United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

December 2015

Draft Environmental 

Assessment

Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning 

Cleveland National Forest

Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, California
Location of Action: National Forest System lands on the Cleveland National 

Forest in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, 

California

Type of Document: Environmental Assessment

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor, Cleveland National Forest

Contact Person: Jeff Heys, Forest Planner

Cleveland National Forest

10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200

San Diego, California 92127

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or call (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

Table of Contents

1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

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

1.2 Location ................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................2

1.4 Decision Framework ............................................................................................................3

1.5 Public Involvement ...............................................................................................................4

1.6 Issues ....................................................................................................................................4

2 - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action......................................................... 4

2.1 Alternative 1: No Action .......................................................................................................4

2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................................................5

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................26

3 - Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 27

 3.0.1 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................27

3.1 Physical Environment .........................................................................................................27

 3.1.1 Soils and Water ...........................................................................................................27

 3.1.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................................36

3.2 Biological Environment ......................................................................................................38

 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................38

 3.2.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive List Species..................................................................40

 3.2.3 Management Indicator Species....................................................................................42

 3.2.4 Weed Risk Analysis ...................................................................................................42

3.3 Social Environment ............................................................................................................42

 3.3.1 Recreation and Public Safety ......................................................................................42 

 3.3.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................43 

4 - Persons, Groups, Organizations, and Agencies Consulted............................... 45

5 - References............................................................................................................. 45

Appendix A – Responses to Comments...........................................................46

Appendix B – Proposed Action Maps..............................................................72

List of Tables

Table 1. Lengths and numbers of routes proposed by action type and Ranger District. .............5

Table 2. Proposed Action by route ..............................................................................................9

Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives.........................................................................................26

Table 4. Riparian Conservation Areas.......................................................................................28

Table 5. Federal and State air quality attainment status for the San Diego Air Basin .............36

Table 6. Federal and State air quality attainment status for the South Coast Air Basin ...........36

Table 7: Potential sensitive receptors within and near the project ...........................................37

Table 8. Alternative 2 total modeled emissions. .......................................................................38

List of Maps in Appendix B

Anderson Valley, Capitan Grande Indian Reservation Area.....................................................73

Bear Valley Area. ......................................................................................................................74

Boulder Creek Road South Area. ..............................................................................................75

Buckman Springs Area..............................................................................................................76

Carveacre Area. .........................................................................................................................77
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

Corte Madera Area. ...................................................................................................................78

El Cajon Mountain Area............................................................................................................79

Hauser Wilderness Area............................................................................................................80

Japatul Valley Road Area..........................................................................................................81

Kitchen Creek Central/Sheephead Area....................................................................................82

Kitchen Creek North/Wooded Hill Area...................................................................................83

Kitchen Creek South Area.........................................................................................................84

Lake Morena Area.....................................................................................................................85

Long Valley Area. .....................................................................................................................86

Mount Laguna Area...................................................................................................................87

Pine Creek Area.........................................................................................................................88

Tule Springs Area......................................................................................................................89

Boulder and Cedar Creeks Area................................................................................................90

Boulder Creek Road Area. ........................................................................................................91

Cedar Creek Area. .....................................................................................................................92

High Point Area.........................................................................................................................93

Inaja & Upper San Diego River Area........................................................................................94

Indian Flats Area. ......................................................................................................................95

Pamo Valley Area......................................................................................................................96

Will Valley Area........................................................................................................................97

Bedford Area. ............................................................................................................................98

Elsinore Peak Area. ...................................................................................................................99

Fox Spring & Lucas Canyon Area. .........................................................................................100

Long Canyon & Ortega Highway Area...................................................................................101

Margarita Peak Area................................................................................................................102

North Main Divide Area..........................................................................................................103

Silverado Canyon Area............................................................................................................104

Trabuco Canyon Area..............................................................................................................105

Wildomar - South Main Divide Area. .....................................................................................106
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

1

1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Document Structure __________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National 

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

Environmental Assessment (EA) 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 one - Introduction: This section includes information on the existing condition and 

purpose and need for the project, including a summary of Cleveland National Forest Land 

Management Plan direction as it relates to the project. This section also provides an overview of 

how the Forest Service informed the public of the Proposed Action. 

• Chapter two - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a description of 

the Proposed Action as well as possible alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. 

These alternatives were developed based on issues raised internally, by the public, and by other 

agencies. 

• Chapter three - Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of 

implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource. 

Within each section, relevant information on the affected environment is described, followed by 

the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of 

the other alternative. 

• Chapter four – Persons, Groups, Organizations, and Agencies Consulted: This section provides 

an overview of the persons, groups, organizations, and agencies consulted as part of this project. 

• Chapter five – References: This section lists the references to published and unpublished sources 

cited in the body of the EA. 

• Appendices: The appendices include responses to the comments received during the project’s

scoping and comment periods as well as the maps of the Proposed Action.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of the project’s effects on natural 

resources, additional background information, and public comments, may be found in the project record 

located at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in San Diego, California.

1.2 - Location ____________________________________

The project area includes unauthorized routes that are scattered across all three Ranger Districts of the 

Cleveland National Forest. Numerous maps of the Proposed Action are included in Appendix B to 

provide detailed location information by route.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

2

1.3 - Purpose and Need for Action __________________

Motorized use of the Cleveland National Forest is regulated by its 2005 Land Management Plan and 

its 2008 Motorized Travel Management decision, both of which involved substantial public input. To 

summarize their direction, roughly 200 miles of Forest roads are open only to highway-legal vehicles, 

while an additional 80 miles of roads and trails are open to off-highway vehicles (OHVs). Public 

motorized use of the National Forest is restricted to these routes in order to prevent resource damage.

Nevertheless, an estimated 100 miles of user-created, unauthorized routes exist on the Cleveland 

National Forest, and their use and lack of maintenance leads to a variety of impacts to sensitive 

resources.

Nearly three-quarters of known unauthorized routes pass through the habitats of federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species, not to mention other sensitive species. Over half of the routes 

cross or follow riparian areas, thereby contributing to soil erosion, habitat degradation, and water 

quality impacts. One-quarter of the routes lie within areas managed as Wilderness, where vehicles are 

prohibited altogether, or Inventoried Roadless Areas, where road-building is particularly restricted. 

Fifteen percent of the routes pass through known archaeological sites, presenting risks to priceless 

resources. Finally, unauthorized routes contribute to other illegal activities on the Forest, such as

dumping, target shooting, and dispersed campfires, that can lead to costly and damaging wildfires. 

The primary purpose of this project is to decommission the highest priority unauthorized routes on 

the Cleveland National Forest, returning the landscape to its desired condition and educating and 

directing motor vehicle users to legal opportunities. A secondary purpose is to make minor 

adjustments to the National Forest Road and Trail Systems that are needed to provide for public or 

administrative access or to prevent resource impacts and safety issues.

Relevant Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan Direction

The Proposed Action works toward the forest management goals as described in the 2005 Revised 

Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA, 2005) and is expected to 

meet the following guidance in particular:

Goal 3.1 of the LMP directs the Cleveland NF to remove roads and trails that have been determined 

to be unnecessary by Roads Analysis and National Environmental Policy Act analysis for landscape 

restoration. 

Goal 3.2 directs the Cleveland NF to retain a natural evolving character within Wilderness.

Goals 5.1 and 5.2 direct the Cleveland NF to improve watershed conditions and riparian conditions.

Goal 6.2 directs the Cleveland NF to ensure that habitats for federally listed species are conserved 

and that listed species are recovered, or moving toward recovery.

Part 2: Strategy

Trans 2 – Unnecessary Roads

Reduce the number of unnecessary or redundant unclassified roads and trail and restore landscapes.

• Decommission roads and trails that have been determined to be unnecessary for conversion to 

either the road or trail system through site-specific analysis.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

3

• Establish the level of restoration through project planning.

Part 3: Standards and Guidelines 

CNF S3: Off-highway vehicle use is limited to designated routes and areas.

S9: Design management activities to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) shown on the 

Scenic Integrity Objectives Map.

S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive 

(TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project site, consider species guidance 

documents to develop project-specific or activity-specific design criteria. This guidance is intended to 

provide a range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site-specific 

planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on threatened, endangered, 

proposed, candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Involve appropriate resource specialists in the 

identification of relevant design criteria.

S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

and candidate species use design criteria and conservation practices so that discretionary uses and 

facilities promote the conservation and recovery of these species and their habitats. Accept short-term 

impacts where long-term effects would provide a net benefit for the species and its habitat where 

needed to achieve multiple-use objectives.

S24: Mitigate impacts of on-going uses and management activities on threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and candidate species.

S35: Manage dispersed recreation activities to ensure that environmental sustainability is maintained 

by utilizing the following measure: motorized and non-motorized vehicle travel is restricted to 

National Forest System roads and trails and limited areas that are designated for vehicle use.

S47: When designing new projects in riparian areas apply the Five-Step Project Screening Process for 

Riparian Conservation Areas as described in LMP Appendix E - Five-Step Project Screening Process 

for Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs).

S50: Mitigate negative long-term impacts from recreation use to soil, watershed, riparian or heritage 

resources.

1.4 - Decision Framework__________________________

The environmental assessment (EA) discloses environmental effects of the No Action alternative and 

the Proposed Action. The Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor, will make a decision based 

on the review of the EA. The Forest Supervisor’s decision will include:

1. Whether to proceed with the Proposed Action or No Action alternative.

2. Whether the decision that is selected would have significant impacts. If a determination is 

made that no impact would be significant, then a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) 

would be prepared. Significant impacts would require the preparation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement [40 CFR 1501.4 (c) and (e)].
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

4

The Forest Supervisor’s decision will be documented in a separate Decision Notice (FSH, 1909.15 -

40).

1.5 - Public Involvement ___________________________

The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in February 2014. A letter 

announcing a 30-day scoping period was sent to 978 individuals and organizations anticipated to have 

interest in the Proposed Action on February 17, 2015. Altogether, 206 scoping comments were 

received during the 30-day period. 

All input received during the course of scoping was considered by an interdisciplinary team. The

comments either resulted in new project design features or did not generate significant issues related 

to the proposal. Responses to these comments can be found in Appendix A. 

1.6 - Issues______________________________________

Based on internal and external scoping, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues. The team 

decided the following issues warranted full analysis in this EA to determine their significance and/or 

contributed to project design features.

• Impacts to soils and water: specifically erosion and compaction resulting from unauthorized 

routes and water quality both on site and downstream. 

• Impacts to air quality: including dust and greenhouse gas emissions. 

• Impacts to biological resources: including federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, Forest Service Management Indicator Species, R5 Regional Forester Sensitive 

Species, and invasive weeds.

• Impacts to recreation and public safety: specifically recreation access, the quality of visitor 

experiences, scenery, and safety.

• Impacts to cultural resources: including pre-historic and historic sites.

2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED 

ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for this project. This chapter includes 

a description of each alternative and a table that allows for the comparison of the alternatives. 

