It is also important to be careful with the use of 

employment and labor income effects by activity type. They reflect an economic structure that is a 

snapshot in time; that is, they are not applicable to visitation numbers that are dramatically different 

from current recreation levels. If recreation activities or visits were to change radically, there would 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

522 – Plumas National Forest

be a structural shift in the economy as spending patterns changed, and these response coefficients 

would no longer reflect underlying economic processes. 

Motorized and Non-motorized Use

Table 192 displays the estimated employment and labor income effects for current use levels reported 

by NVUM for local and non-local non-motorized and motorized activities. Table 192 expresses these 

employment and labor income effects for total employment and income for each activity. In general, 

the estimated economic effects are a function of the number of visits and the dollars spent locally by 

the visitors. For example, non-local users typically spend more money per visit than local users. Also, 

activities that draw more users would be responsible for more economic activity in comparison to 

activities that draw fewer users, holding constant spending per visit. Given that the analysis is 

dependent on visitation and expenditure estimates, any changes to these estimates affect the estimated 

jobs and labor income.

Table 192 indicates that approximately 31 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced, full-time, 

temporary, and part-time) and $838,000 total labor income (direct, indirect and induced). The two 

largest motorized uses are snowmobiling and driving for pleasure. These two activities contribute 

about 10.6 percent of the jobs from the activities in the table, and provide about 10.4 percent of the 

labor income. Together these two activities contribute 31 jobs and provide about $820,000 in labor 

income to the area.

Non-Motorized activities were responsible for approximately 59 total average annual jobs in the 

five-county area (direct, indirect and induced) and $1,273,000 total labor income (direct, indirect and 

induced) are attributable to non-motorized visitation on the Plumas National Forest. The two largest 

activities among those in the table are hiking and walking and other non-motorized activities, together 

these account for about 16.4 percent of the jobs and 12.8 percent of the income generated from the 

activities analyzed. These activities account for about 48 jobs and provided $1,028,000 in labor 

income to the five county area.

“All Other Activities” (see Table 191 for a list) are significant economic contributors for the 

activities studied. They provide 202 jobs, or 69.2 percent of the jobs from the activities analyzed.

Labor income is about $5,925,000, or 73.7 percent of the income generated by these activities.

Table 192 shows that about 10.6 percent of the jobs provided from these activities are from 

motorized use, 20.2 percent are from non-motorized use, and 69.2 percent from “Other Activities.” 

The contributions to labor income are 10.4 percent motorized use 15.8 percent non-motorized use, 

and 73.8 percent from “Other Activities.”
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 523

Table 192. Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type (NVUM FY2005 data) 

Activity Activity Emphasis for 

Road & Trail Use

Employment Total Income 

($1,000)

Snowmobiling Motorized 27 720

Driving for Pleasure Motorized 4 100

OHV Use Motorized 0 6

Other Motorized Activity Motorized 0 12

Motorized Subtotal 31 838

Hiking and Walking Non-motorized 36 792

Bicycling Non-motorized 1 30

Other Non-motorized Non-motorized 12 236

Cross-country Skiing Non-motorized 8 160

Backpacking Non-motorized 2 49

Horseback Riding Non-motorized 0 6

Non-motorized Subtotal 59 1,273

Fishing Other 75 2,102

Hunting Other 2 49

Primitive Camping Other 0 7

Nature Related Other 32 876

All Other Other 93 2,891

Nature Related and Other 202 5,925

Total 292 8,036

Table 193. Employment and Labor Income Effects in 2008 Dollars by Activity Type

Activity Employment 

Direct Effects

Employment 

Indirect, Induced 

& Secondary 

Effects

Labor Income 

Direct Effects

Labor Income 

Indirect,

Induced & 

Secondary 

Effects

Non-motorized Use:

Backpacking, 

Hiking & Walking, 

Bicycling, 

Horseback Riding, 

Cross Country 

Skiing, Other Nonmotorized

Local Day 6 4 163 81

Local OVN 3 1 76 39

Non-Local Day 1 0 39 18

Non-Local OVN 25 16 556 283

NP 0 0 10 5

Motorized Use:

OHV Use Local Day 0 0 1 0.5

Local OVN 0 0 1 0.4

Non-Local Day 0 0 1 1

Non-Local OVN 0 0 2 0.2

NP 0 0 0 0

Driving Local Day 1 1 30 15

Local OVN 0 0 6 3

Non-Local Day 0 0 3 2
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

524 – Plumas National Forest

Activity Employment 

Direct Effects

Employment 

Indirect, Induced 

& Secondary 

Effects

Labor Income 

Direct Effects

Labor Income 

Indirect,

Induced & 

Secondary 

Effects

Non-Local OVN 1 0 24 12

NP 0 0 3 2

Snowmobile Local Day 5 2 148 73

Local OVN 5 1 95 49

Non-Local Day 1 1 31 16

Non-Local OVN 8 3 178 92

NP 1 0 25 12

Other Motorized 

Activities

Local Day 6 3 181 89

Local OVN 5 1 103 54

Non-Local Day 1 1 36 18

Non-Local OVN 9 3 207 107

NP 1 0 29 14

All Other Use:

All Other 

Activities*

Local Day 28 10 774 378

Local OVN 23 9 676 328

Non-Local Day 9 3 225 109

Non-Local OVN 86 30 2,228 1,089

NP 3 0 80 39

Total:

Local Day 40 17 1,119 548

Local OVN 31 11 856 421

Non-Local Day 11 4 300 145

Non-Local OVN 120 49 2,992 1,480

NP 4 0 119 58

Grand Total: 209 83 5,386 2,650

Table 194. Total Employment and Labor Income Effects

Uses Employment Effects

(Full- and part-time jobs)

Labor Income

($1,000)

Total Non-Motorized Use Local 15 360

Non-Local 44 897

Total Motorized Use Local 15 427

Non-Local 15 368

Total All Other Use Local 71 2,155

Non-Local 128 3,651

Total Local 101 2,943

Non-Local 187 4,916

NP 4 178

Total for Area 292 8,036
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 525

Table 195. Percent of Total Area Employment and Total Area Labor Income Effects

Uses Employment Effects

(full- and part- time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Total Non-Motorized Use Local 0.011% 0.006%

Non-Local 0.033% 0.015%

Total Motorized Use Local 0.011% 0.007%

Non-Local 0.011% 0.006%

Total All Other Use Local 0.053% 0.037%

Non-Local 0.095% 0.063%

Total Local 0.075% 0.051%

Non-Local 0.139% 0.085%

NP 0.003% 0.003%

Total Use 0.216% 0.138%

Table 196 shows the relationship of jobs and income generated from all recreation activities 

studied compared to total jobs and income in the five-county area. All of the recreation jobs together 

only account for about 0.22 percent of the total jobs in the area, and the income generated is about 

0.14 percent of the total labor income in the area studied. 

Table 196. Current Role of Forest Service Recreation-Related Contributions to the Area Economy

Industry Employment (jobs) Labor Income (millions of dollars)

Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related

Agriculture 6,768 2 $287 $0.084

Mining 200 0 $16 $0.004

Utilities 414 0 $47 $0.052

Construction 9,640 1 $549 $0.083

Manufacturing 5,953 6 $314 $0.369

Wholesale Trade 2,716 13 $156 $0.773

Transportation & Warehousing 3,554 8 $202 $0.406

Retail Trade 15,227 33 $478 $1.090

Information 1,600 3 $78 $0.137

Finance & Insurance 4,308 4 $237 $0.209

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 4,106 9 $111 $0.238

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services 6,045 7 $291 $0.286

Mngt of Companies 506 1 $33 $0.071

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem Serv 5,067 6 $138 $0.156

Educational Services 1,294 1 $29 $0.022

Health Care & Social Assistance 18,059 10 $785 $0.434

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 2,242 26 $40 $0.602

Accommodation & Food Services 9,062 135 $143 $2.296

Other Services 10,196 6 $218 $0.144

Government 28,018 9 $1,657 $0.580

Total 134,976 281 $5,811 $8.036

FS as Percent of Total --- 0.21% --- 0.14%
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

526 – Plumas National Forest

For OHV grants, the Plumas National Forest has needed to estimate a more accurate number of 

visits for people using OHVs on the Forest. The NVUM date does a poor job of sampling OHV use 

because OHV use is so dispersed and many of the participants visit the Forest with a different primary 

activity. It is estimated that OHV and snowmobile use should have similar number of visits and 

economic impact on the 5 county area. The following table shows a much different amount of use.

Table 197. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

Activity Age

16-

34

%

Age

16-34

#

Age

35-

54

%

Age

35-54

#

Age

55+

%

Age

55+

#

All 

Ages

%

All Ages

#

Day hiking 47.6 483,270 56.4 615,266 32.3 269,703 46.5 1,368,239

Visit a wilderness or primitive 

area

49.3 501,059 48.2 525,488 34.7 290,109 44.8 1,316,656

Developed camping 44.3 449,593 47.1 513,871 32.2 269,130 41.9 1,232,594

Mountain biking 38.6 391,917 31.4 342,352 11.9 99,310 28.3 833,579

Visit a farm or agricultural 

setting

26.9 272,840 30.9 336,982 20.3 170,073 26.5 779,895

Primitive camping 30.8 313,157 28.6 312,316 14.0 117,271 25.2 742,744

Drive off-road 30.6 311,105 21.4 233,714 13.7 114,508 22.4 659,327

Backpacking 21.3 216,364 21.2 231,397 6.2 52,118 17.0 499,879

Horseback riding on trails 10.4 106,003 9.0 98,471 5.9 49,455 8.6 253,929

Hunting (any type) 9.6 97,645 7.8 84,746 5.7 48,014 7.8 230,405

Big game hunting 5.7 58,096 5.3 57,454 4.2 34,972 5.1 150,522

Small game hunting 3.9 39,383 4.2 45,974 1.8 15,196 3.4 100,553

Migratory bird hunting 3.2 32,408 2.0 21,598 1.5 12,488 2.3 66,494

Source: 2000-2004 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. USDA Forest Service. Southern Research Station. 

Athens, Georgia. Plumas NF local area: 25 counties

Another source to indicate OHV use is the California Fuel Use for Recreation.

Table 198. California Fuel Use for Recreation in the five county area.

County Street Vehicle Off Highway 

Vehicle

Total Percent of Total

Butte 249,124 429,415 678,539 63.3

Lassen 1,293,973 209,460 1,503,433 13.9

Plumas 890,292 557,967 1,448,259 38.5

Sierra 473,734 983 474,717 0.2

Yuba 84,873 79,707 164,580 48.4

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Economic Effects

The employment and labor income effects stemming from current motorized and non-motorized 

activities occurring on the Plumas National Forest were estimated. The economic effects of all other 

types of recreation combined on the Plumas NF have also been reported for comparison purposes. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 527

Economic effects tied to motorized and non-motorized activities were estimated to address the 

economic impact issue tied directly to travel management. Also, the marginal economic effects 

(employment and labor income effects per 1,000 visits) of motorized and non-motorized use are 

provided. The marginal effects (also called “response coefficients”) are useful for performing 

sensitivity analyses of various management alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: If the prohibition of cross-country travel is implemented 

(Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5), it may discourage OHV use on the Forest. This could result in a loss of 

OHV expenditures across the region. However, even if 100% of OHV use ceased on the Forest, this 

loss is not considered to be economically significant since it results in the loss of 0.1 jobs or 

approximately $4,000 total labor income and total annual total revenue to the region of approximately 

$6,000. The overall historical recreation use is very low on the Plumas, and under any alternative the 

capacity for motorized recreation is very high compared to expected demand.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the data collected from IMPLAN, it is apparent that recreation use 

generates very little to the overall economy of the region. Also, based on historic data and our best 

estimates, the Forest assumes that use will not change dramatically in the future because of this 

project. It is also assumed, that under all action alternatives, levels of use would be relatively static;

although the use patterns may change. For example, even though cross-country travel is prohibited in 

all of the action alternatives, the same levels of use would simply become more concentrated on the 

system roads and motorized trails.

Plumas National Forest is an isolated Forest and although it is possible that use may increase by 

non-local users because of more restrictive regulations on their local Forest, it is unlikely that it would 

increase to any significant degree.

Based on the current numbers and these assumptions, the economic effects of this project across 

all of the alternatives will be insignificant to the economy of the region. 

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values

Plumas National Forest held several open houses which were designed to help the public better 

understand the project and to gather information and input that could be used to help create 

alternatives to the Proposed Action. During these open houses and from the scoping letters received 

on the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) two major perspectives emerged. 

One group perceived this action as restrictive in nature. There were three themes expressed by 

this group: 1) do not close down the Forest 2) add all of the unauthorized roads to the system and 3) 

expand Mixed Use on Level 3 roads. Several individuals commented on specific roads that they use 

and have used historically which they would like to have added to the NFTS. There was a feeling of 

“ownership” of the Forest and the comments received reflected resentment at being restricted on what 

the public feels are their public lands. There were comments made during the meetings that reflected 

fear and resentment over not being able to use the lands in the way they were accustomed; such as to 

make a living or for family recreation. 

Another group of commenters expressed the desire to see the Forest be more restrictive and 

protective of the resources. Almost universally, these commenters asked that we review our entire 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

528 – Plumas National Forest

NFTS and reduce it to a size that is within our means to maintain. There was also a strong emphasis 

from this group for “quiet use” recreation opportunities and a need to maintain and expand roadless 

and Wilderness areas.

These concerns captured during the scoping process are documented in the significant issues 

described in Chapter 1. All five of the significant issues are directly tied to these two major 

perspectives.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Social Effects

Social effects can be difficult to measure because each individual may be affected differently by the 

same action depending upon their experience and perspective. For example, American Indians use 

Forest products and landscapes to maintain their cultural heritage, and the local ranching communities 

have historical ties with the Forest’s resources for production purposes. Alternatively, the recreational 

opportunities supported by the Plumas NF have implications for the leisure activities participated in 

by many local residents. Hunting and fishing opportunities are just two of the many activities 

supported by the Forest that many individuals routinely participate in. There is also a contingent of 

people using the Forest for motorized recreation in the form of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and 

motorcycles.

Direct and Indirect Effects: If the prohibition of cross-country travel is implemented 

(Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5), it may negatively impact OHV users on the Forest. This action may also 

affect the very young and the very old by preventing them from participating in activities that require 

strenuous walking for access. This same action may enhance the recreation opportunity for users 

wishing to experience a “quiet use” form of recreation. What positively affects one faction of users 

may negatively affect the other. This may cause resentment between user groups but because of the 

low number of users on the Forest, it is unlikely that this will occur. The addition of trails to the 

system (Alternative 2, 4 and 5) may appeal to users who recreate by driving for pleasure. Conversely, 

this may negatively affect “quiet use” users. Again the social implication is that there may be conflict 

between the groups. Changes to the existing system in the form of increased Mixed Use (Alternatives 

4 and 5) may appeal to OHV users because it allows for a more continuous loop recreation experience 

and not appeal to “quiet users” for the same reason. 

Cumulative Effects: Based on historic data and our best estimates, the Forest assumes that use 

will not change dramatically in the future because of this project. It is also assumed, that under all 

action alternatives, levels of use would be relatively static; although the use patterns may change. For 

example, even though cross-country travel is prohibited in all of the action alternatives, the same 

levels of use would simply become more concentrated on the roads.

Plumas National Forest is an isolated Forest and although it is possible that use may increase by 

non-local users because of more restrictive regulations on their local Forest, it is unlikely that it would 

increase to any significant degree.