2.1 - Alternative 1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, no unauthorized routes would be decommissioned, and no changes 

would be made to the Cleveland National Forest Road or Trail Systems. The Cleveland National 

Forest Land Management Plan and Motorized Travel Management decision of November 12, 2008, 

would continue to restrict motor vehicle use to certain routes. Accordingly, the use of unauthorized 

routes by motor vehicles would remain illegal.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

5

2.2 - Alternative 2

Proposed Action

The unauthorized routes and National Forest System Roads proposed for decommissioning are shown 

in Tables 1 and 2 and associated maps (found in Appendix B), along with the proposed management 

recommendation by route. For most routes, restoration would be accomplished through earthwork by 

heavy equipment or by hand and the installation of pipe-rail barriers or boulders to prevent re-entry. 

Particular routes would require additional strategies to prevent resource impacts, including seeding of 

native plant species where disturbance would exceed 10 feet in width. Signage would be installed at 

each site to direct riders to authorized areas for vehicle use. Finally, each site would be monitored 

annually for a period of five years, to ensure that the barriers remain effective at preventing re-entry 

and that soil erosion has been reduced.

Unauthorized routes that would be added to the National Forest Systems as administrative or public 

Roads and non-motorized or motorized Trails are also shown on the maps and in the tables. The only 

routes proposed for addition to these Systems were those with an identified, legitimate need and 

without resource concerns. These routes would be improved through earthwork, signed as 

appropriate, and maintained over time to prevent resource impacts. “Add for Administrative Use” 

refers to incorporating a route into the National Forest Road System only for administrative use, not 

for public use. “Add for Public Use” refers to incorporating a route into the National Forest Road 

System for public use, with the exception of a single route off Bear Valley Road that would become a 

motorized, 50-inch-wide National Forest System Trail. “Add for Non-Motorized Use” refers to

incorporating a route into the National Forest Trail System as a non-motorized trail.

Table 1. Lengths and numbers of routes proposed by action type and Ranger District (DRD: 

Descanso, PRD: Palomar, and TRD: Trabuco).

Action Type Length in Miles Number of Routes

Total DRD PRD TRD Total DRD PRD TRD

Add for Administrative Use 1.7 1.4 0.2 0.1 10 6 3 1

Add for Non-Motorized Use 4.6 2.5 0.8 1.3 12 6 2 4

Add for Public Use 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 7 3 4 0

Decommission 70.4 51.2 12.8 6.3 215 146 37 32

Grand Total 77.9 55.9 14.2 7.7 244 161 46 37

Two National Forest System Roads would be decommissioned under Alternative 2 and are included 

in Tables 1 and 2:

1) An impassable, administrative, 2-mile-long segment of 17S08, South Boundary Road, is 

severely eroding. A passable road through private lands connects to both of its ends, and so it 

is not needed. 

2) A steep, 1.6-mile-long segment of 16S03, Carveacre Road, is currently passable only by highclearance, 4-wheel-drive vehicles. It is severely eroding and impacting sensitive biological 

resource areas, and its use presents unacceptable fire hazards and safety risks. Its 

decommissioning would also render an additional 2.6 miles of 16S03 inaccessible to 

motorized use by the public. Administrative use of this additional length would continue, 

given its gated connections to other roads at both ends. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

6

Definitions

Definitions are provided for the following terms that are referenced in Table 2 and Chapter 3:

Brushing for cover involves spreading of cut and/or chipped material/slash on the route to increase 

ground cover and/or disguise the route from being visible. It does not involve ground disturbance.

Outsloping of the trail surface is reconfiguring the trail surface to slope out so runoff drains across 

and off the trail surface versus being concentrated on the trail surface.

Stormproofing the trail surface involves constructing drainage control features that improve the trails 

resistance to damage during large storms. This mainly involves improving surface drainage. 

Activities may include construction of drainage control structures, such as waterbars; leadout ditches; 

armored spillways, ditches, and low water crossings; upgrading culvert sizes; outsloping; and 

placement of boulders, check dams, and over-side drains; armoring trail surface, etc.

Tilling and ripping of the trail surface is mixing and shattering of the trail soils to break up 

compaction and concentration of flow. When utilizing this method, operators should avoid creating

slots parallel to the slope that may concentrate runoff. Ripping and tilling should be completed on 

contour or drained off site to avoid concentration of flow.

Chunking of the trail surface is breaking up and movement of the trail surface into 1 to 11⁄2-foot 

mounds (or higher) set at odd intervals. The purpose of chunking is to break up compaction and flow 

paths down the trail surface.

Scarification of the trail surface includes any activity that disturbs the trail surface and disrupts 

drainage patterns. This can include chunking, ripping and tilling the trail surface/soils. The intent is to 

break up compaction and concentration of flow.

Hand earthwork involves ground disturbing work to be completed through hand crews and hand held 

equipment, with potentially minor use of wheel barrels and ATVs to transport material. Hand 

earthwork may include construction of drainage control structures, such as waterbars; leadout ditches; 

armored spillways, ditches, and low water crossings; and placement of boulders, check dams, and 

over-side drains; etc. Actions may also include raking, removal of berms, stabilization of gullies, 

placement of erosion control (wattles, silt fencing, straw bales, erosion control matting, mulching, 

slash, sandbags, etc.), seeding with native seed, and/or spreading of cut and/or chipped material/slash 

on the route to increase ground cover and/or disguise the route from being visible. 

Earthwork involves ground disturbing work to be completed with mechanical equipment such as 

excavators, bulldozers, or similar equipment. Earthwork may include actions described in hand 

earthwork. Activities include construction of drainage control structures, such as waterbars; leadout 

ditches; armored spillways, ditches, and low water crossings; outsloping; and placement of boulders, 

check dams, and over-side drains. Actions may also include recontouring cut and fill slopes, eroded 

and/or disturbed areas; removing outside berms and culverts; filling in of ditches and gullies; ripping 

the route surface; and/or chunking the route surface. Decommissioned routes will have erosion 

control and debris (slash, boulders, organic matter, or erosion control materials) added to provide 

cover and block access. Erosion control methods may include placement of wattles, silt fencing, straw 

bales, erosion control matting, mulching, slash, and/or sandbags; seeding with native seed; and/or 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

7

spreading of cut and/or chipped material/slash on the route to increase ground cover and/or disguise 

the route from being visible. Some routes being added to the system may require (in addition to 

stormproofing) surface armoring, such as chip sealing, aggregate, and/or paving.

Extensive Earthwork and Restoration includes actions described in earthwork but may also include 

extending the area of impact outside the road prism up to 20 feet from the road prism edge. These 

sites require more intensive efforts to restore hydrologic function and soil productivity. More 

intensive efforts may include recontouring of the hillside, filling in of throughcuts and gullies with 

imported/transported fill, grade stabilization in diverted streams or at stream crossings, reestablishment/stabilization of channels, removal of large amounts of fill, and additional erosion 

control.

Design Features

Design features have been incorporated into the project to mitigate or reduce adverse impacts and 

achieve desired outcomes. These measures were guided by the direction in the Forest Plan, projectspecific objectives, and concerns identified by the Forest Service and the public during scoping:

• Should any previously unrecorded cultural resources be encountered during implementation 

of this project, all work would immediately cease in that area and the Forest Heritage Program 

Manager (HPM) would be notified immediately. Work could resume after approval by the 

HPM, provided any recommended Standard Protection Measures were implemented. Should 

any cultural resources become damaged in unanticipated ways by activities proposed in this 

project, the steps described in the Regional Programmatic Agreement for inadvertent effects 

would be followed. 

• Should the project boundaries or activities be expanded beyond the current area of potential 

effect, such as for routes requiring “extensive restoration and earthwork,” National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 compliance for this project would be incomplete until additional 

cultural resource review was completed. The HPM would be kept informed of the status of 

various stages of the project, so that subsequent field work could proceed in a timely fashion. 

• Prior to decommissioning unauthorized routes, high priority invasive weeds would be 

identified and removed in order to prevent their spread. Ground disturbing equipment would 

be thoroughly cleaned of debris before performing earthwork to prevent the introduction of 

new invasive weeds into the project area. The vegetative restoration of routes with identified 

invasive species would be monitored annually for at least three years.

• Decommissioning activities at three sites in Hauser Canyon would not occur during the 

breeding season (March 1 to August 1); or Least Bell’s Vireo surveys would be conducted to 

determine if this species is present within or immediately adjacent to the project area between 

March 1 and July 1.

• Thirty-two routes in Arroyo Toad habitat would be surveyed prior to and monitored during 

decommissioning activities.

• Routes where Jacumba Milkvetch, Heart-leafed Pitcher Sage, and Felt-leaved Monardella may 

occur would be surveyed prior to decommissioning activities.

• Limit maximum speed on unpaved roads to 25 miles per hour to minimize fugitive dust.

• Organic matter at project restoration and decommissioning sites would be retained at the site 

and be redistributed across the disturbed area (FSH 2509.18).
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

8

• Soil cover (on disturbed areas) following decommissioning and restoration activities would be 

maintained at levels of at least 50 percent of the soil surface in upland area and at least 71 

percent in the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) (98 feet for intermittent streams and 50 

feet for ephemeral streams). Soil cover would consist of rocks, litter, organic matter, lowgrowing plants, and woody debris. (FSH 2905.18)

• Mechanical equipment use would require ground conditions dry enough to prevent soil 

compaction, rutting, runoff of sediments to streams, or disturbance (in excess of disturbance 

needed to restore site). (FSH 2509.18, BMP 2.3, AqEco-2).

• Mechanical equipment refueling would occur outside of the RCA and would have spill 

containment measures in place during operations. For small quantities (5 gallons or less), 

fueling of gas-powered machinery would not occur within 25 feet of any body of water or 

stream channel to maintain water quality. (Road-10, BMP-2.11).

• Staging of equipment would occur outside the RCA (AqEco-2).

• Riparian vegetation would be protected during operations where possible (AqEco-2).

• Decommissioned and restoration sites would be stabilized, restored, and revegetated to a more 

natural state as necessary to protect and enhance National Forest System (NFS) lands, 

resources, and water quality (BMP 2.7).

• Sites added to the system would be stormproofed and added to the regular schedule of 

maintenance. (BMP 2.3, BMP 2.4).

• Sites would have erosion control plans for short and long-term recovery (BMP-2.13).

• Stream crossings would be adequately sized and stabilized (BMP 2.8).

• All other relevant Forest Service best management practices would also be used.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

9

Table 2. Proposed Action by route, listed by District from south to north and alphabetically by map 

location (Appendix B) within each District. Route numbers appear on the maps.