Based on the current numbers and these assumptions, the possibility of conflict between user 

groups is probably the most constant cumulative effect socially and may be present regardless of 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 529

which alternative is chosen. However, based on current and predicted use on the Forest being so low, 

it is unlikely that such conflict would occur.

Forest Service Budget Projections

Roads

The roads on the Forest are gradually deteriorating due to surfacing being worn out or pushed off the 

edge of the roads, and by the occurrence of vegetation encroachment. Some of the roads are being 

encroached upon by brush; and unless the brush is cleared, the roads will eventually become 

impassable. Drainage concerns are currently being addressed and will continue to be addressed, so 

environmental degradation associated with erosion is not occurring due to lack of maintenance. There 

is the possibility that in some cases vegetation encroachment may result in less sight distance for 

drivers, which may result in a safety concern over time.

Table 199. Construction and Maintenance Budget, by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Road Trail

FY04 $839,000 $94,500

FY05 $1,174,600 225,000

FY06 $801,400 $71,700

FY07 $1,080,500 $77,800

FY08 $1,137,800 $124,900

FY09 $1,214,300 $88,000

It is predicted that the next five years will have similar numbers. 

Timber sale operators perform maintenance on Forest roads each year. This figure will most 

likely remain at current levels or possibly go up if timber sale and biomass volumes increase. 

The majority of the roads on the Forest are maintenance level 2 and do not get regular

maintenance unless erosion or damage is occurring.

Forest Budget Effects

Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 do not add any trails to the existing system and continue current 

management. Therefore the cost for maintenance will remain constant or very similar over the next 5 

years. In Alternative 2, 4 and 5 between 149 and 365 miles of trail will be added to the system. These 

trails will require between $159,000-$354,000 to bring them to current Forest Service standards. 

These costs are averaged over all miles and will be accomplished with grant money and volunteer 

labor. Prohibition of cross-country travel and changes in mixed use or season of use are not expected 

to affect the Forest Budget.

Environmental Justice

As stated in Executive Order 12898, it is required that all Federal actions consider the potential of 

disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations in the local region. The principles of 

environmental justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness implications associated with 

Federal land management actions. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1997) provides the 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

530 – Plumas National Forest

following definitions in order to provide guidance with the compliance of environmental justice 

requirements:

• “Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the 

minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis...”

• “Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified 

with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current 

Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income 

populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in 

geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or 

American Indians), where either type of group experiences common conditions of 

environmental exposure or effect.”

The five county region which makes up the Plumas National Forest has a large low income and 

American Indian population compared to the rest of California. Because the existing road system will 

remain in place on the Forest, it is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate effect on American 

Indian and low-income populations. The prohibition of cross-country travel may affect the American 

Indian population by limiting access to areas commonly used for traditional use. This is especially 

true for the very old and the very young that may not be physically able to participate in these 

activities if restricted to non-motorized travel. However, the tribes are guaranteed this right under law 

and the Forest Supervisor will also work with the tribes to ensure access outside of the Travel 

Management process. Low income users will most likely not be disproportionately affected by this 

project. Permitted use, such as firewood collection, will still be allowed and therefore should not 

adversely affect those who rely on this as an income source. The addition of trails to the NFTS will 

allow for more extensive travel across the Forest. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would benefit 

anyone who uses trails for recreation or employment on the Forest. Changes to the existing system in 

the form of mixed use will probably not affect either group.

Table 200. Proposed Changes in Vehicle Class on NFTS Roads

Road 

Number

Road Name Current Vehicle Class Proposed Vehicle 

Class

Length 

(miles)

24N28 Slate Creek Highway Legal Vehicles Only All Vehicles 4.1

Total 4.1
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 531

Appendix E: Watershed Maps

Figure 12. Watershed analysis area for the Beckwourth Ranger District
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

532 – Plumas National Forest

Figure 13. Watershed analysis area for the Feather River Ranger District 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 533

Figure 14. Watershed analysis area for the Mount Hough Ranger District
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

534 – Plumas National Forest

Appendix F: Literature Cited

Aquatic Resources

AmphibiaWeb 2007. AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web 

application]. Berkeley, California. Website: http://amphibiaweb.org/Ashton, D.T., A.J. Lind, and 

K.E. Schlick,. 1997a. Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata); Natural History. Unpublished. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. 

Arcata, California.

Ashton, D.T., A.J. Lind, and K.E. Schlick. 1997b. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii); Natural 

History. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood 

Sciences Laboratory. Arcata, California .

Ashton personal communication 2008. NWPT: threats to hatchlings. Pg 48.

Borisenko, A. N., and M. P. Hayes. 1999. Status of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) in 

Oregon. Final Report under contract ORFO080197-1 to the The Nature Conservancy under 

contract 1448-13420-7-M262 to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 39 pp.

Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity of Adult California Red-legged 

frogs Rana Aurora Draytonnii in Coastal Forest and Grasslands, Biological Conservation 

110:85-95.

Bury, R.B. 1980. Conservation of the amphibians of the United States: review. U.S.A. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource publication 134, Washington, D. C., 34 pp.

Carr, L.W., and L. Fahrig, 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of different vagility. 

Conservation Biology 15(4), 1071–1078.

Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on 

Salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In: Proceedings 

from Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest p. 38-74. 

Report 39. State of Washington Water Research Center, Pullman.

Chen, T.H., J.A.Gross, and W.H. Karasov. 2006. Sublethal effects of lead on northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) tadpoles. Environ Toxicol Chem 25(5):1383-9.

Chin, A., D.M. Rohrer, D.A. Marion, and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of all-terrain vehicles on 

stream dynamics. Pgs. 292-296 In: Guldin, James M., tech. comp. Ouachita and Ozark 

Mountains symposium: ecosystem management research. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–74. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 321 p.

Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface 

types in the southern Appalachians. S. J. Appl. Forestry 27(2), pp. 100–106. CNDDB database, 

2008.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 535

Davidson, C. Personal communication. 2001.MYLF known sites but little data on individual 

numbers. Pg 59.

Dougherty, C.K. and G.R. Smith. 2006. Acute effects of road de-icers on the tadpoles of three 

anurans. Applied Herpetology, Vol. 3(2), pp. 87-93.

Elliot personal communication 2000. MYLF habitat use. Pg 58.

Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor and J.F. Wegner. 1995. Effect of Road Traffic on 

Amphibian Density. Biological Conservation. Vol. 73. Pages 177-182.

Fellers 1996. MYLF Surveys. Pg 59.

Fellers, G. M.1997. 1996 Aquatic amphibian surveys, Plumas National Forest. Unpublished report 

prepared for the Plumas National Forest. Biological Resources Division, USGS. Point 

ReyesNational Seashore, Point Reyes, California. 24 pp. + maps.

Fellers, G., and K. Freel, 1995. A standardized protocol for surveying aquatic amphibians. Davis, CA. 

Tech. Report No. NPS/WRUC/NRTR 95-01. 117 pp.

Fesnock, A. Personal communication February-June , 2008. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Sacramento, California.

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review 

of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-31.Foster Wheeler 2001.

Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act. 1974.

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear 

Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79 pages.

Garret, personal communication 2004, CalTrans surveys FYLF Pg 44.

Gillespie, G. R. 2002. Impacts of sediment loads, tadpole density, and food type on the growth and 

development of tadpoles of the spotted tree frog Litoria spenceri: an in-stream experiment. 

Biological Conservation, 106:141-150.

Gucinski, H., M.J.Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, M.H. Brooks. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific 

Literature. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, Oregon.

Hagans, D. K., W. E. Weaver, and M. A. Madej. 1986. Long-term on-site and off-site effects of 

logging and erosion in the Redwood Creek Basin, northern California. Pages 38–65 In: Papers 

presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting on cumulative effects. National Council 

for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, Technical Bulletin 490.

Hawkins, C.P.; Norris, R.H.; Hogue, J.N. [In press]. Comparison of predictive.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

536 – Plumas National Forest

models and a multimetric index in detecting biological impairment in streams. IN: Gucinski, H., 

M.J.Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, M.H. Brooks. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific 

Literature. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, Oregon.

Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged 

frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): implications for 

management. Pp. 144–158 in: R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton (technical 

coordinators), Proceedings of the symposium on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and 

small mammals in North America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General 

Technical Report RM-166.

Hine, R.L., B.L. Les, and B. F. Hellmich. 1981. Leopard frog populations and mortality in Wisconsin, 

1974-76. Wis. Dep. Natur. Resour. Tech Bull. 122. 39pp.

Holland, D. 1994. Western pond turtle: Habitat and history. DOE/BP Rept. #62137-1, Bonneville 

Power Admin., Portland, Oregon.

Hopkins, K. Personal Communication. 2009. MYLF Surveys.

Irwin, J.T., J.P. Costanzo and R.E. Lee. 1999. Terrestrial overwintering in the northern cricket frog, 

Acris crepitans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1240–1246.

Jalkotzy, M. G., P. I. Ross, and M. D. Nasserden. 1997. The Effects of Linear Developments on 

Wildllife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Prepared for Canadian Association of 

Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., Calgary. 115pp.

Jennings, M.R. 1996. Status of Amphibians. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to 

Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Centers for Water 

and Wildland Resources Report No. 37: 921-944. University of California. Davis. Davis, 

California.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California Red-legged Frogs (Rana 

aurora draytonii): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetological 

Review, 31(1), 94-103.

Jennings, M. R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in 

California. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries 

Division. Rancho Cordova, California.

Jones, J.A., F.A. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, 

geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology, 14:76-85.

Kattelmann, R. and Shilling, F. 2004. Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium: Science 

for Management and Conservation. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Albany, California.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 537

Koo, M. S., and J. V. Vindum. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles of the Plumas National Forest: 

Historical collections and California Academy of Sciences 1998 and 1999 Surveys. Unpublished 

report, Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San 

Francisco, CA. 164 pp.

Lefcort, H., K.A. Hancock, K.M. Maur and D.C. Rostal. 1997. The effects of used motor oil, silt, and 

the water mold Saprolegnia parasitica on the growth and survival of mole salamanders (genus 

Ambystoma). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32:383–388.

Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. 

New York: Chapman and Hall. 639 p. IN: Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. 

Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the

Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79 pages.

Loos G., and P. Kerlinger. 1993. Road mortality of saw-whet and screech-owls on the Cape May 

peninsula. J. Raptor Res. 27:210–213.

Mark, T. Personal Communication. 2008. MYLF Surveys.Maxell, B. A. and D. G. Hokit. 1999. 

Amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 2.1-2.30 In: J. Joslin and H. Youmans, committee chairs. Effects of 

recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a compendium of the current state of understanding in 

Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife 

Society.

Mazerolle, M.J. 2003. Night driving surveys as an amphibian monitoring technique in 

Kouchibouguac National Park, 1995–2002. Parks Canada—Ecosystem Monitoring and Data 

Reports 9, Parks Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

MGW Biological and Klamath Wildlife Resources 2007. Habitat Use, Home Range, and Movements 

of Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs (Rana muscosa) in Bean and Spanish Creeks on the Plumas 

National Forest.

Moyle, P.B. 1996. Potential Aquatic Diversity Management Areas. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: 

Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report No. 37: 363-407. University of California. 

Davis. Davis, California.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E. Wikramanayake. 1996. Fish Species of Special 

Concern in California. Sacramento, California. Department of Fish and Game.

Moyle, P.B., Yoshiyama, R.M., and Knapp, R.A. 1996. Status of Fish and Fisheries. Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for 

Management Options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report No. 37: 953-973. 

University of California. Davis. Davis, California.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

538 – Plumas National Forest

Moyle, P. B. and D. M. Baltz. 1985. Microhabitat Use by an Assemblage of California Stream Fishes: 

Developing Criteria for Instream Flow Determinations. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 114:695-704.

Moyle, P. B. and P. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. In Sierra Nevada .

Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, chap. 34, Davis: University of California, 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

National Forest Management Act. 1976.

Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, and K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of logging on macroinvertebrates in 

streams with and without buffer strips. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 1046-1085. In: Gucinski,H., 

M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific 

information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

Newcombe, C. P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for 

quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 

16:693-727.

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 11:72-84.

Pringle, C.M., R.J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J.R. Karr, M.W. Oswood, J.R. Webster, R.L. Welcomme, 

and M.J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: the stream as a mosaic. Journal of 

the North American Benthological Society, 7:502-524.

Pollet I., L.I. Bendell-Young. 2000. Amphibians as indicators of wetland quality in wetlands formed 

from oil sands effluent. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Vol. 19, No. 10 pp. 2589–

2597.

Power, M.E. 1990. Resource enhancement by indirect effects of grazers: armored catfish, algae, and 

sediment. Ecology, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 897-904 Published by: Ecological Society of America.

Reese, D. A., and Welsh, H. H. 1997. Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys 

marmorata: Implications for Management. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and 

Management of Tortoises and Turtles.

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research, 20:1753–1761.

Richardson, E. V., B. Simons, S. Karaki, M. Mahmood, and M. A. Stevens. 1975. Highways in the 

river environment: hydraulic and environmental design considerations training and design 

manual. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 539

SNEP (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project). 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to 

Congress, Executive Summary. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report. University of 

California. Davis. Davis, California.

Spieler, M. and K.E. Linsenmair. 1998. Migration Patterns and Diurnal Use of Shelter in a Ranid 

Frog of a West African Savannah: A Telemetry Study. Amphibia Reptilia 19:43-64. 

Tatarian, Trish and Greg. 2008. Annual Report Option Year 3, California Red-legged Frog Telemetry 

Study Hughes Pond, Plumas National Forest (Four year Summary). 

Tatarian, P. 2004. Movement Patterns of the Californai Red-legged frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii) in a 

California Inland Environment, Masters Thesis, Sonoma State University. 

Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14:1:18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Plumas National Forest. Quincy, California.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Washington 

Office Amendment 2600-90-1. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and 

Sensitive Species. Written by Seona Brown and Ron Archuleta and signed on 11/13/2000. 

Unpublished. 90 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Vol. 3. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service 2004. Record of Decision, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, 

California.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Route Designation: Project Design Criteria for “No Effect” or “May 

affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations for TE Species. October 2006, version 1. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Route Designation: Project Design Criteria for “No effect” or “May 

Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

540 – Plumas National Forest

USDA Forest Service, 2009. Plumas National Forest Aquatic Soil and Water Resources Report for the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Guidance on site assessment and field surveys for California 

red-legged frogs. 8 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90 Day 

Finding on a Petition to List the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog as Endangered. Federal Register 

65(198):60603-60605.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Letter of Programmatic Concurrence for Route Designation 

project, received by Bernie Weingardt on December 26, 2006.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 

Critical Habitat Designations; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged 

Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching 

Activities. Federal Register 71(71): 19244-19292.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Personal communication. CRLF site assessments Pg 33.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AV90. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog; 

Final Rule. Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51).

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Biological Indicators of Watershed Health. Periphyton as 

Indicators. Washington, D.C.

Vance personal communication 2004.MYLF movement Pg 60.

Vos, C.C. and J.P. Chardon. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the 

distribution pattern of the moor frog, Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology 35(1): 44-56.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland, Monograph 7.

Welsh, H H., Jr. and L.M. Ollivier. 1998. Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case 

study from California’s redwoods. Ecological Applications, 8:1118-1132.

Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer Jr., W. F., Mayer, K. E., White, M. editors. 1988. California's Wildlife. 

Volume I. Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. 

Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. 

University of California Publications in Zoology, 54, 207-292.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 541

Botany Resources

Andrews, Tom. (compiler). 1994. Research Natural Areas in Ecosystem Management and Research. 

White paper prepared for Forest Management Research/Land Management Planning, USDA 

Forest Service. 7 pp.

Bais, Harsh, R. Vepachedu, S. Gilroy, R. Callaway, J. Vivanco. 2003. Allelopathy and Exotic Plant 

Invasion: From Molecules and Genes to Species Interactions. Science Vol. 301:1377-1380. 5 

September 2003.

Bartolome J.B., Erman D.C., and Schwarz C.F. 1990. Stability and change in Sierran minerotrophic 

peatlands. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-198. Berkeley, California 11 p.

Battagin, J. and Dwerlokotte, R. 1989. Plant occurrence discovery record for Cypripedium 

fasciculatum Occurrence 51 Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. 

University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 360 pp.

California Natural Diversity Database 2008. RareFind Version 3.1.0 California Department of Fish 

and Game. Accessed March 2008.

Carter, C.V. 1992. Plant occurrence discovery record for Penstemon personatus. Available at Mt 

Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Chimner R.A. and Cooper D.J. 2002. Modeling carbon accumulation in Rocky Mountain fens. 

Wetlands 22: 100-110.

Clifton, G. 2005. Plumas County and Plumas National Forest Flora. Draft. Unpublished.

Cole, D.N. and Bayfield, N.G. 1993 Recreational Trampling Of Vegetation: Standard Experimental 

Procedures. Biological Conservation 63: 209-215.

Cooper D.J., Chimner R.A., and Wolf E.C. 2005. Livestock use and the sustainability of southern 

Sierra Nevada fens. Report prepared for Inyo National Forest. 15 pp.

Cooper et al. 1998. Hydrologic restoration of a fen in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, 

USA. Wetlands 18(3):335-345.

Coppoletta, M. 2006. Plant occurrence discovery record for Cypripedium fasciculatum. Available at 

Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Coppoletta, M. 2008. Plumas National Forest Travel Management: Biological Assessment/Evaluation 

of Potential Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species. USDA Forest 

Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District.

Davidson, E. and Fox, M. 1974. Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert vegetation 

and soil. Madroño 22 (1974), pp. 381–412.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

542 – Plumas National Forest

Dillingham, C. 2005. Plant occurrence discovery record for H. venosa. Available at Mt Hough Ranger 

District, Plumas NF.

Elder, D. and Reichert, M. 2005, Region-wide GIS bedrock compilation mapping – an ArcSDE 

geodatabase: digital dataset - agency internal publication, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

Griggs 2001. Plant occurrence discovery record for Monardella follettii. Available at Mt Hough 

Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Hall 1980. Direct impacts of off-road vehicles on vegetation. Pages 63-74 in: P.G. Rowlands (ed.). 

The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community processes with emphasis on 

off-road vehicles: a critical review. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Desert 

Plan Staff Special Publication. Riverside, CA.

Harrison, S. 1999. Local and regional diversity in a patchy landscape: native, alien, and endemic 

herbs on serpentine. Ecology 80(1): pp. 70–80.

Harrison, S., Safford, H.D. Grace, J.B., Viers, J.H., and Davies, K.F. 2006. Regional and local species 

richness in an insular environment: serpentine plants in California. Ecological Monographs, 

76(1), 2006, pp. 41–56.

Harrison, S., Safford, H.D., Grace, J.B. Viers, J.H. and Davies, K.F. 2006. Regional and local species 

richness in an insular environment: serpentine plants in California. Ecological Monographs, 

76(1): pp. 41–56.

Hickman, James C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Janeway, L. 1998 Plant occurrence discovery record for Lewisia kelloggii ssp. huchinsonii. Available 

at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Kaye, T. and Cramer, J.R. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium 

montanum. September 2005. Prepared for Region 5 – USDA Forest Service by the Institute for 

Applied Ecology. 50 pages.

Kruger, J. 1998. Plant occurrence discovery record for Cypripedium fasciculatum Occurrence 31B. 

Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

MacDonald, L. H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and constraints. 

Environmental Management Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 299-315.

Madrid, M. J. 1996. Forest Supervisor with U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National Forest. Memo to 

Rangers and staff. Species Lists for Sensitive and Special Interest Plants and Interim 

Management Prescriptions for the Forest. April 5, 1996.

Meyer, M. 1991. Evaluation of Botanical Special Interest Areas, Plumas National Forest. Internal 

Report. Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 543

Ouren, D.S., Haas, Christopher, Melcher, C.P., Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R., Burris, Lucy, 

Fancher, Tammy, and Bowen, Z.H., 2007, Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on 

Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive 

bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 

225 pages.

Rotta 1983 Plant occurrence discovery record for Lupinus dalesiae Occurrence 35. Available at Mt 

Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Rotta, G. 1984. Plant occurrence discovery record for Cypripedium fasciculatum Occurrence 31. 

Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Rundel P.W., Parsons D., and Gordon T.1977. Montane and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada 

and Cascade ranges. In M. Barbour and J. Major (eds.) Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 

Wiley Interscience.

Safford, H., Viers, J.H., and Harrison, S. 2005. Serpentine endemism in the California flora: a 

database of serpentine affinity. Madrono, 52 (4): pp. 222–257.

State of California Department of Water Resources 2004. SP-T2 Project Effects on Special Status 

Plant Species Draft Final Report, Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100, March 

2004.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006. Route Designation: Project Design Criteria for “No effect” or 

“May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for TE Species – October 2006 

version 1.

USDA Forest Service 1992. Interim Management guide for Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia aperta 

var. canina, and Ivesia sericoleuca. Compiled by Kathy Van Zuuk, Tahoe National Forest, 

January 1992.

USDA Forest Service 2003a. OHV Monitoring Report. Prepared by Dan Lubin for the Mt Hough 

Ranger District. September 18, 2003. Unpublished report available at the Mt Hough Ranger 

District, Plumas NF.

USDA Forest Service 2005a. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species Evaluation and Documentation Form 

for Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

USDA Forest Service 2005b. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species Evaluation and Documentation Form 

for Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae. Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

USDA Forest Service 2005c. Forest Service Manual 4060, Sections 4063 to 4063.5 Research Natural 

Areas. National Headquarters (WO), Washington D.C. Pgs 3-29.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

544 – Plumas National Forest

USDA Forest Service 2005d. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species Evaluation and Documentation Form 

for Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae Available at Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas NF.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land & Resource Management Plan. Plumas 

National Forest, Region 5.

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Biological Evaluation Assessment for 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Vallejo, CA. July 2003. 68 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, 

Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2353.03(2). National Forest System 

Trails.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. OHV Botany Survey for the Feather River Ranger District. Unpublished 

data available at the Feather River Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Vollmar Consulting. 2007. OHV Botany Survey Mount Hough and Beckwourth RD Final Report. 

Prepared for Forest Route Designation Process. Unpublished report available at the Mt Hough 

Ranger District, Plumas NF.

Vollmer, A. T., Maza, B. G., Medica, P. A., Turner, F. B., and Bamburg, S. A. 1976. The impact of offroad vehicles on a desert ecosystem. Environmental Management 1:115–129.

Von der Lippe, M. and Kowarik, I. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as driver of 

plant invasions. Conservation Biology, 21 (4), 986-996.

Weixelman, D. 2007. A DRAFT User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen Areas 

in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges, CA. USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National 

Forest. 47 pages.

Whittaker, R.H. 1954. The Ecology of Serpentine Soils. Ecology, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 258-288.

Wilshire, H.G., Shipley, Susan, and Nakata, J.K., 1978, Impacts of off-road vehicles on vegetation: 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, v. 43, p. 131–

139.

Woods, S.W. 2001. Echohydrology of subalpine wetlands in the Kawuneeche Valley, Rocky 

Mountain National Park, Colorado. PhD dissertation. Department of Earth Sciences, Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 545

Heritage Resources

Baker, S. and Shoup, L. 1985. Cultural Resources Study of the Gibsonville and Bellevue Timber 

Compartments, Sierra and Plumas Counties, California. On file at Plumas National Forest, 

Feather River Ranger District.

Burcell, J.A. 2008. Plumas National Forest Travel Management Archaeological Resources Report 

(ARR). Report Pending. Available at Plumas National Forest, Supervisor’s Office.

D’Azevedo, W. 1986. Washoe. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin.

Edited by D’Azevendo, pp.466-498. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Dixon, R. 1905. The Northern Maidu. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (17)3: 

pp.135-148. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Elston, R.G. 1986. Washoe. Pages 466–498 in Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C.

Farriss and Smith. 1882. History of Plumas County, California. Howell-North Books, Burbank, CA.

Fowler, C. and Liljeblad, S. 1986. Northern Paiute. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 

11: Great Basin. Edited by D’Azevedo, pp. 435465. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Kowta, M. 1988. The Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An 

Introduction and Interpretive Model. California Site Inventory, Northeast Information Center, 

California State University, Chico.

Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprint. Dover Press, Michigan.

Lawson, S. 2005. Personal Communication with Beckwourth Ranger District Archaeologist Dan 

Elliot. Directory — Plumas County Museum. Quincy, CA 96103.

McCombs, D. 2008. Heritage Resource Survey for the Plumas National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle 

Route Designation Project. Prepared for the Plumas National Forest, Supervisor’s Office under 

Contract No. 53-9SCP-05-43.

Moore, J. 2008. Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, OHV Route Designation Survey, Feather 

River Ranger District, Butte and Plumas Counties, California.

Moratto, M. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

PAR Environmental Services, Inc. 1966. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Pinebelt Multi-Product 

Salvage Sale. On file at the Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District.

McCombs, D. 2008. Heritage Resource Survey for the Plumas National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle 

Route Designation Project. Prepared for the Plumas National Forest, Supervisor’s Office under 

Contract No. 53-9SCP-05-43.

Riddell, F. 1978. Maidu and Konkow. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. 

Edited by Heizer, pp. 370-386. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

546 – Plumas National Forest

Sinnott, J. 1977. History of Sierra County, Volume V: Over North in Sierra County. Mid-Cal 

Publishers, Fresno, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: 

Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. On file, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Region, Vallejo.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on 

the National Forests in California. On file, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo.

Vaughan, T. 1989. Historical Overview of Railroad Logging Systems on the Beckwourth and Quincy 

Ranger Districts, Plumas National Forest, Plumas and Sierra Counties, CA. On file at the Plumas 

National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District.

Wallace, W. 1970. Post-Pleistocene and Archaeology, 900 to 2000 BC. In Handbook of North 

American Indians, Volume 8: California. Edited by Heizer, pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington D.C.

Weinberg, C. and M. Kliejunas. 2008. Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, OHV Route 

Designation Survey, Mt. Hough and Beckwourth Ranger Districts, Plumas County, California.

Young, J. 2004. Plumas County: History of the Feather River Region. Edited by Plumas County 

Museum Association. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco, CA.

Hydrology and Soils

California Department of Water Resources http://cdec.water.ca.gov.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 1998. Central Valley 

Region Water Quality Control Plan (Fourth Edition, 1998, revised 2004). Sacramento, 

California.

California State Water Quality Control Board, 2006. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality 

Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS.

Coe, D. B.R., 2006, Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra Nevada, 

California: MS thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 208, (b) (1) (F) (i) and (ii), 33 U.S.C. 1288; Section 319, 

33 U.S.C 1329.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7).
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 547

Powers R.F., Scott, A.D., Sanchez, F.G., Voldseth R.A., Page-Dumroese, D. Elioff, J.D., and Stone 

D.M., 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first 

decade of research; Forest Ecology and Management 220: 31-50.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Soil Resource Inventory of the Plumas National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service, California.

USDA Forest Service, 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. R-5 Forest Service Handbook 

2509.22. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Soil Erosion Hazard Rating, R5 Amendment No. 2. Soil and Water 

Conservation Handbook. FSH 2509.22, chapter 50. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, 

California.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Soil Management Handbook FSH 2509.18. WO Amendment 2509.19-

91-1. USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program. Updated 2002.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Soil Quality Monitoring, R5 Supplement 2509.18-95-1. Soil 

Management Handbook. FSH 2509.18, chapter 2. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, 

California.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Lassen, 

Plumas, Tahoe National Forests. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in 

California – Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. R5-MB-046. Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service 2008. Status Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2008, Herger-Feinstein Quincy 

Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monitoring/

USDA Forest Service 2009. Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement, Moonlight and Wheeler 

Fires Recovery and Restoration Project. R5-MB-195. Plumas National Forest.

Noxious Weeds

Bais, Harsh, R. Vepachedu, S. Gilroy, R. Callaway, J. Vivanco. 2003. Allelopathy and Exotic Plant 

Invasion: From Molecules and Genes to Species Interactions. Science Vol. 301:1377-1380. 5 

September 2003.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

548 – Plumas National Forest

Bayer, D.E. 2000. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. In Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. Eds. 

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky.University of California Press, Berkeley and 

Los Angeles, California. pp. 106-111.

Beck, K.G. 1994. How do weeds affect us all? Reprinted with permission from: 1994 Leafy Spurge 

Symposium, Bozeman, MT. July 26-29. Accessed online at: 

http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/research/subjects/ag/spurge_wl/spurge/pdffiles/SYMPOSIU/94/1

1beck94.pdf

Bisson, H. 1999. Statement of the United States Department of the Interior Concerning Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants. June 24, 1999. Website 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/legislative/pages/1999/te990624.htm 

Bond, W. and Turner, R. 2004. The biology of non-chemical control of Creeping Thistle (Cirsium 

arvense). HDRA, Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry, UK. Accessed at 

http://www.organicweeds.org.uk.

Bossard, C. 2000. Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link. In Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. Eds. 

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky.University of California Press, Berkeley and 

Los Angeles, California. pp. 145-150.

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. 

University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 360 pp.

Brooks, M.L. 1995. Benefits of protective fencing to plant and rodent communities of the western 

Mohave Desert, California. Environmental Management 19 (1): pp. 65-74.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2004. ENCYCLOWEEDIA: Notes on 

Identification, Biology and Management of Plants Defined as Noxious Weeds by California Law. 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm. Accessed December 

2004.

California Department of Food and Agriculture(CDFA) .2007. Noxious Weed Pest Ratings. Accessed 

at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/pdfs/noxiousweed_ratings.pdf Last updated 

January 2007.

Cal-IPC 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive 

Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org. 

Daehler, C.C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: 

Implications for conservation and restoration. Annul Review of Ecology Evolution Systematics. 

34:183–211.

Davidson, E. and Fox, M. Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert vegetation and 

soil. Madroño 22 (1974), pp. 381–412.

DiTomaso, J. 2004. Yellow Starthistle Information. http://wric.ucdavis.edu/yst/yst.html accessed June 

5, 2008.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 549

Donald, W.W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Reviews of Weed 

Science 5: 193-250.

Gelbard, J.L. and Harrison, S. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect and grazing. Ecological Applications, 13(2), 2003, pp. 404–415.

Hoshovsky 2000 Rubus discolor. In Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. Eds. Bossard, C.C., 

J.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky.University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 

California. pp. 145-150.

Lonsdale, W.M. and Lane, A.M. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National 

Park, northern Australia Biological Conservation 69: 277-283.

Nuzzo, V. 1997 Element Stewardship Abstract for Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle). Nature 

Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 

Ouren, D.S., Haas, Christopher, Melcher, C.P., Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R., Burris, Lucy, 

Fancher, Tammy and Bowen, Z.H., 2007, Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on 

Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive 

bibliographies and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 

pages.

Parendes, L.A. and Jones, J.A. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion 

along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation 

Biology 14 (1): 64-75.

Roché, B.F. Jr. 1991. Achene dispersal in yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Northwest 

Science 66 (2): pp 62-65.