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

SUA114 0.3 Decommission

63' of barrier needed at rocks just S 

of RCA; 21' at Reservation 

boundary; extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

SUA114-

0.26L-1 0.3 Decommission 21' barrier; earthwork throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND313 0.2 Decommission

21' barrier at boundary; extensive 

earthwork and restoration 

throughout; pull ineffective barrier 

further W and reinstall at boundary

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND314 1.0 Decommission

21' barrier at SW boundary; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout; 4 vehicles 

off the road at property boundary 

(on NFS) need removal

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND314-

0.44L-1 0.3 Decommission

technical mountain bike trail needs 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND324 0.4 Decommission

42' barrier at rock outcrop closest to 

boundary; extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND8020 0.1 Decommission

previously decommissioned but 

needs 42' barrier extension and 

earthwork throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND8023 0.2 Decommission

only half of loop on NFS; 21' barrier 

(E) and 42' (W) at boundary and 

earthwork throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND8294 0.1 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Anderson/Capitan 

Grande 

Reservation

UND8296 0.1 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Bear Valley

16S12-

3.70L-1 0.7 Add for Public 

Use

Add to System as Motorized Trail; 

needs stormproofing

Bear Valley 16S12-1 0.5 Decommission

dirt bikes are being lifted over 

existing barrier; backup fence needs 

mending or barrier needs to be 

raised
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

10

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Bear Valley 16S12-

1.25L-1 0.1 Decommission dirt bike trail needs 21' of barrier; 

hand earthwork

Bear Valley 16S12-

1.59R-1 0.1 Decommission 105' barrier needs to be added to 

existing barrier; hand earthwork

Bear Valley DRD500001-

1 0.1 Decommission

21' barrier needs to be added to 

existing barrier; earthwork 

throughout

Bear Valley SUA-133 0.2 Decommission 2 x 21' barrier and earthwork 

throughout

Bear Valley SUA-POO-1 0.3 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Bear Valley SUA-POO-2 0.3 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Bear Valley UND447 0.4 Decommission 105' barrier; earthwork throughout

Bear Valley UND450 0.1 Decommission 21' barrier on each end; earthwork 

throughout

Boulder Creek 

Road South

15S26-

0.47R1 0.2 Decommission hill climb needs earthwork

Boulder Creek 

Road South UND125 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout; already 

protected by gate

Boulder Creek 

Road South UND375 0.0 Decommission earthwork needed; already 

protected by gate

Boulder Creek 

Road South UND8026 0.2 Decommission

replace gate with 21' of barrier; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout 

Buckman Springs 16S12-

5.85R-1 0.1 Decommission

existing fence breached by dirt 

bikes; needs mending or 63' of 

barrier

Buckman Springs 16S12-

6.014L-2 0.8 Decommission

330' barrier from large redshank in 

N to upright boulders in S, with gate 

for helipad; 21' x 2 to fortify existing 

barrier in N; extensive earthwork 

and restoration throughout; 450' of 

barrier and hand earthwork on far 

side of road

Buckman Springs UND842 0.4 Decommission

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout; mining at 

end; no claim posted

Buckman Springs UND9070 0.4 Decommission

21' barrier at crest of first hill; 

earthwork up to far side of stream 

(not on loop past)
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

11

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Buckman Springs UND9073 0.3 Decommission 660' barrier; earthwork throughout

Buckman Springs UND9075 0.1 Decommission E half naturally decommissioned; W 

needs earthwork

Buckman Springs UND9076 0.0 Decommission earthwork throughout

Buckman Springs UND9077 1.0 Decommission

2 x 21' barrier at spot closest to 

road; 42' at N-most entry; 

earthwork throughout (except in 

mapped arch site), unless keeping

Buckman Springs UND9084 0.0 Decommission 42' barrier; earthwork throughout

Buckman 

Springs/Long 

Valley

16S12-

6.68L-1 0.0 Decommission dirt bike gate go-round; barrier needs 21' extension

Carveacre 16S03 1.6 Decommission

earthwork throughout steep 

portion that connects to Lyons 

Valley Road

Corte Madera 16S17-

0.84R-1 0.0 Decommission

dirt bikes getting around gate; 21' 

barrier needed on each side (or 3-4 

boulders)

Corte Madera SUA22 0.2 Decommission

overgrown 2-track; occasional use 

by horse, truck, and Border Patrol; 

inform landowners and install 

signage at each end

Corte Madera UND847 0.4 Decommission

overgrown 2-track; occasional use 

by horse, truck, and Border Patrol; 

inform landowners and install 

signage at each end

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

16.8R1 0.2

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System as actual segment of 

the Westside Truck Trail, not an 

unauthorized route, and stormproof

El Cajon Mountain 13S10 0.2 Decommission

earthwork throughout; signage 

needed to keep admin vehicles on 

actual road

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

15.72L1 1.1 Decommission earthwork only on steep segment

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

15.77L1 0.3 Decommission overgrown, will naturally revegetate

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

15.93L1 0.3 Decommission earthwork throughout
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

12

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

16.8R2 0.4 Decommission

old road around large stock pond; 

earthwork throughout; extensive 

earthwork and restoration in places

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

17.03L1 0.2 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

17.03L2 0.5 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain 13S10-

17.15L1 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain UND138 0.2 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain UND782 0.1 Decommission will naturally revegetate

El Cajon Mountain UND783 0.5 Decommission will naturally revegetate

El Cajon Mountain UND784 1.2 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain UND785 0.3 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration in places

El Cajon Mountain UND8135 0.2 Decommission will naturally revegetate

El Cajon Mountain UND8137 0.3 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain UND8137-

0.02L1 0.4 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain UND8137-

0.1L1 0.1 Decommission will naturally revegetate

El Cajon Mountain UND8139 0.9 Decommission earthwork throughout

El Cajon Mountain UND8139-

0.15R1 0.2 Decommission earthwork throughout

Hauser Wilderness 17S08 2.0 Decommission

shown as System road (S. Boundary) 

- remove from System; 441' of 

barrier at S end, including gate on 

SDG&E pole access, plus 21' at a 

rock gap; 63' on N end, 60 yards 

from end; extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Hauser Wilderness 17S08-

3.96L-1 0.1 Decommission 5 imported boulders at entrance; no 

earthwork
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

13

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Hauser Wilderness 17S12 2.0 Decommission

63' barrier on E end; 210' on W; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout, including 

two stream crossings

Hauser Wilderness 17S12 1.5 Decommission

210' barrier on W end, just above 

swale just W of main drainage; 42' 

on E end at existing gate; extensive 

earthwork and restoration 

throughout

Hauser Wilderness 17S12-

5.92L-1 0.5 Decommission 105' barrier at W end; 21' at E end

Hauser Wilderness 17S12-Spur 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout

Hauser Wilderness UND371 0.2 Decommission

leads to old earthen dam, 

abandoned well, and trough; metal 

debris halfway down; earthwork 

throughout

Hauser Wilderness UND566 0.7 Decommission

126' barrier at top end (S); 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Hauser Wilderness UND568 0.3 Decommission 126' barrier at warning sign; brush 

for cover

Hauser Wilderness UND569 0.5 Decommission

5 imported boulders at S end; 42' 

barrier at N; earthwork for all but 

southernmost 200 yards

Hauser Wilderness UND8102 0.8 Decommission swing gate needs to be replaced by 

barrier; hand earthwork

Hauser Wilderness UND865 1.1 Decommission swing gate needs to be replaced 

with barrier; earthwork throughout

Hauser Wilderness

UND865-

1.06L-1 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout

Japatul Valley 

Road 15S28 1.6 Decommission

intermittent earthwork needed 

throughout; extensive restoration 

of some sites

Kitchen Creek 

Central/Sheephead

15S18-Spur 

1 0.1 Decommission

remove barrier; extensive 

earthwork and restoration 

throughout; replace barrier

Kitchen Creek 

Central/Sheephead

15S18-Spur 

2 0.0 Decommission 294' barrier from end of hang 

gliding launch pad to existing barrier
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

14

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Kitchen Creek 

Central/Sheephead

UND173 -

SDC KCR 

Connector

1.1 Decommission

cattle trail to private lands; 147' of 

barrier needed, including cattle gate 

or bollards; earthwork 250 yards to 

the stream plus the loop adjacent to 

Kitchen Creek Road

Kitchen Creek 

Central/Sheephead UND8426 0.1 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Kitchen Creek 

Central/Sheephead UND8436 0.2 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Kitchen Creek 

North/Wooded Hill 15S09-2.46L 0.2

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for pumphouse 

access; already behind locked gate; 

needs stormproofing

Kitchen Creek 

North/Wooded Hill 15S09-2.46L 0.3 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; stormproof with hand crew 

and stabilize stream crossing

Kitchen Creek 

North/Wooded Hill

15S10A 

Spur 0.3 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; turns into singletrack at first 

drainage and connects to 15S09-

2.46L; replace gate at back of group 

campground with 8 bollards; 

earthwork to narrow to first 

drainage plus stormproofing

Kitchen Creek 

North/Wooded Hill

15S17-

1.44L-1 0.1 Add for Public Use

Add to System as dispersed camping 

spur; earthwork throughout to 

stormproof; 188' of barrier to 

delineate campsite

Kitchen Creek 

North/Wooded Hill 

& Pine Creek

UND162 0.1

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System as primary driveway 

for Kemp ranch house

Kitchen Creek 

South UND9531 0.7 Add for NonMotorized Use

add to System as non-motorized 

trail; 21' barrier with horse gate; 

2,000' wire fence; earthwork 

throughout

Kitchen Creek 

South

15S17A0.11R1 1.1 Decommission

21' barrier just past private land 

entrance in N; extend helibase 

fence to meet barbed wire further 

S; earthwork throughout

Kitchen Creek 

South

CAMERON 

TK TR1.74R-10.0 Decommission 42' of barrier and earthwork 

throughout
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

15

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Kitchen Creek 

South

CAMERON 

TK TR2.34R-10.1 Decommission

315' barrier along road; earthwork 

throughout; signage needed on 

road: "stay on road"

Kitchen Creek 

South

Kitchen 

Creek 1 0.1 Decommission

needs wire fence for length of road 

(0.75 miles); earthwork throughout; 

5 imported boulders on entrance

Kitchen Creek 

South

Kitchen 

Creek 2 0.1 Decommission

210' barrier along pullout; 

earthwork throughout; wire fence 

for entire distance between helipad 

and helibase (0.75 miles)

Kitchen Creek 

South

Kitchen 

Creek 3 0.2 Decommission earthwork throughout; 5 imported 

boulders on entrance

Kitchen Creek 

South UND379 0.1 Decommission

mend 45' gap in barbed wire; 

earthwork throughout; boulders on 

entrance

Kitchen Creek 

South UND525 0.0 Decommission 105' barrier and earthwork 

throughout

Kitchen Creek 

South UND527 0.0 Decommission earthwork throughout

Kitchen Creek 

South UND8323 0.5 Decommission

21' barrier just past apiary; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Kitchen Creek 

South UND9065 0.2 Decommission earthwork throughout; 5 imported 

boulders on entrance

Lake Morena UND9549 0.4 Add for NonMotorized Use

add to System as non-motorized 

trail; 21' barrier with horse gate at 

entrance behind trailhead; 4,200' of 

wire fence along road; intermittent 

earthwork

Lake Morena 17S02A0.27R-1 0.4 Decommission

4 boulders at N end, close enough 

together to block dirt bikes; hand 

earthwork throughout

Lake Morena 17S07-

3.23R-1 0.0 Decommission 84' barrier on E side; 42' on W side; 

brush for cover

Lake Morena 17S08-

0.45R-1 0.0 Decommission 21' barrier in S; earthwork 

throughout

Lake Morena UND330 0.3 Decommission

21' barrier 100 yards above 

boundary; extensive earthwork and 

restoration in places

Lake Morena UND333 0.1 Decommission 42' barrier at boundary; extensive 

earthwork and restoration in places
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

16

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Lake Morena UND335 1.3 Decommission

21' of barrier in N at boundary; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration in places