Trombulaak, S. C. and C. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1): Pages 18-30.

Tu, M., Hurd, C. and Randall, J.M. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques 

for Use in Natural Areas. The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Team. Version 

April 2001.

Turner, M.G. et al. 1997. Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National 

Park. Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp 411-433.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2005. Species Abstracts of Highly Disruptive Exotic Plants 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument, Cirsium arvense, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/exoticab/efficirs.htm

USDA Forest Service 2003. OHV Monitoring Report. Prepared by Dan Lubin for the Mt Hough 

Ranger District. September 18, 2003. Unpublished report available at the Mt Hough Ranger 

District, Plumas National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2080. Noxious Weed Management.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

550 – Plumas National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, 

Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. OHV Botany Survey for the Feather River Ranger District. Unpublished 

data available at the Feather River Ranger District, PNF. 

USDA Forest Service 2008a. Plumas National Forest Botanical Surveys of Proposed Motorized Trails 

on the Mt Hough Ranger District (Summary Report). Unpublished report available at the Mt 

Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service 2008b. OHV Botany Survey for the Feather River Ranger District. Unpublished 

data available at the Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service 2008c. OHV Botany Survey for the Beckwourth Ranger District. Unpublished 

data available at the Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. 

Vollmar Consulting. 2007. OHV Botany Survey Mount Hough and Beckwourth RD Final Report. 

Prepared for Forest Route Designation Process. Unpublished report available at the Mt Hough 

Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

Recreation

National Visitor Use Monitoring Results For Plumas National Forest, September 2006, USDA Forest 

Service Region 5.

Wildlife

Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different 

proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-366.

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by 

nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. A. Am. Wildl. Natural Res 

Conf. 47:332-342.

Anthony, R.G.; and Isaacs, F.B. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 53(1): 148-159.

Aubry, K.B., McKelvey, K.S., Copeland, J.P. 2007 Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the 

wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2147-2158.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American 

marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-254.

Beier, P. Drennan, J.E. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern 

goshawks. Ecological applications. 7(2): 564-571.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 551

Bissonette, J.A., D.J. Harrison, C.D. Hargis, T.G. Chapin. 1997. The influence of spatial scale and 

scale-sensitive properties on habitat selection by American marten. Pages 368-385. In: J.A. 

Bissonette. ed. Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. Springer-Verlag, 

New York, N.Y.

Blakesley, J. A. 2003. Ecology of the California spotted owl: breeding dispersal and associations with 

forest stand characteristics in northeastern California. Dissertation, Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, USA.

Brody, A.J., and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 5-10.

Buskirk, S.W.; Ruggiero, L.F. 1994. Marten. In The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest 

Carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical 

Report RM-254.

Buskirk, S.W.; Zielinski, W.J. 2003. Small and mid-sized carnivores. In: Zabel, C.J.; Anthony, R.G.; 

editors. Mammalian community dynamics: Management and conservation in coniferous forests 

of western North America. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. Pg. 207-249.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Bear Hunting Final Environmental 

Document. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. April 12, 

2004.

CDFG 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California; Edited by Kenneth E. Mayer and William F. 

Laudenslayer, Jr., State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, CA. 166 pp.

Claar, J.J.; Anderson, N.; Boyd, D. [et al.]. 1999 Carnivores. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H. cords. Effects 

of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on 

Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 7.1-7.63.

CWHR 2005. California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 

2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.1 personal computer program. 

Sacramento, California.

Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use by 

fisher. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State Univ. Arcata, CA. 67 pages.

Daw, S.K., DeStefano, S. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and postfledging areas in Oregon. Journal of wildlife Management. 65(1): 59-65.

Delaney, D.K.; Grubb, T.G.; Beier, P. [et al.] 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexiacan spotted 

owls. Journal of Widlife Management. 63(1): 60-76.

Gaines, W.L.; Singleton, P.H.; and Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear 

Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

552 – Plumas National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNWGTR-586.

Graber, D.M. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. Pgs. 709 -726. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, 

Final Report to Congress, vol. III, Assessments, Commissioned Reports,and Background 

Information (Davis, University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996).

Green, G.; Bombay, H. L.; and Morrison, M. L. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Willow 

Flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Grinnell, J.; Dixon, J.S.; Linsdale, M.M. 1937. Fur-bearing Mammals of California: their Natural 

History, Systematic Status, and Relations to Man. Volumes 1 & 2. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA, USA.

Grubb, T.G.; King, R.M., 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with 

classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 500-511.

Grubb, T.G.; Pater, L.L.; Delaney, D.K. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern goshawks. 

Res. Note RMRS-RN-3. For Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 2p.

Hamann, B.; Johnston, H.; McClellan, P. [et al.]. 1999. Birds. In Joslin, G., Youmans, H. cords. 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlire: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 3.1-

3.34.

Hargis, C.D.; McCullough, D.R. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite 

National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48: 140-146.

Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and 

landscape pattern on American martens. J. Appl. Ecol. 36:157-172.

Joslin, G., and Youmans, H. coordinators. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A 

review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The 

Wildlife Society. 307 p.

Kasworm, W.F.; Manley, T.L. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in 

northwest Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management, 8:79-84.

Knight, R.L., Cole, D.N. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions 

of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56: 239-247.

Marra, P., and R.L. Holberton. 1998. Corticosterone levels as indicators of habitat quality: effects of 

habitat segregation in a migratory bird during the non-breeding season. Oecologia 116:284-292.

Menke, J.W., Davis, C.,, Beesley, P. 1996. Rangeland Assessment. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. III. University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources. P. 901-972.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 553

Potvin, F., Belanger, L. Lowell, K. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clear-cut boreal landscape. 

Conservation Biology 14:844-857.

RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a 

strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in 

Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian.v-2.pdf.

Robitaille, J.F.; Aubry, K. 2000. Occurrence and activity of American martens Martes Americana in 

relation to roads and other routes. Acta Theriologica 45(1): 137-143.

Rost, G.R., and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. J. Wildl. 

Mgmt. 43(3):634-641.

Seamans, M.E. 2005. Population Biology of the California Spotted Owl in the Central Sierra Nevada. 

Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 152 p.

Spencer, W.D.; Barrett, R.H.; and Zielinski, W.J. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 1181-1186.

Swarthout, E.C.H., Steidl, R.J. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. 

Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(2): 312-317.

Thomas, J, Editor. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. USDA FS Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 553.

Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. The ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Forest Service Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information.

USDA Forest Service 1998b. Sierra Nevada Science Review, Report of the Science Review Team 

charged to synthesize new information of rangewide urgency to the national forests of the Sierra 

Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

USDA Forest Service 2001a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment, vol. 3, chapter 3, part 4. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service 2004. Record of Decision, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the West Coast 

Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennanti) as Threatened or Endangered. 

Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 68, April 8, 2004.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the California spotted 

owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 

100, May 24, 2006.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

554 – Plumas National Forest

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., T.W. Beck, Technical 

Coordinators, 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133 Albany CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; 285 p.

Wasser, S.K., Bevis, K., King, G., Hanson, E. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of 

disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 4:1019-1022.

Wisdom, M.J., Bate, L.J. 2008 (in press) Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and 

human access. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.027.

Wisdom, M.J., Holthausen, R.S., Wales, B.C. [et al.]. 2000 Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates 

of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service/ 529 p.

Zande, A.N.; Berkhuizedn, J.C.; van Latersteijn, H.C.; ter Keurs, W.J.; Poppelaars, A.J. 1984. Impact 

of outdoor recreation on the density of a number of breeding bird species in woods adjacent to 

urban residential areas. Biological Conservation 30: 1-39.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California's wildlife: Volume 

III: Mammals. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.

Zielinski, W.J., Truex, R.L., Schlexer, F.V., Campbell, L.A., Carroll, C. 2005 Historical and 

contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. 

Journal of Biogeography 32: 1385-1407.

Wildlife Management Indicator Species

Bland, J.D. 1993. Forest grouse and mountain quail investigations: A final report for work completed 

during the summer of 1992. Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 

Ninth St., Sacramento, CA.

Bland, J.D. 1997. Biogeography and conservation of blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus in 

California. Wildlife Biology 3(3/4):270.

Bland, J. D. 2002. Surveys of Mount Pinos Blue Grouse in Kern County, California, Spring 2002. 

Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 

95814.

Bland, J.D. 2006. Features of the Forest Canopy at Sierra Sooty Grouse Courtship Sites, Summer 

2006. CDFG Contract No. S0680003.

Brown, C. 2008. Summary of Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) Occupancy in the Sierra Nevada 

within the range of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Sierra Nevada 

Amphibian Monitoring Program draft assessment, January 18, 2008.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 555

Burnett, R. D., and D. L. Humple. 2003. Songbird monitoring in the Lassen National Forest: Results 

from the 2002 field season with summaries of 6 years of data (1997-2002). PRBO Conservation 

Science Contribution Number 1069. 36pp.

Burnett, R.D., D.L. Humple, T.Gardali, and M.Rogner. 2005. Avian monitoring in Lassen National 

Forest 2004 Annual Report. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 1242. 96pp.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed 

Deer Habitats and Populations in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. 

February 1998. 57pp.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004a. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final 

Environmental Document. August 5, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, 

Department of Fish and Game. 182 pp + appendices.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter 

Survey. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2005. California Department of Fish and Game 

and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

(CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008).

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2007. Deer Hunting Final Environmental 

Document, April 10, 2007. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and 

Game. 80pp + appendices.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sagegrouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished 

Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to 

manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/fospmap2002.html.

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/bbwomap2002.html.

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2004. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/riparian/2004/ywarmap2004.htm

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. 

Staab, S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp.

Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive model 

for assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national forests. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

556 – Plumas National Forest

Completion Report. Western center for Monitoring and Assessment of Fresh Water Ecosystems. 

Utah State University. Logan, Utah 23 pp.

Heath, S.K., and G. Ballard. 2003. Bird species composition, phenology, nesting substrate, and 

productivity for the Owens Valley alluvial fan, Eastern Sierra Nevada, California 1998-2002. 

Great Basin Birds 6(1):18-35.

Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal of 

the Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern 

Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9(5):1041-1058.

Hutto, R.L., and S.M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds. 

The Condor 108:817-831.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological 

integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special 

Publication 5, Champaign, IL.

Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V.A. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of 

fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of the 

western United States. Studies in Avian Biology No.25:49-64.

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 2007. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Multi Species 

Inventory and Monitoring: A Foundation for Comprehensive Biological Status and Trend 

Monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Draft Report.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp.

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 

6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 

January 2, 2008 ).

Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring 

benthic macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental Management 

8:75-80.

Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatial-temporal variability and the study of aquatic insects. 

Canadian Entomologist 121:941-963.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 

MD.

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra 

Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 557

populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available online: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html.

Siegel, R.B. and D.R. Kaschube. 2007. Landbird Monitoring Results from the Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program in the Sierra Nevada. Final report in fulfillment 

of Forest Service Agreement No. 05-PA-11052007-141. The Institute for Bird Populations. 

February 13, 2007. 33pp.

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. Plumas Lassen Study 2006 Annual Report. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 

182pp.

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance 

of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15(5):1535-1549.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2004.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator 

Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2006. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada 

National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe 

National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, CA. January 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Motorized Travel Management Project - NEPA Document.

USFWS. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for Petitions to 

List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register: January 12, 2005, Volume 

70, Number 8, pages 2244-2282.

USFWS. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to 

List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

558 – Plumas National Forest

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register: May 24, 

2006, Volume 71, Number 100, pages 29886-29908.

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck., tech. coord. 

1992. The California Spotted Owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-133, US Forest Service, Albany, CA.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 559

Appendix G: Road System Development on the Plumas

Introduction

The definition of a Forest Road is “Any road wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, and serving 

the National Forest System (NFS) and which is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System” (Title 23, Section 101 of the United States Code). The 

Plumas National Forest (NF) road network facilitates Forest management, provides access to diverse 

recreational opportunities, and contributes to the rural transportation infrastructure of interspersed 

private lands. At the same time, agency and public awareness of the environmental costs and risks 

associated with Forest roads and attendant activities is increasing. As the agency’s emphasis has 

shifted from commodity production to ecosystem health, the Forest Road system needs to be 

analyzed, managed and maintained to minimize environmental impacts and reduce costs, while 

providing sufficient access for public and agency needs. This appendix will provide background 

information and management strategies being employed to meet these objectives.

• Forest road management and maintenance strategies to meet public and Forest Service access 

and resource protection needs using limited funding sources.

• Impact of adding unauthorized roads under the Travel Management Rule.

Plumas National Forest Road System

State and County roads stretch across the Plumas NF and serve large tracts of federal land. Some of 

these County roads are also designated as Forest Highways, making them eligible under the Federal 

Lands Highway Program for disaster relief and major renovation funds. Examples are the Oro-Quincy 

Highway, LaPorte-Quincy Highway and Gold Lake Highway. Plumas National Forest System (NFS) 

roads, under Forest Service jurisdiction, branch off from these State and County roads as arterial, 

collector and local roads.

NFS roads are not public roads in the same sense as roads that are under the jurisdiction of State 

and County road agencies. These roads are not intended to meet the transportation needs of the public 

at large. Instead, they are authorized only for the use and administration of NFS lands. Although 

generally open and available for public use, that use is at the discretion of the Secretary of 

Agriculture. Through authorities delegated by the Secretary, the Forest Service may restrict or control 

traffic to meet specific management direction. 

NFS roads are categorized using the following system:

Maintenance Level (ML) 5: Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

Normally double lane paved facilities, or aggregate surface with dust abatement. This is the highest 

standard of maintenance. 

Maintenance Level 4: Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at 

moderate speeds. Most are double lane aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane. Some may be 

chip sealed or dust abated. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

560 – Plumas National Forest

Maintenance Level 3: Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard 

passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Typically these roads are 

low speed, single lane with turnouts and native or aggregate surfacing. 

Maintenance Level 2: Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is 

allowed but discouraged. Use by the public is unrestricted, and is generally focused on access to 

privately-owned lands or recreation sites, or permitted activities (i.e. grazing, woodcutting). The 

Forest Service uses these roads extensively for administrative purposes. Non-traffic generated 

maintenance is minimal. 

Maintenance Level 1: These roads are closed year-round, but some intermittent use may be 

authorized. When closed, they must be physically closed with barricades, berms, gates, or other 

closure devices. When closed to vehicular traffic, they may be suitable and used for non-motorized 

uses, with custodial maintenance. 

The current Plumas National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) encompasses 4,138 miles of 

roads in all maintenance levels (Table 201). 

Table 201. Road Mileage on the Plumas NF by Maintenance Level.

Maintenance Level Miles

Level 1 262

Level 2 3,240

Level 3 405

Level 4 106

Level 5 124

Total Miles: 4,138

Road Maintenance Terminology

Maintenance needs on NFS roads are categorized and quantified in several ways that must be 

understood to make sense of cost data and projected annual and deferred maintenance needs being 

reported at the National level. Common terms used in this appendix are defined here.

Traffic Generated and Non-Traffic Generated Maintenance: Traffic generated maintenance 

needs are those associated with the use of a road, such as rutting of the roadbed caused by traffic 

during wet weather. In general, as use on a particular route increases, so does the traffic-generated 

maintenance needs. Non-Traffic generated maintenance is independent of the use of a road. For 

example, the growth of tree limbs and brush creates a maintenance need, but the growth is 

independent of the volume of traffic the road receives. 

Annual Maintenance: This term refers to the expected annual maintenance required on 

roadways and roadsides based on the Maintenance Level assigned to the road. The actual amount of 

maintenance required depends on the amount of use the road has received, the condition of the 

surface, and the season of use. Annual maintenance estimates include many work items that are not 

done yearly, but are annualized. For example, the aggregate surfacing on a mile of level 3 road may 

last 25 years and cost $60,000 to replace. This equates to a simple annualized cost of $2,400 per mile.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 561

Deferred Maintenance: This is work that can be deferred, without loss of road serviceability, 

until such time as the work can be economically or efficiently performed. Using the example above, if 

the surfacing is completely worn down, the deferred maintenance is $60,000 per mile for 

replacement. Deferred maintenance needs can be reduced through a number of different actions and 

strategies, as discussed below.

Safety and User Related Maintenance: This term refers to activities that protect the public and 

agency employees and allow use of the road for the intended purpose. Examples include installation 

of warning devices (such as stop or bridge abutment signs); pothole patching on a level 5 road; 

maintaining surface and brush clearance for passenger car access to developed recreation sites; 

maintaining access for fire suppression initial attack equipment; or maintaining access for Forest

health project planning and implementation. 

Resource Protection Related Maintenance: These activities preserve the road prism for its 

intended use and minimize erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic systems. Examples include ditch 

and culvert cleaning; maintaining rolling dips to prevent stream diversion; or surface blading to 

remove wheel ruts that concentrate runoff.

Stormproofing and Aquatic Passage: These projects reconstruct a road using various techniques 

to minimize chronic and storm related resource damage, reduce future maintenance costs, and restore 

aquatic passage at stream crossings. Stormproofing includes out-sloping the road surface to the 

maximum extent possible and eliminating associated inboard ditches and cross drains; installing 

larger culverts and/or lowering the grade through stream crossings to reduce fill volume and prevent 

diversion; installing rolling dips on moderate road grades to minimize road surface erosion; armoring 

fills with rock to reduce erosion should they be overtopped; or completely replacing earth fills with 

rock. Aquatic passage involves replacing a pipe culvert with an open bottom culvert or bridge to 

restore the natural stream bottom.

Deferred Maintenance Backlog

The Plumas NFTS has developed over the past 100 years, generally in response to public access and 

resource extraction needs. The current inventory shows over 4,138 miles of road, with 85% in MLs 1 

and 2, and only 15% in MLs 3, 4 and 5 (Table 201). Road maintenance budgets have declined over 

the past decade, and the Forest’s internal capability to maintain roads has been reduced with loss of 

maintenance personnel and equipment. The Plumas Forest wide Roads Analysis completed in 2008 

reported a Plumas NF deferred maintenance backlog of $70.0 million and the need for an annual 

maintenance budget of $9.5 million to cover all ML 1–5 roads on the system.

These national estimates require some explanation. The deferred and annual maintenance figures 

were generated using a national formula based on random sampling (less than 0.2% miles of system 

roads nationwide for 2009) and standard maintenance prescriptions. It is a useful tool for tracking 

national trends and producing auditable outputs, but was never intended for use at the Forest level, 

nor is it considered to be statistically valid at this scale. The 2008 deferred maintenance cost figures 

for ML 4 and 5 roads ($41.5 million) is a reasonably fair assessment of needs, since paved or chip 

sealed roads have clearly defined maintenance needs to preserve the surfacing and avoid rapid failure. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

562 – Plumas National Forest

Annual maintenance cost figures ($3.2 million) for ML 4 and 5 roads are too high for the Plumas due 

to lighter traffic volumes and winter snow cover extending the pavement life. Local estimates are 

closer to $2 million. Maintenance Level 2 and 3 road maintenance costs are even more overstated. 

These roads account for $28.5 million (41%) of the 2008 deferred maintenance and $6.2 million 

(65%) of the annual maintenance needs; however these require far less maintenance expenditures to 

remain useable and protect natural resources. The nationally calculated cost figures for ML 2 and 3 

roads are based on several assumptions: 

• High cost aggregate surfacing should be replaced and maintained on most level 3 roads

• Culverts have fixed and relatively limited life spans 

• ML 2 roads require high numbers of cross drain culverts 

• Roadside vegetation and debris should be regularly removed from every road 

These assumptions are not site-specific to the Plumas NF, and do not apply to many of the 

Forest’s roads. Given the conditions on the ground and current maintenance and environmental 

objectives, the maintenance figures for ML 2 and 3 roads are considered to be unreasonably high, 

which artificially inflates the Forest deferred backlog figure. More reasonable figures for the entire 

Plumas ML 1 through ML 5 road system would be in the range of $20 million deferred maintenance 

and $3 million annual maintenance. While these figures may still appear high, they are slowly being 

reduced through a variety of activities that are part of a Forest-wide strategy.

Forest Strategy for Road Maintenance

Plumas NF line officers regularly make decisions about which roads to maintain or improve, and to 

what standard, in order to protect resources and minimize costs. These maintenance decisions, 

coupled with road projects such as stormproofing, fish passage construction, and decommissioning, 

reduce road maintenance needs and the deferred maintenance backlog. These actions are 

accomplished through carefully targeted maintenance planning, and aggressive pursuit of funding 

opportunities. The Forest has requested and received significant additional funding from several 

sources for road restoration and design projects since 2006. The ongoing decommissioning program 

has resulted in a net loss of road miles over the past 8 years. These actions have reduced annual road 

maintenance needs, allowing more regular maintenance funds to be focused on the deferred 

maintenance backlog.

Annual Maintenance

Road managers consider a number of factors in deciding when, where and on what to spend annual 

maintenance funds. Every road does not need or receive maintenance every year, nor is every type of 

maintenance task completed when a road is maintained. There is no expectation, either by Forest 

managers or the public that every mile of every Forest road will be passable every year. A description 

of the Plumas NFTS by maintenance level follows.

Maintenance Level 5: These roads are mostly double lane paved that do require care every year 

and significant mission and safety related maintenance every 8–10 years. Important to note is these 

roads only make up 3% of the system. An example is the 10 mile segment from Genesee to Antelope 

Lake. This road receives relatively low traffic volumes with significantly fewer log trucks than in 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 563

years past, and most are not driven in winter due to snow cover. This substantially reduces 

maintenance costs as heavy vehicles and winter use greatly accelerate asphalt deterioration, and 

generate increases in safety related costs. Drainage is fully maintained and sediment run-off is 

negligible.

Maintenance Level 4: These are mostly chipsealed roads with some asphalt sections that also 

require annual care and significant mission and safety related maintenance every 8–10 years. These 

roads make up 3% of the Plumas NFTS. They generally service campgrounds, major trailheads, river 

accesses and administrative sites. These roads receive low traffic volumes and most are not driven in 

winter due to facility seasonal closures and snow cover. The vast majority of these roads have 

received the critical maintenance necessary to preserve the surfacing. Drainage is fully maintained 

and sediment run-off is negligible.

Maintenance Level 3: These roads make up 10% of the Plumas NFTS and 88% are in-sloped to 

a ditch, which reduces the probability that water will concentrate on the road and erode the surface. 

Most of these roads were aggregate surfaced at one time, but the rock has worn off and been pounded 

into the native material. In many cases, the aggregate surfacing was placed for the purpose of 

withstanding heavy use during logging operations. Since the mid 1990s, the traffic mix has shifted to 

predominately light administrative use and dispersed recreation. The maintenance objectives have 

shifted to drainage structure cleaning, debris removal, hazard tree removal and spot roadside brushing 

for safety. The road surfaces are generally hard, stable and bumpy, but are passable with most 

passenger cars having reasonable ground clearance. The majority of traffic on these roads is pickup 

trucks or sport utility vehicles, which offer even better ground clearance. These roads are graded only 

as necessary for proper drainage or for safety concerns such as severe wash boarding. This not only 

saves maintenance funds, but reduces fresh ground disturbance and reduces surface disturbance and 

the potential for sediment generation. We only plan to replace aggregate surfacing where needed for 

resource protection. From a road user perspective, the trip may take a little longer, but given the 

winding roads, steep drop offs, extremely light traffic volumes and beautiful country, this is probably 

a good thing.

The following summarizes the maintenance level 3 strategy and cost savings:

• Aggregate Surfacing—Applied only as needed for resource protection adjacent to major 

streams or in soft soils or for driver safety. Approximately 200 miles of road could be 

enhanced through the replenishment of aggregate surfacing, but since there are no associated 

resource problems, the decision has been made to forgo surfacing at this time. 

• Grading/Ditch Cleaning—Conducted as needed to restore surface drainage or abate safety 

hazards. In many areas where the surface is hard and stable, the roadbed would need to be 

ripped in order to loosen enough soil to grade a smooth running surface. This ground 

disturbance could lead to an increase in sediment run-off until the road surface stabilizes, so 

roads with stable surfaces are generally not graded.

• Culverts—Check and clean as needed, with scheduled replacement of those that are 

deteriorated or of inadequate size. National standard for replacement life is 20 years; however, 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

564 – Plumas National Forest

inspections indicate that most culverts on the Plumas are 30–40 years old and still in good 

condition. Changing culvert lifespan directly affects calculated deferred maintenance costs.

• Debris Removal—Accomplished as required on all ML 4–5 and most ML 3 roads, but 

generally only as needed for specific projects on ML 2 roads. As an example, in fiscal year 

2006 only 1,220 miles of ML 2 roads received maintenance.

• Roadside Brushing—Brushing needs depend on vegetation types and precipitation which 

decreases substantially from west to east across the Forest. The western-most roads on the 

Plumas NF with lower growing vegetation generally have higher brushing costs. Brushing is 

focused on areas with safety concerns (generally sight distance around curves). Force account 

crews assist with spot brushing, which is less expensive and more flexible than using contract 

crews.

Maintenance Level 2: These roads make up 78% of the Plumas NFTS. Eighteen percent are insloped to a ditch; the remainder are either out-sloped or flat. The majority of these roads are only 

maintained as needed to support Forest projects or provide access to lookouts or recreation facilities; 

therefore, many may not see any maintenance for several years. In some cases, roads may become 

impassable due to rocks or down trees. When needed, maintenance activities typically consist of 

debris removal and roadside brushing. The amount of brushing required can be substantial, depending 

on location and the last time it was done. Spot aggregate surfacing is only used to stabilize soft areas. 

By designing a maintenance scheme focused on roads needed specifically for project or recreation 

access, we can effectively utilize our maintenance budget on the highest-priority needs.

Maintenance Level 1: These roads make up 6% of the Plumas NFTS. Normal practice is to place 

these roads into self-maintaining hydrologic storage using a combination of water bars, rolling dips 

and pulling culverts. Closure device is either a gate or berm. No maintenance is typically performed 

except to check the closure device.

Change in Operational Maintenance Level

When roads no longer warrant or receive the type of use for which they were designed, the road 

manager may recommend that the road’s maintenance level be reduced. For example, in many cases 

on the Forest, ML 3 roads support little traffic, and may be subject to rocks, woody debris, 

encroaching vegetation and uneven surfaces. Over the past decade a number of ML 3 roads have been 

reduced to ML 2, and drainage function (rather than passenger comfort) has become the primary 

objective. These roads are then prioritized for maintenance with the rest of the ML 2 roads. Annual 

maintenance needs are reduced, and the dollar values assigned to these roads as part of the deferred 

maintenance backlog are also reduced.

Stormproofing, Decommissioning and Aquatic Passage

Stormproofing opportunities are evaluated at the watershed level on typically maintenance level 1 

through 3 roads, to reduce the need for drainage maintenance and to prevent catastrophic soil loss 

during significant storm events. 

Decommissioning is analyzed at the watershed level through the appropriate project-level 

environmental documentation. It may be as simple as taking a naturally revegetated road with no 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 565

erosion issues off the system, or it may involve major reconstruction to remove culverts and fills, 

followed by aggressive outsloping to restore the original hillside contour to the extent possible. All 

decommissioned roads and associated deferred and annual maintenance costs are removed from the 

NFTS corporate database. Over the past decade, the Plumas NF has decommissioned 56 miles of NFS 

roads and 91 miles of unauthorized roads that were not needed and were causing or could potentially 

cause resource damage. The net result is that the existing NFTS roads open year round have been 

reduced by 1.4 percent. This has been accomplished through Forest Planning, vegetation management 

projects, watershed restoration projects, fuel treatment projects; trail management decisions, 

landscape analysis, watershed analysis and the Roads Analysis Process (RAP). All of these efforts 

have helped to identify and manage the current NFTS.

Aquatic passage projects have been completed on approximately 3 stream crossings, with 10 

awaiting funding. The projects typically replace a culvert with an open bottom arch or a bridge that 

greatly reduces the fill volume in the stream and exceeds the 100 year storm flow. These projects do 

more than enhance aquatic habitat—they reduce the potential for culvert blockage and subsequent 

heavy sedimentation from loss of fill. In some cases, the old culvert was near the end of its useful life, 

so the replacement structure reduces future maintenance needs.

Adding Roads to the System

A logical question when proposing to add new roads to the NFTS is that of affordability. The ongoing 

efforts described in this appendix are aimed at providing a sustainable NFTS to meet a range of 

access needs and protect natural resources. The unauthorized routes being proposed for addition to the 

system under the Travel Management EIS have for years provided access to dispersed recreation 

opportunities, and connections between NFS roads. These routes have not needed nor received Forest 

Service maintenance, due in large measure to being mostly short lengths located over generally gentle 

slopes with no erosion potential. On-the-ground review of these routes indicates that we would not 

consider conducting maintenance for user access. Expected additional management costs are (1) 

installation of road signs at less than $100 each and (2) entry of data into the corporate INFRA 

database.

Summary

• Management of the Plumas NFTS has changed from an emphasis on commodity extraction to 

resource protection.

• The Plumas NF is working towards the minimum road system to meet agency and public uses.

• National maintenance cost models were not intended to be used at the Forest level.

• The Forest Road management program is focused on safety and resource protection while 

aggressively seeking to leverage maintenance funds through grants and special programs.

• Strategies to reduce annual maintenance costs include:

 Prioritizing maintenance of ML 2 roads on project and recreation-related access needs 

 Downgrading maintenance levels where possible without compromising user needs.

 Focusing on watershed level stormproofing and decommissioning to enhance resource 

protection and reduce future maintenance needs.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

566 – Plumas National Forest

Appendix H: Summary of the Response to Comments

Introduction to Public Comment Process

This Executive Summary contains a concise summary of public comment for the Plumas National 

Forest (PNF) Public Motorized Travel Management Plan (TMP) and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). The formal comment period on the PNF DEIS began on January 3, 2008, and 

ended March 3, 2008. Extension. The PNF received 4,310 total responses, including 340 original 

responses and 3,970 form letters. For a full demographic description and breakdown of these 

responses, please see Appendix A. 

This summary begins with general background information on the PNF TMP, and follows with a 

short description of the content analysis process that was used to analyze comments initially. It 

concludes with a brief discussion of the main areas of public concern. This summary is not intended 

to provide an exhaustive account of public concerns. Indeed, the comments on the PNF DEIS are so 

varied and contain such specificity and detail that they do not lend themselves to a brief 

summarization. The Executive Summary, therefore, is intended only to give a general discussion of 

some pervasive themes running through public comment. 

Reviewers should be aware that respondents are self-selected, and their comments do not 

necessarily represent the views of the public at large. In considering these views, it is important for 

the public and decision makers to understand that this process makes no attempt to treat input as if it 

were a vote. Instead, the content analysis process ensures that every comment is considered at some 

point in the decision process. In addition to this report, PNF has received a database containing all 

discrete public comments on the DEIS, has reviewed each of the comments, and has treated each 

comment according to regulations provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 

CFR 1503.4. 