Lake Morena UND335-

0.25R-1 0.0 Decommission 21' barrier at E end

Lake Morena UND335-

0.31R-1 0.0 Decommission 21' barrier at E end

Lake Morena UND340 0.5 Decommission

place 4 boulders at W end (behind 

locked gate); raise horse gate on E 

end; extensive earthwork and 

restoration in places

Lake Morena UND342 0.8 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration in places

Lake Morena UND370 0.1 Decommission

63' barrier in S, 84' in N; place 

boulders to stabilize dam spillway; 

earthwork throughout

Lake Morena UND382 1.3 Decommission

raise horse gate on S entry; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration in places

Lake Morena UND553 0.7 Decommission

motorized use of Pacific Crest Trail; 

earthwork throughout; extensive 

earthwork and restoration in places

Lake Morena UND555 0.1 Decommission 21' barrier at boundary; earthwork 

throughout

Lake Morena UND560 0.0 Decommission earthwork throughout

Lake Morena UND565 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout

Lake Morena UND572 0.9 Decommission extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

Lake Morena UND601 0.3 Decommission

63' barrier on each end on the 

property line; extensive earthwork 

and restoration throughout

Lake Morena UND602 0.3 Decommission

21' barrier at W end; 147' in E, at 

first defensible location on NFS 

(manzanita to manzanita); 

earthwork throughout; DRD101109-

1 is inaccurately mapped - see notes

Lake Morena UND9090 0.0 Decommission earthwork throughout
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

17

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Lake Morena UND9091 0.0 Decommission 714' barrier behind turnaround; 

earthwork throughout

Lake Morena UND9549-

0.20R-1 0.4 Decommission earthwork throughout on main trail

Long Valley UND502 0.1

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for helispot access; 

stormproof; fix pavement where 

OHVs are driving onto it, 

decommission one entry (21' barrier 

and earthwork) and gate the other

Long Valley 16S15-

0.98R-1 0.0 Decommission

barrier listed for UND9095 is 

sufficient for this one too; 

earthwork throughout

Long Valley 16S15-

1.15R-1 0.4 Decommission dirt bikes only; 162' barrier on W 

end; hand earthwork throughout

Long Valley 16S15-

1.24R-1 0.0 Decommission 231' barrier and earthwork 

throughout

Long Valley 16S15-

1.38R-1 0.0 Decommission 63' barrier

Long Valley 16S15-

1.53R-1 0.1 Decommission dirt bikes only; 21' barrier at each 

end

Long Valley 16S15-

1.65L-1 0.2 Decommission dirt bikes only; 126' barrier at E end

Long Valley 16S15-

1.78R-1 0.0 Decommission

leads to Bear Valley; extend existing 

barrier on both sides of Long Valley 

Loop Road by 168' (N) and 105' (S); 

stabilize stream crossing

Long Valley 16S15-

1.97R-1 0.0 Decommission

leads to Corte Madera Ranch; needs 

100 yards extension of barbed wire; 

carsonite sign on road; recommend 

private property sign on gate (in 

addition to existing no trespassing 

signage)

Long Valley 16S15-

3.79R-1 0.2 Decommission

dirt bikes riding stream channel and 

RCA; 861' barrier needed; 

earthwork throughout

Long Valley 16S15-

4.18R-1 0.0 Decommission 21' barrier at N, 42' next S, 42' at S; 

earthwork throughout

Long Valley 16S15-

6.10R-1 0.1 Decommission dirt bikes only; 273' barrier; hand 

earthwork throughout

Long Valley 16S16-

0.04R-1 0.4 Decommission none; to be addressed by other 

recommendations
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

18

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Long Valley SUA171 0.1 Decommission 63' of barrier; earthwork 

throughout

Long Valley SUA171 0.0 Decommission 21' barrier

Long Valley SUA172 0.1 Decommission

barrier noted for additional route 

will close this one too; no earthwork 

required

Long Valley UND486 0.0 Decommission dirt bikes only; 63' barrier; hand 

earthwork

Long Valley UND488 0.0 Decommission hand earthwork

Long Valley UND490 0.1 Decommission hand earthwork

Long Valley UND490-

0.06R-1 0.0 Decommission hand earthwork

Long Valley UND492 0.1 Decommission hand earthwork

Long Valley UND500 0.5 Decommission

dirt bikes riding stream channel; 

126' barrier at S origin; 84' (E) and 

21' (W) at road crossing; 2 x 21' at N 

end; earthwork throughout

Long Valley UND504 0.0 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Long Valley UND507 0.2 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Long Valley UND509 1.0 Decommission 100' barrier on NW end; 60' on SE 

end; earthwork throughout

Long Valley UND9095 0.1 Decommission

84' (extending the Legacy 147') on 

the upstream side (N); 63' on the 

downstream side (S); 126' further S; 

earthwork outside of channel

Long Valley UND9096 0.2 Decommission 105' barrier; brush for cover

Long Valley UNDTrail130 0.4 Decommission leads to RCA; 21' of barrier

Long Valley UND-Trail57 0.2 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Mount Laguna 15S20B 0.8

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for admin water tank 

access; stormproof; gate wide open, 

should be closed; add horse gate
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

19

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Mount Laguna UND389 0.3 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; needs stormproofing by hand 

earthwork

Mount Laguna UND-Trail17 0.4 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; replace gate with barbed wire 

on S end

Pine Creek 14S05-7.6R1 0.1

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for access to 

pumphouse and troughs; needs 

gate

Pine Creek 14S05-

6.61L-1 0.0 Add for Public 

Use

Add to System as dispersed camping 

spur

Pine Creek 14S05-

6.25R1 0.1 Decommission

399' barrier; earthwork to stream 

crossing; 362' on SE side of road; 

462' on NW; 378' x 2 further down 

road

Pine Creek 14S05DExtension 1.0 Decommission

barrier already in place; extensive 

earthwork and restoration needed 

throughout

Pine Creek Pine Creek 1 0.0 Decommission

42' barrier (or 2 hazard trees) to 

close spur that approaches stream; 

leave and stormproof loop pullout

Pine Creek Pine Creek 2 0.1 Decommission 399' barrier; earthwork throughout

Pine Creek Pine Creek 3 0.1 Decommission 252' + 21' barrier along Pine Creek 

Road; earthwork throughout

Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 0.0 Decommission earthwork throughout

Pine Creek UND8114 0.2 Decommission 21' barrier needed at each end; 

earthwork throughout

Pine Creek UND872 0.9 Decommission

effective barrier in place; extensive 

earthwork and restoration 

throughout

Pine Creek UND985 0.2 Decommission

place 21' barrier to leave a single 

campsite near the road; earthwork 

to end

Pine Creek UND985 0.1 Decommission

315' barrier along Miner's Road; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout 

Tule Springs UND-Trail81 2.6 Decommission 21' barrier; earthwork only for first 

600 yards
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

20

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Boulder Creek

Road UND114-2 0.2 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; 21' barrier to prevent vehicle 

access to RCA; stormproofing 

throughout

Boulder Creek 

Road UND102 0.1 Add for Public Use

Add to System as viewpoint; 

existing barrier needs 147' 

extension on uphill side to road

Boulder Creek 

Road UND114 0.2 Add for Public 

Use

Add to System as dispersed camping 

spur; needs stormproofing

Boulder Creek 

Road

13S08-

10.95R-1 0.1 Decommission 21' barrier just before borrow site; 

earthwork throughout

Boulder Creek 

Road

13S08-

8.83R-1 0.1 Decommission

231' barrier, including gate; 

earthwork throughout staging area 

and start of permitted route to 

apiary

Boulder Creek

Road

Boulder 

Creek 1 0.0 Decommission place 14 boulders to block access

Cedar Creek 13S06-

11.6L1 0.5 Decommission 168' barrier; earthwork to where it 

reenters the RCA

Cedar Creek 13S06-5.2R1 0.3 Decommission previously closed; reinforce existing 

barrier using on-site boulders

Cedar Creek River Gorge 

1 0.3 Decommission

357' barrier from stream channel to 

boundary, set back from road; 

earthwork throughout

Cedar Creek UND191 0.5 Decommission earthwork to RCA; hand earthwork 

for remainder

High Point High Point 1 0.3 Decommission 42' barrier midslope; earthwork 

only on initial steep climb

Inaja/Upper San 

Diego River UND384 3.2 Decommission

gate at boundary should be 

replaced with 21' of barrier; 

previously and then naturally 

decommissioned beyond 

confluence; earthwork down to 

confluence turnaround plus hand 

work beyond to mainstem crossing

Inaja/Upper San 

Diego River

UND384-

SPUR2 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout; 600' wire 

fence

Inaja/Upper San 

Diego River

UND384-

SPUR3 0.0 Decommission earthwork throughout; 250' wire 

fence

Indian Flats PCT-SPURPRD 0.7 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add as Non-Motorized Trail; 

connects PCT to BLM land; accesses 

spring from PCT; heavily used by 

horses; stormproofing throughout
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

21

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Indian Flats UND148 0.0 Add for Public 

Use

Add to System as actual road rather 

than the steep section; SE 

intersection needs to be widened by 

10'; armor road surface

Indian Flats 9S05-4.70L1 0.1 Decommission 42' barrier; earthwork throughout

Indian Flats 9S05-5.25R1 0.1 Decommission 42' barrier set back from road; 

earthwork throughout

Indian Flats 9S05-6.98R1 0.0 Decommission 63' barrier; stabilize stream 

crossing; brush entrance

Indian Flats 9S05A 0.0 Decommission

21' barrier at top (E) and 42' at 

bottom (W); extensive earthwork 

and restoration throughout

Indian Flats UND149 0.1 Decommission

21' barrier at base of road prism; 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout; old water 

tank (6' diameter, 6' long) should be 

removed

Indian Flats UND268 0.5 Decommission earthwork throughout

Indian Flats UND51 1.1 Decommission 21' barrier at boundary (top of 

throughcut); earthwork throughout

Indian Flats UND55 0.0 Decommission 21' barrier at midpoint; earthwork 

throughout

Indian Flats UND856 0.1 Decommission earthwork throughout

Pamo Valley UND105 0.2

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for water tank 

access; needs barrier measurement 

and gate; not needed beyond 

intersection with UND115

Pamo Valley UND106 0.0

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for water tank access

Pamo Valley UND115 0.0

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for water tank access

Pamo Valley 12S07-

1.27R-1 0.1 Add for Public 

Use

Add to System as viewpoint access; 

needs stormproofing and 

realignment

Pamo Valley UND887 0.0 Decommission 315' barrier; remove old concrete 

crossing; earthwork throughout
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

22

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Pamo Valley UND9003 0.1 Decommission 126' barrier; earthwork throughout

Pamo Valley UND94 0.1 Decommission

place 5 boulders (available on-site) 

to prevent renewed vehicle 

incursions; be sure to leave room 

for an engine to turn around; pull 6 

posts and barbed wire

Tule Springs 14S07-

6.35L1 0.3 Decommission 63' barrier

Tule Springs 14S07-

6.79R-1 0.4 Decommission 42' barrier; earthwork throughout

Tule Springs UND720A 0.8 Decommission

only SE-most 300 yards needs 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration; Tule Springs Road 

needs gate with 84' of barrier on 

each side at Pine Grove; trough in 

Recommended Wilderness needs 

removal

Tule Springs UND720B 0.8 Decommission 420' barrier

Tule Springs UND735 0.1 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Tule Springs UND736 0.5 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Tule Springs UND740 0.4 Decommission

ends at stream crossing; 21' of 

barrier; 20' x 40' foundation and 

massive abandoned well need 

removal

Tule Springs UND741 0.1 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Tule Springs UND742 0.6 Decommission