Project Background

Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motor vehicles, particularly off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles has increased tremendously. Nationally, the number of 

OHV recreationists has climbed sevenfold in the past 30 years, from approximately 5 million in 1972 

to 36 million in 2000. California is experiencing the highest level of OHV use of any state in the 

nation. 

The PNF has 999,521 acres currently open to cross-country travel by motor vehicles. In 2005, the 

PNF completed an extensive inventory of unauthorized routes on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

open to cross-country travel. Approximately 1,109 miles of unauthorized routes were identified. 

These routes were developed without agency authorization, environmental analysis, or public 

involvement, and do not have the same status as National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads 

and NFTS trails. 

Unmanaged motor vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, 

erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. Compaction and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 567

erosion are the primary effects of motor vehicle use on soils. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent 

species are particularly vulnerable to damage from motor vehicle use. 

The PNF’s current proposal, if finalized, would (1) prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off 

designated NFTS roads, motorized trails and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other 

authorization, (2) add approximately 364 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS, and (3) 

designate an additional area (36 acres) open to motor vehicle use.

A number of issues were identified in the public comments received for the project. Comments 

were organized and “coded” to reflect different resource issues and management actions that 

commenters expressed concern about. This summary is organized according the same coding 

categories. The public responses received in relation to the DEIS were diverse. 

Content Analysis Process

Content analysis is a method of evaluating messages in order to elicit meanings and derive 

information. This approach has been applied to the analysis of public comment. While this summary 

does not seek to capture every specific concern, it strives to succinctly identify all key resource issues 

and themes for decisionmakers and the public. 

Each public response is given a unique identifying number, which allows analysts to link specific 

comments to original letters. Respondents’ names and addresses are then entered into a projectspecific database program, enabling creation of a complete mailing list of all respondents. The 

database is also used to track pertinent demographic information such as responses from special 

interest groups or federal, state, tribal, county, and local governments.

All input is considered and reviewed by two analysts. Each response is first read by one analyst 

and sorted into comments addressing various concerns and themes. This sorting is accomplished by 

applying “codes” to each comment (see Appendix B for the coding structure). A second analyst 

reviews the coded comments to ensure accuracy and consistency. Comments are then entered 

verbatim into the database. In preparing the final summary analysis, public issues are reviewed again 

using database printouts. These reports track all coded input and allow analysts to identify a wide 

range of issues and concerns, and analyze the relationships between them. 

Through the content analysis process, analysts strive to identify all relevant issues, not just those 

represented by the majority of respondents. The breadth, depth, and rationale of each comment are 

especially important. Content analysis is intended to facilitate good decision-making by helping the 

planning team to clarify, adjust, or incorporate technical information into preparation of planning 

documents and rules. All responses (i.e., public hearing transcripts, letters, emails, faxes, and other 

types of input) are included in this analysis.

The final product includes a narrative description of public comment by topic, which addresses 

and highlights the key ideas that were promoted by the public. This process and the resulting 

summary do not replace comments in their original form. Rather, they provide a concise summary of 

the letters and other input on file. Both the planning team and the public are encouraged to review the 

actual letters firsthand.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

568 – Plumas National Forest

General Overview of Public Comment

Public comment on the PNF DEIS is far-reaching, often highly detailed, and represents a wide range 

of values and perspectives with respect to motorized travel management. Given this wide range of 

values and perspectives, only broad generalizations are possible to capture in this summary. The 

following subsections describe the public comments received in relation to different aspects of the 

TMP and DEIS. These sections do not treat site-specific comments, which the planning team is 

addressing in the response-to-comment effort.

Analysis

Though the public input regarding motorized travel management on the PNF addresses several 

resource areas and land-management actions, a large percentage of the comments, concerns, and 

requests relate to the adequacy of analysis. While many respondents comment on specific topics 

within the DEIS, such as the purpose and need, cumulative impacts, best management practices 

(BMPs), document composition, etc., most respondents request specific updates, changes, or 

additional data be added to various technical studies (resource reports). Many respondents also 

comment on the DEIS Alternatives. 

Several individuals recommend the agency adjust the purpose and need statement to reflect more 

accurately the intent of the Executive Orders, Subparts A and B of the Travel Management 

regulations, and the purpose of travel planning. One respondent suggests incorporating the following 

statement to better identify the real purpose and need, 

“The need to address public safety concerns, user conflicts, private property rights, lost nonmotorized recreational opportunities, and impact to natural soundscapes and air quality that have 

arisen or might be expected to arise given recent trends in motorized use.” (Ltr 214, Cmt 23, 

Preservation/Conservation)

Many individuals express concern about the process the agency used to determine routes for 

authorized designation. Some respondents would like the PNF to provide supporting documentation 

that highlights the agency’s decision on routes within the transportation system. In general, both 

motorized and non-motorized proponents believe that a site-specific analysis of all inventoried routes 

would strengthen the analysis and should be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). 

In addition, many respondents believe the DEIS is inadequate because the PNF has not (1) 

identified the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and administration of NFS 

lands; (2) identified the roads under their jurisdiction that are no longer needed to meet resource 

management objectives; and (3) completed a science-based analysis of the existing transportation 

system to inform transportation management decisions. Some respondents also believe that technical 

studies are written with a noticeable bias against OHV use, or that route determinations are made 

“pre-decisional”. Some individuals comment the agency should use the best available data and 

research. Many respondents would like for the PNF to work closely with the public and local officials 

throughout the travel management process.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 569

Numerous comments focus on semantic, grammatical, and technical/editorial improvements. 

Several respondents identify areas that report “inaccurate mileages” or contain other “misleading 

information”. Some respondents request that a glossary be inserted into the FEIS to explain acronyms 

and other unfamiliar terms. 

Alternatives

Many comments address the five proposed Alternatives. Some respondents are dissatisfied with the 

range of proposed Alternatives and believe that “several relevant issues are not adequately 

addressed”. These respondents request that the PNF consider “a new action alternative that provides a 

better balance between access and environmental protection”. While some of these comments express 

general support or opposition to the Alternatives, many respondents provide detailed 

recommendations to modify a particular Alternative. The following paragraphs summarize general 

comments relating to each of the DEIS Alternatives. 

Alternative 1 – Respondents express concern over restricted access to public lands. These 

respondents believe that “far too much is being taken away from the public” and that “all but 

Alternative 1 leaves too many roads and trails out of the system”. Some respondents also believe that 

Alternative 1 provides balanced forest recreation opportunities as well as appropriate resource 

protection.

Alternative 2 – Many comments are site-specific and express support or opposition to specific 

route designations. Some respondents believe that Alternative 2 would “best serve the public” and 

“protect the forest for future generations”.

Alternative 3 – Many respondents believe that Alternative 3 is the best alternative for the health 

of the forest because it closes all unauthorized OHV routes and prohibits cross-country travel. These 

respondents prefer this Alternative because it gives the best protection to wildlife and fish habitat 

against the impacts of OHVs. One organization supports this Alternative because it does not add any 

additional routes to environmentally stressed watersheds.

Alternative 4 – Few comments were received for this Alternative. Some respondents support this 

Alternative because it emphasizes natural resource protection and avoids development in roadless 

areas. One respondent believes Alternative 4 offers a reasonable balance between recreation 

opportunity and resource impacts.

Alternative 5 – Several individuals and organizations comment on this Alternative. One 

organization believes a modified Alternative 5 should be created and included in the FEIS. Some 

suggested revisions such as adding additional mixed use designations, designating additional expert 

level single track, or adding low-speed 4WD opportunities. One respondent believes the Preferred 

Alternative violates numerous laws and regulations and would conflict with the Plumas Land and 

Resource Management Plan. Another individual believes that Alternative 5 is a poor attempt to 

manage forest roads and trails.

Other Alternatives – Beyond the five proposed Alternatives, one organization proposes an 

additional Alternative (Alternative 6) for public consideration. The respondent believes this 

Alternative would address several issues that are not adequately evaluated under the five existing 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

570 – Plumas National Forest

Alternatives, some of which include: access to firewood and trees; access for the disabled and elderly; 

dispersed camping; other specific route designations; providing a balanced recreation experience for 

all OHV vehicle types and skill levels; and designating open-riding-areas near major communities.

Decision Making Process

Respondents express concerns regarding various aspects of the decision making process. These 

concerns primarily include adequacy of the public comment period, the Forest’s decision-making 

philosophies, and consistency with other rules, regulations, or plans. 

Several respondents comment on the inadequacy of public involvement. The majority of these 

comments relate to general public involvement methodologies, the adequacy of the comment period, 

working with volunteer groups and partnerships, and influence from interest groups and politics. 

Many individuals request an extension to the comment period because: 1) the DEIS is “lengthy and 

complex”, or 2) various “errors, discrepancies, omissions, and contradictions” make the DEIS timeconsuming and difficult to understand. Many respondents suggest forging partnerships with user or 

volunteer groups to avoid route closures or to preserve forest resources. 

Many respondents comment on PNF’s decision-making philosophy. While some respondents 

request the PNF to make travel-management decisions based on ecosystem or environmental 

protection, the majority of these respondents request that a multiple-use or mixed-use emphasis guide 

the decision making philosophy, especially when related to recreation opportunities. Additionally, 

some respondents believe the PNF is overly influenced by special interest groups and has 

consequently changed from a multiple-use forest to one that allows only a ‘catered’ single use of the 

land.

Respondents question some aspects of the project’s legal consistency with numerous laws, 

executive orders, rules, regulations, or state, county, or municipal laws and plans. Some organizations 

criticize the DEIS for not being consist with adjacent PNF land management and other local planning 

regulations. For example, one respondent states:

“The DEIS does not adequately coordinate uses between National Forest routes and the County 

road system or consider the opportunities for County roads to serve as connectors between National 

Forest routes for OHV use.” (Ltr 18, Cmt 8, County Government Agency/Elected Official)

Land Management

The majority of comments received in relation to activities on the PNF focus on recreation activities 

(primarily motorized versus non-motorized), and other resource activities such as hunting and 

firewood gathering. Very few comments were received related to management activities dealing with 

oil and gas mining, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, waste management, etc. 

Respondents express polarized views on how motorized and non-motorized recreation activities 

should be managed. Regarding OHV use, many respondents believe the agency should recognize that 

unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unauthorized routes which have damaged the forest by increased 

soil compaction and erosion, increased sedimentation, water quality degradation, the spread of 

noxious weeds, increased fire risk, damage to cultural resources, habitat destruction and 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 571

fragmentation, increased disturbance to sensitive wildlife, etc. Some individuals believe the current 

transportation system continues to allow motor vehicle use in ecologically and socially important 

roadless areas, in proposed Wild and Scenic River corridors, and in sensitive wildlife habitat. 

Individuals who oppose OHV use urge the PNF to “restrict and control, rather than enlarge, the road 

network in this forest that is open to OHVs” (Ltr 6, Cmt 1, Individual).

Conversely, many individuals support OHV use and believe that the PNF should preserve 

motorized access to public lands. Many respondents believe that OHV opportunities should be 

enhanced and expanded because of significant demand for sustainable and responsible motorized 

recreation. Many respondents also state that OHV groups donate time and manpower to not only 

maintain trails, but help clean up trails damaged by the carelessness of others. Furthermore, 

individuals who support OHV use also mention various social values and benefits attributed to OHV 

use. 

In addition to these two polarized views on motorized recreation, some individuals request that 

OHV activities be managed better but not eliminated. One group believes that “OHV use can be 

managed in a proper way to protect critical forest resources while providing a recreational 

experience”. (Ltr 235, Cmt 32, Recreation/Conservation Organization)

Generally, respondents have concerns about the PNF being available to multiple forms of 

recreation. Several individuals comment on the need to maintain motorized access to non-motorizedrelated activities such as dispersed camping, woodcutting, wildlife game retrieval, etc. Individuals 

explain that these activities are an integral part of recreation on public lands. Some individuals 

request that cumulative impacts analysis adequately address impacts to these activities. Many 

individuals oppose restrictions that limit parking for dispersed camping opportunities to within one 

vehicle length of designated roads. Individuals argue that this restriction is unrealistic, presents safety 

issues, and would be difficult to enforce. One individual suggests designating spurs to camp sites, 

fishing spots, or parking areas. 

Several comments address enforcement and funding issues related to motorized transportation 

and route maintenance. Individuals argue the need to prioritize maintenance funding to ensure that 

existing routes can be maintained, monitored, and patrolled. Several individuals believe the agency 

should not authorize additional routes because of a lack of funding. By contrast, some argue that 

scarce funds should not be spent on the decommissioning of routes. One individual requests that law 

enforcement issues be addressed in the DEIS.

Transportation Management

Comments relating to road and trail classification are the most common. These comments are farreaching and include various transportation management topics, some of which include: road and 

trail classification, traffic control and safety, seasonal closures, disabled and elderly use, and adding 

or removing mileage. 

Many comments relate to route classification of specific trails or areas (e.g., “Please close trail 

15m05”, or “Trails in the Cascades Area should be classified as mixed-use”). These comments are not 

included in this summary and are included in the comment database. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

572 – Plumas National Forest

Road and Trail Classification

Many respondents comment on the need to close existing system routes to motorized travel. Many 

individuals believe that routes should be closed to motorized travel because the routes: 1) have not 

been authorized by the Forest Service, 2) are poorly maintained, 3) cross areas not compatible with 

motorized travel. Many individuals believe the agency should reject adding the proposed 364 miles of 

unauthorized routes to the system. Some of these individuals are concerned that the addition of 

unauthorized routes would negatively impact non-motorized recreation activities and critical 

resources such as air, water, vegetation, and wildlife. 

Citizens express concern over the proposed closure of routes within the forest. Many respondents 

argue the need for more OHV routes and urge the Forest Service to reconsider classification of 

transportation routes. Constituents are concerned that if the agency does not create more OHV routes, 

people will push onto private lands, or give up OHV riding altogether. Individuals are also concerned 

that closure of routes will impede access to other trails, as well as to hunting, fishing, and dispersed 

camping areas. 

Respondents argue that mixed access should be considered on routes to allow OHV and 

motorcycle use. Other constituents submitted specific route numbers that they would like the Forest 

Service to consider for closure or authorization. Respondents also believe that closures would further 

concentrate recreation on remaining trails, increase impacts, reduce forest health, and harm the 

economy. Some respondents suggest that route maintenance be handled by volunteer groups and 

partnerships which will reduce costs to the Forest.

Many respondents believe that cross-country travel should be prohibited in the PNF. Several 

individuals feel that cross-country travel would be inconsistent with the Forest Service’s goal to 

develop, maintain, and enforce a consistent trail network. Some respondents favor prohibiting crosscountry travel but request that sufficient motorized trails be designated to allow safe and dispersed

OHV use, as well as providing better access for hunters, hikers, and bicyclists. To the contrary, some 

individuals believe that prohibiting cross-country travel will reduce the availability of acreage for 

both motorized recreation as well as motorized access to dispersed recreation activities. Several 

individuals believe cross-country travel and “loop” routes should be developed to provide 

connectivity between trails.