E end in use to stream crossing, will 

naturally revegetate; naturally 

decommissioned to the next stream 

crossing; W end needs 21' barrier 

and hand earthwork to 2nd stream 

crossing

Tule Springs UND744 0.1 Decommission will naturally revegetate

Tule Springs UND745 0.5 Decommission 42' barrier; earthwork throughout

Tule Springs UND747 0.2 Decommission

first half will naturally revegetate; 

second half is already naturally 

decommissioned
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

23

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Will Valley UND386 0.5 Decommission replace gate with 42' barrier at 

boundary; earthwork throughout

Will Valley UND386-

0.67L-1 0.1 Decommission

earthwork throughout; fence 

boundary with Will Valley; place 7 

bollards on W end

Bedford BD-2 0.1 Decommission 21' barrier at bottom; earthwork 

throughout

Bedford BD-4 0.2 Decommission 63' barrier at top, 21' in middle, 42' 

at bottom; earthwork throughout

Bedford BD-5 0.1 Decommission 63' barrier at top, 84' at bottom; 

earthwork throughout

Bedford BD-7 0.2 Decommission

294' barrier, including gate; 

stormproofing needed; permitted 

route to apiary

Bedford UNDTrail301 0.2 Decommission 42' barrier at top, 21' at bottom; 

earthwork throughout

Bedford UNDTrail302 0.6 Decommission

63' barrier at top; 105' at bottom + 

21' at top of guzzler; earthwork 

throughout

Elsinore Peak 7S04-Spur 0.0 Decommission needs gate at bottom of Hixon 

Truck Trail

Fox Spring/Lucas 

Canyon UND418 0.5 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; needs stormproofing and 

minor realignment

Long 

Canyon/Ortega 

Highway

UND8405 0.3 Decommission 240' barrier (preferably wood); 

earthwork throughout

Long 

Canyon/Ortega 

Highway

UND8406 0.3 Decommission barriered by UND8405; earthwork 

throughout

Long 

Canyon/Ortega 

Highway

UND8408 0.3 Decommission barriered by UND8405

Margarita Peak UND9120 0.4 Add for NonMotorized Use

21' barrier and horse gate; 

earthwork throughout, retain and 

stormproof a non-motorized System 

trail 

Margarita Peak 8S01-3.54L1 0.0 Decommission gate go-round needs 21' barrier;

brush for cover

Margarita Peak 8S01-5.95R1 1.1 Decommission dirt bike trail along Wilderness 

boundary; 21' barrier
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

24

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

North Main Divide UND8706 0.1

Add for 

Administrative 

Use

Add to System for helipad and 

water tank access; needs gate and 

63' of barrier on each side

North Main Divide 3S04-

10.05R-1 0.2 Decommission 63' barrier at each end; earthwork 

throughout

North Main Divide 3S04-5.26L1 0.0 Decommission

gate go-round needs 42' barrier at 

bottom (SW) and a carsonite sign at 

top

North Main Divide 3S04-5.86L1 0.2 Decommission 126' barrier; earthwork throughout

North Main Divide SKYLINESPUR1 0.7 Decommission

21' barrier (SW) and 63' (NE); 

extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

North Main Divide SKYLINESPUR2 0.2 Decommission 42' barrier; extensive earthwork and 

restoration throughout

North Main Divide UND11 0.3 Decommission old dozer line behind FS gate; 

earthwork throughout

North Main Divide UND5 0.4 Decommission

no barrier needed (behind locked 

gate); hand earthwork needed 

down to first intersection

Silverado Canyon 5S04-0.33L1 0.1 Decommission

168' barrier on E side; 63' on W side 

and excavate tank trap further; no 

earthwork needed on route

Silverado Canyon 5S04-0.45R1 0.0 Decommission

42' barrier on S side of existing gate; 

2 sections perpindicular to each 

other to prevent dirt bikes from 

getting around the gate

Silverado Canyon 5S04-5.25R1 0.1 Decommission

63' barrier on downslope end; 21' in 

middle; 21' upslope; earthwork 

throughout

Trabuco Canyon UND201 0.3 Add for NonMotorized Use

Add to System as non-motorized 

trail; needs hand earthwork, cleared 

to top of first eroded section; 

connects to other non-System trails, 

leaves from marked County trails

Trabuco Canyon 6S13-2.86L1 0.1 Decommission

first stream crossing: replace 7' 

barrier on N side; place 2 additional 

boulders on S side

Trabuco Canyon 6S13-3.08R1 0.1 Decommission 105' barrier, behind 2 trees
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

25

Map Location Route 

Number

Length 

(miles) Action Type Proposed Action

Trabuco Canyon 6S13-3.66R1 0.1 Decommission

second crossing: 5 boulders or dam 

pieces across stream channel; 42' of 

barrier just upstream along road

Trabuco Canyon 6S13-4.54R1 0.0 Decommission fourth stream crossing: 42' of 

barrier just upstream along road

Trabuco Canyon 6S13-5.56L1 0.0 Decommission

trailhead at end of road: extend 

barrier by 21' to keep dirt bikes off 

trail; 84' barrier along base of slope, 

behind sycamore

Trabuco Canyon TC Pvt Spur 0.0 Decommission

21' barrier including gate; private 

landowner permission granted to 

prevent unauthorized motorized 

access to the National Forest

Wildomar/South 

Main Divide SUA28 0.1 Add for NonMotorized Use

42' barrier with horse gate, place 

boulders at ends of barrier; 

earthwork throughout to narrow 

and stormproof; retaining a nonmotorized System trail

Wildomar/South 

Main Divide

SUA28-

SPUR 0.1 Decommission foot/horse trail to RCA needs hand earthwork

Wildomar/South 

Main Divide UND8243 0.1 Decommission horse trail; hand earthwork 

throughout

Wildomar/South 

Main Divide UND8248 0.1 Decommission horse trail; descent to creek needs 

hand earthwork

Wildomar/South 

Main Divide UND8250 0.1 Decommission horse trail; descent towards creek 

needs hand earthwork
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

26

2.3 - Comparison of Alternatives 

This comparison of alternatives provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. 

Information in the table is focused on instances where different levels of effects or outputs can be 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 

Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives.

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action)

Soils and Water Soil erosion, water quality 

issues, and riparian habitat 

degradation would persist on 

unauthorized routes 

throughout the project area. 

Soil erosion, water quality issues, 

and riparian habitat degradation 

would be reduced throughout the 

project area, through 

decommissioning of many routes 

and stormproofing and 

maintenance of those being added 

to the System. 

Air Quality Unauthorized routes in the 

project area would continue 

to generate low levels of both 

emissions and dust, which 

would not be expected to 

cause any significant local or 

regional air quality impacts.

Unauthorized route 

decommissioning and 

stormproofing in the project area 

would generate low levels of both 

emissions and dust, which would 

not be expected to cause any 

significant local or regional air 

quality impacts.

Biological 

Resources

The endangered, threatened, 

sensitive, and management 

indicator species would 

continue to be adversely 

affected by unauthorized 

routes, along with the spread 

of invasive weeds and 

increased fire risk associated 

with the routes.

The Proposed Action is expected to 

have no effect on threatened or 

endangered species and would not 

be likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or a loss of viability 

for sensitive animal species. The 

decommissioning of unauthorized 

routes would improve habitat 

conditions for threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, and 

management indicator species, and 

would result in the control of 

several high priority invasive 

weeds.

Recreation and 

Public Safety

Recreationists seeking intact 

areas would continue to be 

negatively affected by OHV 

use of unauthorized routes.

The Proposed Action would bring 

the National Forest into better 

alignment with the Land 

Management Plan, by providing a 

variety of OHV opportunities on 

designated trails, including a new 

trail, while addressing resource 

issues and use of unauthorized 

routes. One System Road, 

Carveacre, would no longer be 

available for public motorized use.

Cultural Resources Damage would continue to 

occur to 29 known prehistoric 

and historic sites through 

ongoing OHV use.

Along with design features that 

address cultural resources (p. 7),

this finding determines that there 

would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to cultural 

resources under the Proposed 

Action.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

27

3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides an overview of the physical, biological, and social environments of the project 

area and the potential changes to those environments that would result from implementing each of the 

alternatives. Included in this analysis is an assessment of the cumulative effects of the alternatives on 

the physical, biological, and social environments. This chapter also presents the scientific and 

analytical basis for comparison of the two alternatives presented in chapter 2 of the EA.

3.0.1 – Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis

This section describes the scope of cumulative effects used for analysis of the two alternatives for the 

physical, biological, and social environments. Cumulative impacts are those impacts resulting from 

the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions. The cumulative effects are summarized within each resource section. 

Because this project would occur across all three Ranger Districts, the Cleveland National Forest as a 

whole is the appropriate scope for cumulative effects analysis. The project would be implemented 

over the next five years, and so that is the appropriate temporal scope for the analysis. 

Activities to be considered for cumulative effects analysis include:

• Continued operation and maintenance of existing roads, trails, trailheads, campgrounds, and other 

Forest Service facilities. 

• Ongoing recreational activity across the National Forest.

• Special use authorizations including utilities and a variety of other uses.

• Recent wildfires, including the effects of the massive 2003 and 2007 fires.

• Fuels management projects in multiple areas.

• Ongoing invasive species management and aquatic organism passage projects.

• Development and activities on private inholdings and adjacent lands.

3.1 - Physical Environment ________________________

This section evaluates impacts of the two alternatives to soils, water, and air quality.

3.1.1 – Soils and Water

The watershed designations used by the Forest Service come from the National Hydrologic Database 

maintained by the United States Geologic Survey. The project lies within 30 different hydrologic unit 

code 12 (HUC) subwatersheds. The project area is a very small percentage of the overall 

subwatersheds’ acreage. 

In total, there are approximately 213 miles of perennial stream and 2,380 miles of seasonal stream 

(primarily intermittent and does not include all ephemeral channels) in the project subwatersheds.

Along streams, lakes, wetlands, seeps, springs and other hydrologic features are riparian areas that are 

managed as riparian conservation areas (RCAs). RCAs are a key component in protecting fish, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat. The primary RCA management emphasis is on protecting and, where 

necessary, restoring the condition of riparian and aquatic habitats. Activities in RCAs have more 

restrictions as riparian areas tend to support more sensitive habitats. Widths of RCAs for various 

hydrologic features are listed in Table 4. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

28

Table 4. Riparian Conservation Areas.

RCA type Width of the Riparian Conservation Area

Perennial Streams 328 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank

full edge of the stream.

Seasonally Flowing/Intermittent Streams 98 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank

full edge of the stream.

Stream in Inner Gorge (Gorge slopes of 70% or more) Top of inner gorge.

Lakes, ponds, wetlands, seeps, and springs 328 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation,

whichever is greater.

Extended Riparian conditions:

• Perennial stream with riparian condition extending

more than 164 feet from edge of streambank.

• Seasonal stream with riparian conditions extending

more than 33 feet from edge of streambank.

328 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation,

whichever is greater.

Other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined

channel (meadows, vernal pools)

RCA width and protection measures determined through

project level analysis.

Elevation of the project area ranges between approximately 280 to 3,960 feet. Precipitation across the 

project area sites are dominated by rain, and generally accumulate between 15 to greater than 30 

inches annually.

The two soil series that cover the majority of the project area are La Posta (~52 acres) and Cieneba 

(~40 acres). The rest of the soil series have less than 24 acres each. The majority of soils have 

developed from bedrock weathered in place (mostly igneous and some metamorphic) with lesser soils 

comprised of alluvium (transported material). Erosion hazard ratings for the two main soils series 

range from Moderate to Very High. For road building, all soils in the two series rate as Severe 

erosion hazard.

The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Diego region, Santa Ana region, and 

Colorado River Basin region) designate the beneficial uses for all surface and ground waters through 

each region’s basin plan. These beneficial uses, of which recreational and ecosystem uses were the 

most common in the project area, were included in the analysis of effects and are documented in the 

project record.

Forest Roads and Unauthorized Routes

Roads are the number one anthropogenic contributor of sediment to streams and have been found to 

change both soil properties and hydrologic behavior; however, road segments vary as to the amount 

they impact watershed resources depending on amount of use, proximity to water, design, slope, and 

composition. Sediment production usually increases with an increase in traffic. Hydrologically 

connected roads expand the drainage network, increasing peak flows, bank instability, and sediment 

delivery. For roads within the RCA, close proximity to water increases the likelihood of 

hydroconnectivity.

Roads can be designed to minimize impacts through stormproofing, implementation of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), aggregate surfacing, relocation, and decommissioning. The 

objectives of stormproofing roads are to improve drainage of roads to handle runoff from large storms 

(50 to 100 year-sized storms) and minimize road related damage to the hydrologic system. This helps 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

29

minimize maintenance and increases the life of roads. Aggregate surfacing and revegetation of bare 

soil, road ditches, and road prisms reduce the amount of sediment produced by roads and ditches by 

trapping sediment and stabilizing slopes. Surfacing roads has been found to reduce road related 

sediment production by more than an order of magnitude (Coe, 2006). Relocation and 

decommissioning of routes is a long-term management action to reduce road impacts and is 

sometimes necessary. Decommissioning can result in a short-term impact, such as an increase in 

sediment production; however, there is a long-term benefit after the formerly roaded area has 

recovered and regained vegetative cover.

Best Management Practices

BMPs are an agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and the State and Regional Water Boards to 

control nonpoint source discharges by implementing control actions certified by the State Water 

Board. The Regional Water Board enforces compliance with BMP implementation to ensure that 

water quality is protected. The objectives of BMPs are to meet road needs for users while minimizing 

disturbance and protecting water quality, aquatic organisms, riparian areas, and downstream 

beneficial uses. Forest system roads are typically built to follow BMP standards, stormproofed, and 

surfaced when fiscally feasible. BMPs are generally not implemented on user-created routes.

RCAs and Routes

RCAs are a key component in protecting aquatic/riparian dependent species, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat. RCAs include areas adjacent to streams and other aquatic habitat where the primary 

management emphasis is on protecting and, where necessary, restoring the condition of riparian and 

aquatic habitats. Typically, the RCA provides corridors for wildlife and acts as a buffer to prevent 

impacts to water quality, such as sediment delivery. Riparian vegetation, ground cover, and 

permeable soils facilitate water infiltration, slow runoff, retain sediment, and in turn, decrease peak 

flows within a stream. A lack of vegetation, lack of ground cover, and increased soil compaction can 

increase peak flows and sediment delivery, and negatively affect fish habitat downstream, water 

quality, and stream health. Roads are compacted, exposed surfaces that can increase peak flows by 

expanding the existing drainage network. Roads within the RCA have a higher likelihood of 

impacting watershed resources because of proximity to water resources. Increased peak flows can 

cause channels to incise, decrease bank stability, increase sediment production, and lead to lower 

groundwater tables.

Stream Crossings

Stream crossings are the most common location for sediment delivery from roads. Sediment delivery 

at crossings occurs from bare, hydrologically-connected, inboard road ditches, road surfaces and from 

crossing fill around culverts eroding into stream channels. The majority of sediment appears to be 

delivered from road surface and road fill slope materials that are detached and transported to the 

channel in road ditches after heavy road use, wet season road use, or precipitation events of great 

enough intensity to produce runoff. Graveled road segments tend to deliver less sediment and protect 

the road surface. Additionally, revegetating, rocking or armoring of inboard ditches can help 

minimize ditch sediment production. Research indicates that surfacing at the crossings may reduce 

delivery of sediment to channels by 10-25 times the existing condition. Most user-created routes do 

not have surfacing at stream crossings nor have they been designed to reduce sediment delivery.

Routes and Beneficial Uses

Increased sediment delivery to streams from routes has negative affects to aquatic organisms and 

beneficial uses. Aquatic organisms (fish, macroinvertebrates) have difficulty adjusting to chronic
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

30

increases in sediment. Chronic sediment levels can reduce species diversity and suffocate or bury egg 

masses. Reduced species diversity of macroinvertebrates creates a less robust ecosystem. Increased 

fine sediment fills in pools, reducing summer refugia for aquatic species. Many aquatic species have 

temperature restrictions outside of which they cannot survive. In the project area, many streams are 

intermittent with only a few pools remaining year round that provide aquatic habitat. When pools are 

filled in or made shallower, water temperatures increase and there is less protection from preditors. 

Increased water temperatures can result in less dissolved oxygen available for aquatic species. As 

water evaporates, chemical characteristics (such as salts and mineral concentrations) can increase.

Increased sediment can also lead to filling in of reservoirs, negatively affect water clarity, negatively 

affect variety of aquatic species used for recreation (fishing), and increase flooding potential in 

depositional areas. Many of the project subwatersheds have downstream reservoirs that supply 

municipal water for nearby populations.

Site Specific Conditions

Common causes for resource damage observed on the project trails are related to use, poor location, 

poor drainage, compaction, lack of maintenance, and exploratory driving. These issues have caused 

reduced soil productivity and vegetative cover, increased erosion, and unstable slopes. They have also 

caused stream channel diversions, altered hydrologic processes related to concentration of flow and 

hydroconnectivity, increased sedimentation in streams, and damage to sensitive areas.

Sediment production usually increases with an increase in traffic. Driving on a native surface route or 

across the soil surface displaces particles on the soil surface, breaks down rock and organic matter, 

and chronically increases the supply of transportable material. This material can be mobilized during 

runoff events, especially if the route has concentrated flow. Transportation of route surface material 

on the project routes is evidenced by the multitude of sediment plumes on and just off most route 

surfaces in drainage paths (gullies, rills). Several routes have tread loss and are now the lowest spot 

on the terrain, artificially creating a drainage path. Implementation of best management practices in 

planning and design of routes helps to minimize the impact of trails and roads on resources and 

beneficial uses. The majority of routes surveyed were not constructed using best management 

practices nor have they been maintained.

Poor locations observed on surveyed routes include places such as in or adjacent to stream channels, 

on steep slopes, or on difficult to drain terrain. In many cases, trails have experienced tread loss, 

becoming the lowest point on the terrain and in turn have become a drainage course for runoff during 

precipitation events. Concentration of flow in the trail surface alters the natural hydrologic processes 

in the area related to infiltration, runoff, and erosion. Concentrated flows have more erosion power 

and are typically connected to stream channels, delivering more sediment to channels than the natural 

sediment delivery regime. The additional runoff from concentrated route drainage can also change 

channel characteristics such as bank stability and flooding as the additional runoff increases the size 

of peak flows.

The Proposed Action includes 20.4 miles of routes within the RCA. These calculations were 

completed using the NHD layer that does not capture all the seasonal drainages on the forest. Many 

trails cross or are parallel to unmapped ephemeral drainages not represented in this calculation. 

Unlike upland areas, routes in the RCA lack a buffer to deposit sediment before reaching a stream 

course. Because of proximity, a route in the RCA is more likely to be hydrologically connected to a 

stream and to have increased sediment delivery to a stream. Even if a trail in a RCA or crossing a 

RCA has drainage control structures in place to minimize resource damage, trails adjacent to and 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

31

crossing RCAs are more likely to deliver increased amounts of sediment than roads outside the RCA 

because of proximity.

Several surveyed routes observed in the RCA have rutting, compaction, concentrated flow, are 

hydrologically connected, and have erosion. Drainage paths off these routes typically have sediment 

plumes and runoff that reaches the channel. Additionally, several surveyed trails are located in the 

channel and have resulted in direct damage to the stream channel banks and bed, soils, and riparian 

vegetation.

Poor drainage on the trail surface is very common on most of the surveyed routes as routes are linear 

features that can easily be converted to runoff paths. Many lack drainage control structures that can 

minimize resource damage related to runoff and most were not constructed using best management 

practices. Some of the trails have drainage control structures but have not been maintained allowing 

the structures to lose effectiveness. Poor drainage increases concentration of flow on the trail surface, 

which in turn increases erosion and potential for sediment delivery to streams.

Other problems partially related to poor drainage include stream channel diversions. Several routes 

were observed diverting stream channels at crossings down the trail surface away from the natural 

flow path. This increases erosion on the route surface and generally leads to the creation of large 

gullies across the hillside. Stream channel diversions result in large amounts of road fill, route 

sediment, and hillside sediment from gully formation to be delivered to the channel.

Compaction of the trail surface causes long term changes to soil productivity and hydrologic 

processes. Almost all trails in the project are compacted and exhibit the effects of compaction. 

Compaction is the process of collapsing soil under pressure, reducing porosity and permeability and 

damaging soil structure. Porosity and permeability are essential for a healthy soil, as pores within the 

soil allow the exchange of air and water at depth that is critical for microorgansims, 

macroinvertebrates and plant growth. Compaction reduces porosity and permeability necessary for 

infiltration and increases runoff, which can contribute to increased concentration of overland flow and 

erosion. Compaction can alter flow paths in the soil and lead to dewatering of areas where water is 

diverted from. Some of the trails observed in the project that have been compacted exhibit gullies 

where historically there may not have been runoff paths. These sites probably had higher infiltration 

that has been reduced due to compaction.

Other observed resource damage included wet season use of routes resulting in rutting and soil 

displacement. Much like the discussion on compaction above, rutting destroys soil structure, 

permeability and porosity. Compaction is most likely to occur when soils are wetter. When the soil is 

fully saturated and water is ponded (during the wet season), soil is physically displaced as water 

cannot compact under pressure. Porosity in damaged soils is generally lost. Rutted areas on the 

surveyed routes lack vegetation and have decreased soil productivity. In some locations, existing 

rutting and ponding has caused users to widen the route to avoid the ponded area. Widening the route 

surface further increases the area of disturbance and area contributing to runoff.