Several individuals comment on the need to prohibit motorized travel in roadless and wilderness 

areas. Respondents urge the agency to close all OHV routes within all six Inventoried Roadless Areas

(IRA) and the roadless areas inventoried by citizen groups. Respondents expressed the need for 

prioritized protection of the proposed Feather Falls wilderness, the Middle Fork Feather River IRA, 

the Squaw Peak citizens’ roadless area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and all mountain meadows. These 

respondents believe wilderness areas should be preserved for quiet recreation opportunities, to 

preserve fish and wildlife habitat, and to protect the forest from invasive plant species. One 

organization believes the DEIS significantly conflicts with the 2006 petition from the State of 

California to the Secretary of Agriculture, requesting that 100% of all IRAs in California remain in 

their current condition.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 573

Some individuals are concerned that traffic-related injuries are likely to increase as areas 

available to motorized recreation are concentrated to smaller areas. One organization believes that the 

Forest Service’s attempt to restrict OHV access to Level III roads for safety reasons is without merit 

and cannot be supported by the data. This organization contends that Level III roads pose no greater 

safety concerns than other roads. One organization encourages the Forest Service to work with the 

California Highway Patrol and State Off-highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division to 

determine if State safety requirements for minors need to be strengthened. Individuals also encourage 

the Forest Service to involve the public in engineering analyses for mixed-use when safety issues are 

raised. 

Many respondents support seasonal closures of unpaved roads and trails during winter months 

(wet weather) and/or during peak game migration periods. Respondents argue that seasonal closures 

are critical to reduce erosion and sedimentation, maintenance costs, and disturbance of wildlife. 

However, many respondents believe that “a seasonal-based closure in effect would unreasonably limit 

the recreation opportunity during a dry time” (Ltr 200, Cmt 2, Individual). Instead of “fixed closure 

dates,” some respondents request that rain gauges be used to determine route closures. One 

respondent argues that rainfall-based management “would allow the PNF to manage the area in a 

manner that protects resources during periods of wet weather unsuitable for OHV recreation and also 

allows for reasonable OHV recreation after soil conditions become suitable” (Ltr 227, Cmt 7, 

Individual).

Many individuals rely on OHVs as their only method of accessing certain areas of the forest. 

Several individuals believe that closing roads to OHV use is discriminating against “people with 

disabilities, against those who are elderly, and whose health does not permit them to walk or hike up 

the trails, cross country” (Ltr 1, Cmt 11, Multiple Use or Land Rights Organization). Individuals cite 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 2003 as the basis of this discrimination. Individuals request 

that the DEIS fully consider how route designations will affect the disabled and elderly and their 

ability to enjoy the entire forest.

Demographics

Introduction to Demographics

Demographic coding allows managers to form an overall picture of who is submitting comments, 

where they live, their general affiliation with various organizations or government agencies, and the 

manner in which they respond. The database can be used to isolate specific combinations of 

information about public comment. For example, a report can include public comment only from 

people in California or a report can identify specific types of land users such as recreational groups, 

agricultural organizations, or businesses. Demographic coding allows managers to focus on specific 

areas of concern linked to respondent categories, geographic areas, and response types. 

Although demographic information is captured and tracked, it is important to note that the 

consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process. Every comment and suggestion has 

value, whether expressed by one or a thousand respondents. All input is considered, and the analysis 

team attempts to capture all relevant public concerns in the analysis process. For the Plumas NF 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

574 – Plumas National Forest

Proposed Transportation Management Plan and DEIS, 340 original letters and form letters with 

additional comments, representing 2849 signatures were received and processed. In addition, 3,970 

form letters representing 3,998 signatures were received. Accordingly, this demographics appendix is 

divided into two sections: Original Responses and Form Letters.

Original Responses

In the tables displayed below, please note that demographic figures are given for number of 

responses, respondents, and signatures. For the purposes of this analysis, the following definitions 

apply: “response” refers to a discrete piece of correspondence; “respondent” refers to each individual 

or organization to whom a mail identification number is assigned (e.g., a single response may 

represent several organizations without one primary author); and “signature” simply refers to each 

individual who adds his or her name to a response, endorsing the view of the primary respondent(s).

Geographic Representation

Geographic representation is tracked for each respondent during the course of content analysis. 

Letters and emails were received from 12 of the United States (Table 202). States of residence for 

each individual signature were tracked for multiple respondent responses. 

Table 202. Geographic Representation of Response by Country and State/Territory.

Country State Number of Respondents Number of Signatures

United States Alaska 1 1

Alabama 1 2

Arizona 1 1

California 322 1,191

Idaho 1 1

Maryland 3 4

Missouri 2 2

Montana 1 1

Nevada 1 1

New Mexico 1 1

Oregon 2 2

Virginia 1 1

Anonymous/Unknown 31 1,641

Total 368 2,849

Organizational Affiliation

Responses were received from various organizations and unaffiliated individuals. Organization types 

were tracked for each response received (Table 203). Organization Types of each individual signature 

were tracked for multiple respondent responses.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 575

Table 203. Number of Respondents/Signatures by Organizational Affiliation.

Organization 

Field

Organization Type Number of

Respondents

Number of 

Signatures

C County Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 4 4

F Federal Agency/Elected Official 2 2

I Individual 313 2,794

L Timber or Wood Products Industry 3 3

P Preservation/Conservation 11 11

Q Tribal Government/Elected Official/Agency 1 1

R Recreational (non-specific) 2 2

RC Recreation/Conservation Organization 14 14

RM Motorized Recreation 12 12

S State Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 1 1

U Utility Group 2 2

Z Multiple Use or Land Rights Organization 3 3

Total 368 2,849

Response Type

Response types were tracked for each response received on the project (Table 204). Responses were 

received as Letters, Form/Letter Generators with additional comment (Forms Plus), Public Meeting 

Comment Forms, and Petitions.

Table 204. Number of Responses/Signatures by Response Type.

Response Type # Response Type Number of Responses Number of Signatures

1 Letter/Form Master 166 203

3 Form/Letter Generator Plus 170 174

7 Public Meeting Comment 

Form

2 2

10 Petition 2 2470

Total 340 2,849

Delivery Type

Delivery types were tracked for each response received on the project (Table 205). Responses were 

received in the form of Email, Fax, and US Mail or Commercial Carrier.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

576 – Plumas National Forest

Table 205. Number of Responses/Signatures by Delivery Type

Delivery Type Code Delivery Type Number of Responses Number of Signatures

E Email 199 235

F Fax 2 2

M US Mail or Commercial Carrier 139 2,611

Total 340 2,849

Form Responses

Organized response campaigns (form letters) represent 92.1 percent of the total responses received 

during the public comment period for the proposal (3970 forms out of 4310 responses) (Table 205).

Forms are defined as five or more responses, received separately, but containing identical text. Once a 

form is identified, a “form master” is entered into the database with all of the content information. All 

responses with matching text are then linked to this master form within the database with a designated 

“form number.” If a response does not contain all of the text presented in a given form, it is entered as 

an individual letter. Duplicate responses from four or fewer respondents are also entered as individual 

letters.

Forms are designated with a number for the purpose of tracking subsequent submissions. Form 

numbers are assigned as each “form master” is identified. The following table presents the number of 

responses, and signatures associated with each form as well as brief content summaries. Three forms 

were identified.

Table 206. Form Letters.

Number of 

Form

Number of 

Responses

Number of 

Signatures

Description of Form

1 3,550 3,578 Current proposal focuses too much on analyzing 

potential impacts of designating new user-created 

routes. The current transportation system allows 

motor vehicle use in ecologically and socially 

important roadless areas, in proposed Wild and 

Scenic River corridors, in habitat of sensitive 

wildlife species, and rare Montane Meadow habitat. 

Would like Alternative 3 selected because a 

science-based Travel Management Analysis has 

not been completed and an alternative that 

considers road closures on the existing NFTS has 

not been included.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 577

Number of 

Form

Number of 

Responses

Number of 

Signatures

Description of Form

2 416 416 700 miles of inventoried routes from alternative 2 

through 5 have been omitted and 1100 miles from 

alternative 3. Would like to have them added back 

in. Requests routes be left open until 

mitigation/repair occurs, and provide timeline and 

plan. Alternatives do not offer OHV alternative and 

should be added. Requests that all OHV/ORV

routes indicated upon the Summer OHV map be 

added back into each alternative. Requests that a 

rain gauge measured closure together with a drying 

time is superior system to closure based solely on 

arbitrary dates. Requests that the Plumas 

designate all routes up to private boundaries. 

Request the FEIS address the impact that each 

route’s width (single-track, 50” or less, etc) affect 

upon water quality. Requests the Plumas continue 

to allow non street legal vehicles on forest roads 

and trails. Requests that dispersed camping and 

wood cutting are addressed as outside the scope of 

the Public Motorized Travel Management EIS.

3 5 5 Supports the proposed alternative 2 action of the 

OHV Route designations DEIS. As residents of 

Oroville and frequent users of the Plumas National 

Forest, this plan best supports activities and 

protects the forest for future generations.

Total: 3,970 3,998

The following table presents the geographic information tracked for each form response. The 

table only lists geographic units from which responses were actually received.

Table 207. Responses by Geographic District.

State Form 1—

Number of 

Responses & 

Signatures

Form 2—

Number of 

Responses & 

Signatures

Form 3—

Number of 

Responses & 

Signatures

Arkansas 1 1

California 3,550 3,578 401 401 5 5

Idaho 1 1

Kentucky 1 1

Michigan 1 1

Nevada 8 8

Ohio 1 1

Oregon 1 1

Pennsylvania 1 1

Total 3,550 3,578 416 416 5 5
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

578 – Plumas National Forest

Coding Structure

Letter Attributes

Response Types

X–Undefined

1–Letter

2–Form or Letter Generator

3–Form or LG +

4–Resolution

5–Action Alert

6–Transcript (dictated audio, video or telephone response)

7–Public Meeting Comment Form

8–Public Meeting Transcript (hearing/oral testimony)

9–Public meeting/workshop group notes

10–Petition

Delivery Types

E–Email

F–FAX

H–Hand-delivered or Oral Testimony (Personally Delivered)

M–US Mail or Commercial Carrier (UPS, FedEx)

T–Telephone

W–Web-based submission

X–Unknown

Early Attention Items

1–Threat of harm

2–Notice of appeal or litigation

3–Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA)

4–Provides proposals for new alternatives

5–Requires detailed review

5a–Provides extensive technical edits – deletions/replacements

6–Government entities

6a–Government Entity Requests Cooperating Agency Status

7–Requests public hearing

X–None

Request for Information Codes

A–Mailing list only or nothing to code (do not attach a flag)

B–Request to be removed from mailing list (do not attach a flag)

C–Request copy of Federal Register Notice

D–Other request for specific information

E–Request for confirmation of receipt of letter

F–Request for hard copy of summary of the Planning Document

G–Request for full hard copy of Planning Document

H–Request for full CD version of Planning Document

X–None
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 579

Comment Period Extension Request

X–No extension requested

0–No specific time mentioned or other

15–Request for 15 Day comment period extension

30–Request for 30 Day comment period extension

45–Request for 45 Day comment period extension

60–Request for 60 Day comment period extension

90–Request for 90 Day comment period extension

120–Request for 120 Day comment period extension

4.2.1.1 Individual Attributes

4.2.1.1.1 Organization Types

0–Undefined

A–Agriculture Industry or Associations (Farm Bureau)

AE–Agency Employee (Analyzed Separately)

AR–Animal Rights (Humane Treatment Org)

B–Business (Affected Owner/CEO, Chamber of Commerce)

C–County Government Agency/Elected Official

CH–Church/Religious Group

D–Place Based Group (HOAs, Planning Cooperatives)

E–Government Employee/Union

F–Federal Agency/Elected Official

G–Domestic Livestock Industry (Incl. Permittees)

H–Consultants/Legal Representatives

I–Individual

J–Civic Group (Kiwanis, Elks, Community Councils)

K–Special Use Permittee

L–Timber or Wood Products Industry

LO–Private Land Inholding Owner

M–Mining Industry/Association (Locatable)

N–International Government Agency or Official

O–Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, or Pipeline Industry (Leasable)

P–Preservation/Conservation

PI–Public Interest Group/Political Party

Q–American Indian Govt. Agency/Elected Official

QQ–Tribal Non-Governmental Organization/Tribal Member

R–Recreational (non-specific)

RB–Mechanized Recreation (Bicycling)

RC–Recreation/Conservation Organization (Trout Unlimited, Elk Foundation)

RM–Motorized Recreation (4X4, OHV, snowmobiling)

RN–Non-Motorized/Non-Mechanized Recreation (hiking, x-c ski, horse/stock animals)

S–State Government Agency/Elected Official

T–Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official

U–Utility Group (Water, Electrical, Gas)

V–Professional Society

W–Academic (Researcher, University Department Head)

X–Conservation District
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

580 – Plumas National Forest

XX–Regional/other governmental agency (multi-jurisdictional)

Y–Other Organization

Z–Multiple Use or Land Rights Organization

Comment Attributes

Resources

AIR–Air Quality and Noise

CLM–Climate

CUL–Cultural Resources

ECO–General Ecological

FSH–Fisheries/Aquatics

GEN–General (No Natural Resource)

GEO–Geology and Minerals

HHS–Human Health and Safety

INF–Infrastructure

LGL–Legal and Regulatory (Incl. Process)

LND–Land Designation and Management

MUL–Multiple

NAC–Native American Concerns

PAL–Paleontological

RCR–Recreation

RNG–Range Resources

SOC–Socioeconomics

SOI–Soil Resources

SSP–Site Specific

TEC–Technical/Editorial

TES–T&E, Special Status (plants and animals)

TRA–Transportation

VEG–Vegetation (No TESS)

VIS–Visual Resources

WLF–Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (No TESS)

WTL–Wetlands

WTR–Water Resources

Actions

GENERAL

100–Action not Specified

110–General Action (protect/save/do not destroy)

120–General Opposition (suspend/stop)

130–General Support

140–See Attachment

ANALYSIS

200–Technical Studies (Resource Reports, etc.)

201–Methodology and Assumptions

202–Adequacy of Studies (Best Available Science)

203–Update, Change, or Add Data to Existing Studies

204–Consider Additional Information
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 581

205–Monitoring, Inventories

206–Mapping, GIS

210–Planning Document (Rule, EIS, etc.)

211–Scope/Scale of analysis

212–Purpose and Need

213–Goals and Objectives/LRMP Consistency

214–Cumulative/Combined Effects

215–Connected Actions

216–Measurement Indicators

217–Mitigation/BMPs

218–Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects

219–Document Composition (clarity/grammar/spelling/punct.)

220–Alternatives General (add, change, delete)

221–Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)

222–Alternative 2 (Proposed Action Alternative)

223–Alternative 3 (Adds no new trails/roads)

224–Alternative 4 (NR protection and CIRCAs)

225–Alternative 5 (Emphasizes access and motorized rec.)

PROCESS

300–Decisionmaking Philosophy

301–Multiple Use Emphasis

302–Ecosystem Emphasis

303–Adaptive Mgt Emphasis

304–Alternative Energy Sources

310–Public Involvement

311–Outreach/Education

312–Public Meetings

313–Adequacy of Comment Period/Project Timeframe

314–Volunteer Groups and Partnerships

315–Use of Public Comment (vote, majority opinion, etc.)

316–Influence of Interest Groups and Politics

320–NEPA Process General

321–Previous NEPA Related to the Project

322–Future NEPA on the Project

330–Other (Non-NEPA) Processes (e.g., leasing, permitting, acquisition, ROW)

331–Previous Processes Related to the Project

332–Future Processes Related to the Project

340–Legal Consistency General (E.g., democracy/welfare/public good)

341–Federal Constitution, laws, acts, EOs, rules, regulations, plans

342–Court decisions (past or pending)

343–Tribal Treaties

344–State Rules, Plans, etc.

345–County or Municipal Laws, Policies, etc.