Lack of maintenance on existing drainage control structures has allowed some of the routes to 

degrade. Some of the routes have existing drainage control structures, such as waterbars, dips, overside drains, and culverts; however, because the routes are non-system routes, they are not on the 

Forests schedule for maintenance and repair. On routes needing maintenance, dips and waterbars 

have filled. Surface drainage has eroded around over-side drains creating gullies on the fill slope. 

Culverts have been buried and drainage either flows over the trail surface or is diverted down the trail 

surface. Failure of drainage control structures increases concentration of flow, erosion, and 

sedimentation. Trail use without periodic maintenance increases the probability of failure.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

32

Exploratory driving off both non-system routes and system routes was common at many of the 

surveyed sites, as several of the surveyed sites were initially created through exploratory driving. 

Exploratory driving creates new routes with the potential to be in poor locations, have poor drainage, 

and result in compaction. Observed exploratory driving was typically seen in channels or the adjacent 

RCA, which are the most sensitive areas providing the most needed habitat. These routes have 

damaged vegetation (riparian and upland species), disturbed stream banks and stream beds, increased 

sedimentation downstream of disturbed sites, and decreased soil productivity.

Road Density

Subwatersheds with higher road densities have higher risks of chronic sediment delivery. A 

shortcoming of road density calculations and using them as an indicator of watershed health is that 

stormproofing, BMP implementation, surfacing, and drainage improvements are not reflected in road

density calculations despite the fact that these actions reduce chronic sediment related to roads.

Most of the road densities in the project subwatersheds on FS land are below 2 miles per square mile. 

A couple of watersheds have higher road densities; however, this is related to the FS owning very few 

acres in the watershed (ex. Dan Price Creek-Santa Ysabel Creek).

ERAs from Roads

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) is a model used to determine watershed cumulative effects. This 

model equates the amount of disturbance caused by past, present, and foreseeable future activities and 

natural disturbance to the amount of impact caused by a native surface forest road. Activities and 

events are assigned varying coefficients (0 to 1) that represent amount of disturbance per acre 

compared to the amount of disturbance of one acre of native surface road. Roads have been found to 

be the highest anthropogenic contributors of sediment to streams and are thus assigned a disturbance 

coefficient of 1. Roads are estimated to be permanent features on the landscape; other activities are 

assigned recovery coefficients. Subwatersheds are assigned thresholds of concern (TOC) that 

represent a critical value and are set based on watershed specific conditions, such as anadromous fish, 

listed species, beneficial uses, and physical characteristics (soil types, slope gradients, etc). The TOC 

represents a value of ERA where the potential for adverse cumulative effects increases and adverse 

water quality effects become very likely. A typical TOC for most watersheds is between 12 and 17%.

Because this project is limited to road management and decreasing road density, this analysis focuses 

on the ERAs of the existing road and trail system and how the Proposed Action will affect the road 

ERA value. The calculated road ERA value doesn’t include roads on non-FS lands. FS routes 

contribute very little percent ERA with the majority of watersheds having less than 1% ERA from 

routes on FS land.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

33

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

There would be no change to road density and the existing trends of resource damage would continue 

indefinitely. Needed routes that would be added to the system and improved under the Proposed 

Action would not be added to the maintenance and repair schedule or have additional stormproofing;

thus they would continue to degrade. Impacted RCAs in the project area would not be allowed to 

recover and would continue to degrade as long as use persisted. Unmanaged exploratory driving 

could continue to increase the area impacted by OHV use. ERAs related to roads and road densities 

would remain the same and may increase due to exploratory driving. Current trends in effects to 

beneficial uses would continue.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Soil Compaction and Soil Productivity

Soil compaction would be reduced through route decommissioning, restoration, and prevention of 

exploratory driving. Chunking and scarifying the ground surface and restoration of sites would 

enhance soil productivity by breaking up compaction, increasing soil permeability, and reestablishing 

pore space for water, air, and plant growth. Soil structure formation will take time to reestablish; 

however, removing vehicle use will allow the process to start. Brushing and adding organic debris to 

disturbed sites will not only reduce erosion but will reintroduce organic matter to depleted soils. 

Reducing exploratory driving will prevent further damage to soil productivity and soil structure. Soil 

productivity is the first step toward restoring habitat at a disturbed site.

Decreased compaction would improve infiltration, groundwater recharge, and could improve soil 

moisture. Increasing soil infiltration capacity would positively affect other hydrologic process such as 

reducing artificially high runoff and erosion rates related to routes.

Sediment

Overall, the Proposed Action would result in localized long-term reductions of chronic erosion and 

sedimentation related to the treated routes. There may be short-term (less than five years) increases in 

sediment related to implementation of the project (decommissioning, stormproofing, other soil 

disturbance); however, there would be a long-term benefit to watershed resources as the impacted 

sites recover and stabilize. Decommissioned sites would stabilize through reestablished vegetation, 

improved hydrologic processes, and eliminated motorized use. Routes added to the system would be 

stormproofed and maintained using best management practices. When implemented, best 

management practices have been found to be effective at reducing sediment related to Forest 

activities. Effects would not be measurable at the HUC 6 watershed scale.

Several characteristics of the surveyed routes (poor location, proximity to the RCA, poor drainage, 

stream channel diversions, compaction, and wet season use) are contributing to increased sediment 

and erosion. The Proposed Action would address surveyed sites according to the management 

recommendation for each site, either adding the route to the system as a non-motorized trail or road, 

or decommissioning the site.

As mentioned, driving on a native surface route or across the soil surface displaces particles on the 

soil surface, breaks down rock and organic matter, and chronically increases the supply of 

transportable material. Decreasing the number of roaded miles and managing road use (road closures) 

will reduce the supply of transportable material created by motor vehicle use.

Sediment on routes added to the system would be reduced through stormproofing, maintenance and 

repair. As discussed before, several routes concentrate runoff on the route surface. Stormproofing 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

34

works to disperse flow and prevent concentrated runoff, decreasing the erosive power of road 

drainage. It also includes disconnecting road related runoff from stream crossings and reducing 

potential for stream channel diversion. This reduces potential for sediment delivery and for 

erosion/gully formation.

Routes decommissioned would no longer have motorized vehicle use and existing drainage and 

chronic erosion issues would be addressed through site restoration. The linear route features would no 

longer exist to concentrate flow and alter hydrologic processes. Chunking, scarification, and dispersal 

of cover in the form of rock, and/or wood and plant debris will increase surface roughness, 

groundcover, and infiltration. Surface roughness decreases the potential for concentration of flow and 

erosion of the soil surface. Ground cover will protect the ground surface from raindrop erosion and 

soil sealing. Infiltration will prevent increased runoff that can increase erosion. Additionally, the 

number of stream crossings would be reduced, reducing chronic sediment delivery related to these 

stream crossings. Stream crossings have the highest potential for sediment delivery on roads.

Of particular importance are the routes identified for treatment that are located in the RCA. Treatment 

of sites in the RCA would have a beneficial effect on sedimentation caused from the routes. Because 

of proximity, these sites are more likely to contribute sediment and to be hydrologically connected. 

As mentioned in Site Specific Observations, several routes were found to be located in the stream 

channel, damaging stream banks, the stream bed, and riparian vegetation. Decommissioning these 

routes and preventing motorized use would allow the impacted channels to stabilize, reducing 

sedimentation. Riparian vegetation would reestablish and assist in stabilizing the channel banks. 

Erosion related to motorized use would decrease, and natural sediment transport regimes would 

reestablish.

Short term impacts of project implementation would be minimized through best management 

practices and project design. BMPs would be implemented to ensure compliance with the Clean 

Water Act. They have been approved by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program is annual monitoring and reporting that the SRWQCB 

requires for ground disturbing activities. This project would be included in the sampling pool.

Hydrology

Overall, the Proposed Action would result in improved hydrologic processes currently impacted by 

the Proposed Action routes; however, these effects would not be measurable at the HUC 6 watershed 

scale.

Several characteristics of the surveyed routes (poor location, proximity to the RCA, poor drainage, 

stream channel diversions, compaction, and wet season use) are contributing to alteration of natural 

hydrologic processes such as infiltration, runoff, peak flows, and channel characteristics. The 

Proposed Action would address surveyed sites according to the management recommendation for 

each site, either adding the route to the system as a non-motorized trail or road, or decommissioning 

the site.

Hydrologic processes on routes added to the system would be improved through stormproofing, 

maintenance and repair. Stormproofing works to disperse concentrated road runoff, slowing water 

and increasing potential for infiltration (off the road surface). It also includes disconnecting road 

related runoff from stream crossings and reducing potential for stream channel diversion. All of these 

actions reduce the increase in peak flow discharge that can result from concentration of runoff on 

roads and connection to streams. When peak flows are returned to a more natural range, so is the 

flooding potential. Channel stability increases as well.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

35

Hydrologic processes on decommissioned routes would be improved as the linear route features 

would no longer exist to concentrate flow and alter hydrologic processes. Site restoration would 

improve infiltration, porosity and permeability. Runoff related to concentration of flow on the route 

surface and compaction would be reduced. Improved hydrologic processes will support vegetative 

regrowth, which will further stabilize the site. Groundcover added to the disturbed soils would slow 

runoff. Slowing runoff and increasing infiltration would decrease peak flows and channel instability. 

Overall, rehabilitation of hydrologic processes including dispersal of road surface drainage and 

disconnecting road drainage from channels would have a positive effect on local hydrology and 

stream habitat.

Cumulative Effects

The Proposed Action would not result in measureable effects at the HUC 6 watershed scale. 

Localized effects would be beneficial to watershed resources, as currently impacted RCAs would be 

allowed to recover and there would be a net decrease in road density.

Changes to Road Density

A total of ~70 miles of route are proposed for decommissioning. Because the routes are spread across 

the National Forest, there is not a significant decrease in road density in each of the subwatersheds. 

The two subwatersheds with the majority of routes to be decommissioned include Morena ReservoirCottonwood Creek and El Capitan Reservoir-San Diego River.

The Proposed Action includes decommissioning of approximately 18 miles of routes within the RCA, 

which will directly protect the RCAs that are currently being impacted by motorized access. These 

routes are more likely to negatively impact water quality and beneficial uses because of proximity to 

stream courses and sensitive habitat.

Changes to Road ERAs

The changes to ERAs, which measures at watershed scale, are not significant and only equal to a 

minor reduction in the percent ERA. Morena Reservoir-Cottonwood Creek subwatershed has a 

decrease of 0.2%, which is the greatest decrease in ERA of the project affected subwatersheds. In this 

project analysis, only the ERA value of decommissioned routes contributed to a change in percent 

ERA. The addition of existing routes to the system did not affect the ERA value because the preproject ERA value includes all roaded acres (system and non-system routes) on FS land in the 

calculation. The existing and post project ERA value for an existing non-system routed added to the 

system would be the same value. It is also important to note that stormproofing of existing routes is 

not included in the ERA calculation as the calculation only looks at roaded acres and does not 

consider drainage improvement. All the sites added to the system would be stormproofed to improve 

drainage.

Impacts to Beneficial Uses

At the HUC 6 watershed scale, project activities will not result in significant negative or positive 

effects to beneficial uses. At the localized scale, activities will result in positive impacts to beneficial 

uses that rely on improved water quality and habitat.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

36

3.1.2 – Air Quality

This project falls within the boundaries of the San Diego Air Basin and the South Coast Air Basin. 