346–Private Property

347–Valid, Existing Rights/Claims
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

582 – Plumas National Forest

LAND MANAGEMENT

500–Activities on Public Lands (General, Multiple)

501–Oil/Gas/Mining Permitting, Leasing, Exploration, Extraction

502–Timber Harvest/Fuel Management

503–Livestock Grazing Allotments/Improvements

504–Specially Permitted Uses (resorts, outfitters, etc.)

505–Waste Management and Disposal (incl. Hazardous Materials)

506–Infrastructure (pipes, utilities, bridges, gates, signs, parking lots, etc.)

507–Motorized (ATV, OHV, Snowmobile, etc.)

508–Non-Motorized/Dispersed (hiking, hunting, horseback, camping, fishing, etc.)

509–Other Forest Resource Uses (Firewood, Mushroom, etc.)

510–Protective Designation for Resources (e.g., Class 1 Air, AIZ, ROS, etc.)

520–Designation of Lands (e.g., Wilderness, IRAs, other specific areas)

530–Restoration/Reclamation/Bonding

540–Enforcement/Funding/Staffing

550–Research/Education

560–Tribal Activities

ROADS AND TRAILS

600–Roads and Trails (incl. access general)

601–Classification

602–Construction and maintenance

603–Removal/obliteration

604–Traffic control and safety

605–Seasonal Closures

606–Disabled and elderly use

607–User Conflict

608–Add more mileage to System/do not decrease mileage

609–Do not add more mileage/or do decrease existing mileage

SITE SPECIFICS

700–Feather River District

710–Mount Hough District

720–Beckwourth District

730–Other/Unspecified
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 583

Appendix I: Law Enforcement

Introduction

Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) personnel are responsible for protecting the 

public, employees, natural resources and other property under the agency’s jurisdiction. Additionally, 

LEI investigates and enforces applicable laws and regulations that affect the National Forest System 

(NFS) lands, and prevents criminal violations. The new Travel Management Rule is one such 

regulation.

The Travel Management Rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor 

vehicle use, and the prohibition of cross-country wheeled motorized vehicle travel by the public. This 

is a considerable change in public motorized access management from previous conditions where 

most Forests were managed as “open to cross-country travel.” The implementation of designated 

routes and areas for motorized vehicles will be the responsibility of all agency employees, especially 

in the area of education and enforcement. The law enforcement program is primarily responsible for 

issuing violations to the Travel Management Rule.

The national LEI budget is funded by appropriated dollars from Congress to provide law 

enforcement services on the NFS lands. The Travel Management program is one of many Forest 

programs to benefit from federal law enforcement funding. For the past few years, law enforcement 

funding has increased and that has translated into an increase in field law enforcement personnel13

To enhance enforcement of the Travel Management Rule, Region 5 Forest Recreation Programs 

have applied for and received grant dollars (green sticker funding) from the State of California OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program. These State funds are earmarked 

specifically for enforcement of off-highway vehicle laws and regulations on the various Forests, and 

enforcement would be performed primarily by Forest Protection Officers (FPOs). In addition, Law 

Enforcement Officers (LEOs) support the FPOs as needed, especially if serious violations have 

occurred. In recent years, State law enforcement grants have ranged from 3 to 4 million dollars 

annually with similar funding anticipated for the 2010-2011 grant cycle. 

. 

Authority and Jurisdiction

The Forest Service exercises its law enforcement authority when violation of laws or regulations 

occurs on NFS lands or when incidents affect the NFS. The existing authorities for enforcement are 

completely adequate, and no new laws will be needed to implement the Travel Management rule.

Every National Forest has a law enforcement plan that is updated annually. All Forest Service 

employees have a duty to know and understand their authorities and responsibilities, and to properly 

enforce laws and regulations relating to the Forest within their authority and capability. LEI and 

agency personnel provide a regular and recurring presence on vast amounts of public land, roads,

trails and areas, and take appropriate action if illegal activity is discovered. Violations involving 

 13 Region 5 Law Enforcement budget figures for the past 4 years have increased and the number of law 

enforcement officers has increased by 65.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

584 – Plumas National Forest

motor vehicles are primarily enforced FPOs, who patrol off-highway use roads, trails, and areas. 

These include violations such as operating a motor vehicle in violation of federal regulations and

California vehicle code, parking improperly, resource damage to soils, vegetation or wildlife, and 

disorderly or unruly behavior. LEOs have discretion when deciding what type of action to initiate 

when handling violations to the following federal laws that pertain specifically to motor vehicle use.

• The Act of June 4, 1897 (Title 16 United States Code 551) is the authority for issuing 

regulations at Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261 (36 CFR 261). Specific OHV 

travel management regulations are in sections 261.9 – Property, 261.13 –Motor Vehicle Use, 

and 261.15 –Use of Vehicles Off-Road. These CFRs cover a wide array of misdemeanor 

infractions. 

• The Act of March 3, 1905 (Title 16 United States Code 559) authorizes all employees of the 

Forest Service to make arrests for violation of the laws and regulations pertaining to 

National Forests. Normally, arrest authority is limited to trained law enforcement personnel. 

(Any employee may take immediate action when necessary to protect life and prevent 

serious damage to or destruction of property, escape of a suspect, or loss of material 

evidence when such action can be done with reasonable safety.)

Cooperation

The Forest Service shares responsibility and cooperates with local, State, and other Federal agencies 

in the execution of its law enforcement program. The authority for cooperation among agencies, 

especially as it pertains to Travel Management, is within the following laws: 

• The Act of August 10, 1971 (Title 16 United States Code 551a) authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to cooperate with, and provide reimbursement to, any State or political 

subdivision thereof, for the enforcement of their laws within NFS. This law does not deprive 

any State or local law enforcement agency from exercising its criminal and civil jurisdiction 

on lands that are part of the NFS. 

• The California Penal Code, Section 830.8 provides that Forest Service law enforcement 

personnel may exercise State Peace Officer authority where the sheriff of the county wherein 

the officer works has provided specific written permission for the officer.

• The State vehicle code section 38301 allows State law enforcement officer to enforce any of 

the Federal CFRs related to motor vehicles on NFS lands.14

Each Forest maintains close working relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that have law enforcement responsibilities within/and or adjacent to the Forest boundary. 

Significant cooperating agencies relative to the Travel Management Rule include the local county 

sheriff departments, the California Department of Fish and Game, California Highway Patrol, 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and occasionally one or more Federal agencies 

 14 State Vehicle code section 38301. (a) It is unlawful to operate a vehicle in violation of special regulations 

which have been promulgated by the governmental agency having jurisdiction over public lands, including, but 

not limited to, regulations governing access, routes of travel, plants, wildlife habitat, water resources and 

historical sites. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 585

depending on the violation. Forest Service law enforcement personnel cooperate fully with these 

agencies in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities by providing assistance; liaison, 

advice, and information.

Forests maintain Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements with their respective county sheriff’s 

office. In Region 5, the total cost for the 2008 Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements is 

$891,397.15

• Supplemental patrols in areas of high use.

These dollars are for performance of duties in addition to the normal activities in which 

the sheriff’s deputies handle crimes against persons and their property that may occur within the NFS 

boundary. In these agreements, both parties recognize that public use of NFS lands is usually located 

in areas that are remote or sparsely populated, and the enforcement of State and local law is related to 

the administration and regulation of NFS lands. Within the Cooperative Law Enforcement 

Agreements, an Operating Plan is developed outlining the supplemental work to be performed by the 

cooperating agency. Relative to the Travel Management Rule, operating plans may provide:

• Supplemental patrols on weekends or during particular months of high use.

• Additional officers for large group gatherings or events (enduros).

• Vehicle checkpoints for vehicle registration, spark arrestors, and other miscellaneous items.

Implementation and Tracking

Implementation of the Forest Service law enforcement program is continually adapting as law 

enforcement personnel assess the changing patterns of visitor use and attitudes, and the trends in 

violations, especially for property and resource damage. One method of assessment is the analysis of 

Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS) data. 

LEIMARS tracks all known violations of criminal law or regulation on NFS lands (FSH 5309.11, 

chapter 40 and FSM 5340). Additionally, embedded in LEIMARS is the Case Tracking System, 

which tracks all felony and serious misdemeanor cases. These tracking systems:

• Capture and record information on location, volume, damages, and type of violations 

occurring on NFS lands.

• Provide a retrieval system of data on incidents and violations that is responsive to the needs 

of all organizational levels. 

• Provide agency managers with a means to identify and monitor law enforcement activities.

• Specifically identify problem areas and periods of activity. 

• Provide a method to record and analyze incidents involving violations or suspected 

violations on NFS lands.

Trends in violations related to the Travel Management Rule can be analyzed and appropriate 

action(s) taken, if needed. Appropriate action(s) may involve one or more techniques or adaptive 

strategies. In the law enforcement community, this is often referred to as the “three E strategy” of 

engineering, education, and enforcement. With the change in the Travel Management Rule, it is 

 15 Region 5 Law Enforcement Cooperative Agreement 2008 spreadsheet. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

586 – Plumas National Forest

anticipated that the law enforcement program will use a combination of strategies, especially during 

the first five years of the rule implementation. 

Implementation Strategy (Engineering Education Enforcement

The Engineering strategy is designed to prevent or reduce inadvertent violations, resource damage, 

and crime vulnerability. The strategy’s goal is to remove the opportunity to commit a violation. LEI 

personnel work with each Forest, particularly the recreation and engineering programs, to implement 

some or all of the following specific tactics:

• Proper design of improvements and facilities.

• Facility security measures such as installation of barricades, gates, and other natural 

obstacles.

• Forest signing, both directional and informational, to assist the public to ensure they stay on 

designated trails, and out of the wilderness and other sensitive areas.

• Physically close and rehabilitate decommissioned roads and trails.

The Educational strategy focuses on specific user groups, school groups, recreation users, and the 

public. The goal is to develop responsible and concerned public land use attitudes in forest users; its 

violation prevention. Forest LEOs and FPOs make regular contacts in the field informing the users of 

the regulations and need for the prohibition. The LEI personnel work with each Forest, particularly 

the recreation and public information programs, to identify and implement some or all of the 

following specific tactics.

• Have motor vehicle use maps easily available to the public.

• Have route numbers visually marked on the ground.

• Distribute maps and brochures promoting responsible use.

• Conduct environmental interpretation activities in local communities, at schools, and with 

special interest groups.

• Use of all forms of the media (television, radio, and newspapers), especially prior to, and 

during, the high use periods. 

• Ensure all employees understand the Travel Management Rule.

• Utilize high visibility prevention patrols and public information checkpoints, especially 

during the peak use periods. 

• Encourage cooperating law enforcement agencies to make visitor contacts and provide 

violator information to Forest Officers. 

• Ride with other agency officers to demonstrate solidarity to the public.

• Issue news releases of arrests and successful prosecutions, including offender names, 

criminal penalties, and court ordered restitution. 

The Law Enforcement strategy is to affect crime prevention measures that are designed to reduce 

specific criminal activity, deter potential and repeat offenders, maximize enforcement actions and 

visibility, and increase prosecutorial successes. All enforcement actions should result in a better 

understanding of regulations pertaining to the management of NFS lands. LEI personnel work with 

each Forest, to identify and implement some or all of the following specific tactics:
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 587

• Schedule officers to work during the identified problem periods, including holidays and 

weekends.

• Utilize high profile “saturation patrols” and stationary surveillance posts in the identified 

problem areas.

• Utilize the most effective and efficient means of patrol, including foot, horseback, all-terrain 

vehicle, snowmobile, watercraft, and aircraft.

• Aerial over-flights to enforce restriction under Travel Management Rule. 

• Enlist the aid of volunteers.

• Initiate an awards program.

• Supplement patrols with cooperating law enforcement agencies in areas of concern.

• Use technical investigative equipment (cameras, monitors, sensors) to assist officers with 

detecting and monitoring violations at known or suspected violation sites.

• Conduct planned and approved compliance checkpoints.

• Follow up on complaints to document violations, damages, and identify suspect vehicles or 

persons.

• Require cooperating law enforcement agencies to assist with reporting and/or enforcing 

violations within their authority.

• Patrol with other cooperating law enforcement agency officers.

• Conduct unpredictable patrol schedules.

• Conduct special enforcement actions (unmarked vehicle deployment, surveillance, traffic 

check-points).

• Utilize LEIMARS and Central Violations Bureau databases along with the State motor 

vehicle data, to identify repeat offenders for enhanced prosecution. 

• Pursue court ordered restitution or civil collections for resource and property damages.

• Encourage prosecutorial and judicial support.

• Execute bench warrants related of off-highway vehicle violations. 

Assumptions

Based on many years of enforcing off-highway vehicles, implementation of the Travel Management 

Rule from a law enforcement perspective assumes the following to be true. Additionally, these 

assumptions are based on several case studies in R5. These assumptions may change in time with 

analysis of the LEIMARS database.

Enforcement Assumptions:

• Enforcement of the laws and regulations related to Travel Management will be enforced 

equally in authority and weight as with all other Federal laws and regulations.
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

588 – Plumas National Forest

• As with any change in a regulation on NFS lands, there is usually a transitional period for 

the public to understand the changes. It is anticipated there will be a higher number of 

violations to the Travel Management Rule the first few years and the number of violations 

will decline as the users understand and comply with the rules. It is assumed :

 Users in communities adjacent to the Forest will comply within 1-2 years.

 Frequent users but further in distance from the Forest will comply within 2-3 years.

 Infrequent users regardless of distance may take up to 5 years to comply.

• Law enforcement officer and agency personnel’s presence and enforcement actions will

positively affect OHV users’ behaviors and attitudes.

• The Travel Management Rule and associated motor vehicle use map clearly define the 

designated routes; therefore, making violations to the rule unequivocal.

• Once the motor vehicle use map is published, the implementation of the established 

dedicated network of roads, trails, and areas with signs, and user education programs, will 

reduce the number of violations. 

• FPOs spend a large percentage of their time on Travel Management issues, and depending on 

the Forest the estimates range from 30 to 50 percent. LEOs spend approximately 10 to 20

percent of their time on enforcement of off-highway vehicle issues.16

Agency Funding Assumptions:

• Appropriated program funding levels and number of law enforcement personnel does not 

affect enforcement of the Travel Management Rule. All laws and regulations are enforced 

equally.

• Appropriated funds will remain level or increase slightly in the next five years.

• The State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program 

(green sticker funding) enhances and provides additional law enforcement presence in the 

field at the Forest level. 

Public Attitude and Compliance Assumptions:

• Forest users want to do the right thing and will obey the rule17

• User compliance

, once they understand the rule 

and motor vehicle use map.

18

 95% of the users are fully compliant.

is based on the State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle 

Recreation Division data and is anticipated to be:

 2-3% of the users think about and may violate a law.

 1-2% of the users will violate the law.

 16 Barnett, G. 2004-2005 Law Enforcement Workload Analysis. 17 Tyler, Tom R. Why People Obey the Law, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 320 18 User compliance was computed by using the State Vehicular Recreation Area Fiscal year 2006/2007 data: 

4.2M SVRA visitors divided by the 210,000 citations written, is approximately 5 percent non-compliant, and 

95% compliant. 
Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management

Plumas National Forest - 589

Measure of Success

Measuring the success of the Travel Management Rule from a law enforcement perspective will be 

done using the LEIMARS database. An analysis of the data may alert a Forest to a particular problem 

area for violations such as a group campsite area that may be surrounded by flat meadow areas 

inviting riders to potentially violate the regulation. A successful program will see a positive change in 

the following measures: 

• Measure 1: A reduction in the number of off-route travel violations.

• Measure 2: A reduction in the number of resource damage violations