According to the Regional Trends and Forecasts from the ARB Almanac 2013 for the San Diego Air 

Basin, “emissions are concentrated mainly in the western portion of the County.” Additional air 

pollution from outside areas such as the adjacent South Coast basin and Mexico can be present. The 

South Coast Air Basin is extremely populated and “is home to more than 43% of California’s 

population.” More than half of the Proposed Action will take place within the San Diego Air Basin.

The San Diego Air Basin and South Coast Air Basins are currently designated in a mix of attainment 

statuses for several pollutants. Some pollutant concentrations may meet federal standards but not state 

standards. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are in attainment for both state and 

federal standards in both basins, as is lead in the San Diego Air Basin. A tabular representation of 

each pollutant’s status can be found in Table 5 (San Diego) and Table 6 (South Coast). 

Table 5. Federal and State Air quality attainment status for the San Diego Air Basin. Areas 

classified as “attainment” meet the established standards of the applicable ambient air quality 

standard. Areas of “nonattainment” do not meet the standards and may have additional restrictions 

due to this status.

Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation

Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment

Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment

PM10 Unclassifiable Nonattainment

PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment

Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment

Lead Attainment Attainment

Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment

Hydrogen Sulfide (no federal standard) Unclassified

Visibility (no federal standard) Unclassified

Information from California Air Resources Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm

Table 6. Federal and State Air quality attainment status for the South Coast Air Basin. Areas 

classified as “attainment” meet the established standards of the applicable ambient air quality 

standard. Areas of “nonattainment” do not meet the standards and may have additional restrictions 

due to this status.

Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation

Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment

Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

PM10 Attainment Nonattainment

PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment

Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment

Lead Nonattainment Attainment

Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment

Hydrogen Sulfide (no federal standard) Unclassified

Visibility (no federal standard) Unclassified

Information from California Air Resources Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm

Sensitive receptors are people, places, or things that could be impacted from smoke generated by the 

implementation of this project. There are several sensitive receptors within a 10 mile vicinity of the 

project. See Table 7 for a description of sensitive receptors and the estimated distances to the project.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

37

Table 7. Potential sensitive receptors within and near the project. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Under the No Action alternative, no treatments would be conducted. Direct and indirect effects 

include current emissions and air quality trends for the project area. Under this scenario, it is 

reasonable to assume that OHV use and management in the project area would continue to generate 

low levels of both emissions and dust, which would not be expected to cause any significant local or 

regional air quality impacts.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Implementing the treatments of Alternative 2 would result in emissions and therefore a temporary

reduction in air quality. However, the impacts from vehicle and machinery emissions will be spread 

out over many days with low intensity impacts. Conservative modeling results indicate that air quality 

standards will not be exceeded during implementation of the project from activities conducted under 

this Proposed Action. In addition, a decrease in routes may improve air quality by reducing fugitive 

dust from vehicle travel on decommissioned routes. Table 8 compares federal conformity thresholds 

to the project’s emissions. 

Potential Sensitive 

Receptor Type Description Approximate Distance (miles) 

Highways / Major Routes I-15 2

91 1.5

I-8 Less than 1

79 Less than 1

Communities (selected 

examples, several more 

exist)

Alpine Less than 1

Holcomb Valley 3

Warner Springs 3.75

Corona 4.5

Lake Elsinore 6

Lakeside 7

Ramona 8.5

Campo 5

Mt. Laguna 4

Recreation Areas Several recreation facilities within each community.

Wilderness Areas San Mateo Canyon Less than 1

Agua Tibia 6

Pine Creek 1 

Hauser Less than 1
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

38

Table 8. Alternative 2 total modeled emissions (vehicles and equipment) compared to the annual 

federal conformity thresholds for nonattainment areas. The model was run conservatively and results 

were rounded-up to three decimal points. Implementation would take place over several years.

Proposed Action Emissions by Pollutant Types (tons/year) Total

PM 2.5 PM10 CO CO2 CH4 NOx ROG SO2

0.001 0.043 5.413 900.712 0.084 7.058 0.934 0.033

Nonattainment Conformity Thresholds Measured in tons/year

100 70 100 N/A N/A 100 N/A 100

Project Emissions Meet Thresholds?

Yes Yes Yes - - Yes - Yes

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities were reviewed to determine cumulative effects to 

air quality using the federal conformity thresholds. This project’s emissions are under all threshold 

levels indicating that emissions are insignificant relative to other emissions. This project is expected 

to be completed over several years and impacts will occur in that timeframe. Altogether, the Proposed 

Action is not expected to cause any significant local or regional air quality impacts.

3.2 - Biological Environment _______________________

This section evaluates the effect of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives on Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), Migratory Birds, and 

Weeds. See the Biological Evaluation/Assessment, MIS report, Migratory Bird Report, and Weed 

Risk Analysis for the more detailed analyses. These documents are included in the project record. 

3.2.1 - Threatened and Endangered Species

Six federally listed threatened and endangered species have the potential to occur within or adjacent 

to the project areas including four animal species – Least Bell’s Vireo, California Gnatcatcher, 

Arroyo Toad, and Laguna Mountains Skipper – and two plant species – San Bernardino Bluegrass 

and Thread-leafed Brodiaea. Critical habitat occurs within or adjacent to the project areas for five of 

these species, all but Least Bell’s Vireo. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative it is reasonable to assume that continued unauthorized OHV routes 

will expand. Impacts associated with this increased and unmanaged use will result in resource 

damage to habitat and disturbance to plants and wildlife. Unmanaged recreation within this relatively 

small geographical area will eventually result in significant negative impacts to soil, vegetation and 

water quality within the area. Negative environmental impacts associated with unmanaged recreation 

within this area include: direct disturbance and/or destruction of wildlife, vegetation destruction 

through creation of unauthorized trails, litter and waste, and increased potential of wildfire through 

unauthorized vehicle and associated activities. Potential negative indirect and cumulative effects to 

federally listed threatened and endangered species from the No Action alternative include the 

continued disturbance and degradation of their habitats from unauthorized motorized use within these 

areas which reduces habitat suitability for wildlife species.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

39

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Least Bell’s Vireo

No negative direct or indirect effects to this species are expected from the Proposed Action

alternative. There are three unauthorized routes that occur within or adjacent to known occupied or 

historically occupied vireo territories. All three of these sites are within Hauser Canyon. Potential 

direct effects to vireos at these sites are limited to noise disturbance during decommissioning 

activities. No riparian habitat or vegetation is proposed for removal or disturbance and a limited area 

(.07 miles) of route restoration is proposed. To avoid impacts to this species, it is recommended that 

decommissioning activities at these three sites do not occur during the breeding season (March 1 to 

August 1); or vireo surveys are conducted to determine if this species is present within or 

immediately adjacent to the project area between March 1 and July 1. 

No negative indirect effects from the action alternative are expected to this species. Beneficial 

indirect effects to this species from the Proposed Action include eliminating the continued use of 

these unauthorized routes which contribute to habitat degradation and species disturbance. No critical 

habitat for this species occurs within the proposed project areas. 

California Gnatcatcher

No negative direct or indirect effects are expected to the California Gnatcatcher from the proposed 

project. No proposed routes requiring restoration earthwork contain suitable coastal sage scrub habitat 

and are largely unvegetated roadbed. Beneficial indirect effects to this species from the Proposed 

Action include eliminating the continued use of these unauthorized routes which contribute to habitat 

degradation and species disturbance. 

A total of 23 unauthorized routes occur within designated gnatcatcher Critical Habitat. No long-term 

or permanent negative effects are expected because the routes are located within unsuitable or 

marginally suitable habitat, routes are mostly unvegetated and there are limited earthwork activities 

proposed. Beneficial effects to Critical Habitat include the elimination of continued unauthorized 

motorized use and the re-establishment of native vegetation within the routes. 

Arroyo Toad

Potential negative direct effects to arroyo toads from the action alternative include the accidental 

death, injury, or disturbance to individual toads from the decommissioning earthwork. This impact is 

expected to be minimal with a low probability of occurrence due to the site conditions of the routes 

(compacted roadbed) and limited area of disturbance within riparian areas or suitable toad habitat. 

Three routes totaling 0.25 miles or 0.36 acres intersect with suitable habitat where toads may occur 

and 29 routes totaling 3.75 miles intersect with Critical Habitat. To avoid potential direct effects to 

arroyo toads, these sites will be surveyed prior to and monitored during decommissioning activities. 

There are no known potential negative indirect effects from the action alternatives to this species or 

its habitat. Beneficial indirect effects to this species from the Proposed Action include eliminating the 

continued use of these unauthorized routes which contribute to habitat degradation and species 

disturbance. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

40

Laguna Mountains Skipper

No negative direct or indirect effects are expected to the Laguna Mountains Skipper from the 

proposed project. No proposed routes requiring decommissioning earthwork are located within 

occupied or suitable Skipper habitat. Only one route (UND386) is proposed for decommissioning 

earthwork, and the remaining routes are being converted to trail or added to administration only 

roads. Proposed decommissioning actions within the historic Skipper occurrence locations include 

restoration of approximately 0.50 miles (0.75 acres) of old road bed on Palomar Mountain and adding 

a route as administrative use on Mount Laguna. No decommissioning earthwork is proposed on the 

four routes that occur within designated Critical Habitat; three are being added to the Forest road 

system as administrative use only and one route is being converted to non-motorized trail. 

Beneficial indirect effects to this species from the Proposed Action include eliminating the continued 

use of these unauthorized routes which contribute to habitat degradation. 

San Bernardino Bluegrass

No negative direct or indirect effects are expected to this species from the proposed project. No 

occurrences of this plant are known within any of the proposed routes. One route (UND162) on 

Mount Laguna is within designated Critical Habitat. No effect to Critical Habitat is expected as this 

route is an existing driveway 0.08 miles in length and is proposed to be added to the Forest Road 

system. Approximately 0.03 miles of this route is within Critical Habitat. 

Thread-leafed Brodiaea

No negative direct or indirect effects are expected to this species from the proposed project. No 

occurrences of this plant are known within any of the proposed routes. One route (8S01-3-54L-1) 

along Margarita Peak Road on the Trabuco Ranger District is within designated Critical Habitat. 

This route is a pull-out approximately 0.02 miles in length. Decommissioning includes the placement 

of 21 feet of barrier to block access with no earthwork proposed. The site consists of bare disturbed 

ground. 

3.2.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The project area contains potential habitat for 15 Regional Forester’s sensitive species, including 8 

animal species – Gray Vireo, Orange-throated Whiptail, San Diego Mountain Kingsnake, San Diego 

Ringneck Snake, Coastal Rosy Boa, Red-diamond Rattlesnake, California Legless Lizard, and San 

Diego Horned Lizard – and 7 plant species – Jacumba Milkvetch, Heart-leafed Pitcher Sage, and Feltleaved Monardella. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative it is reasonable to assume that continued unauthorized OHV routes 

will expand. Impacts associated with this increased and unmanaged use will result in resource 

damage to habitat and disturbance to plants and wildlife. Unmanaged recreation within this relatively 

small geographical area will eventually result in significant negative impacts to soil, vegetation and 

water quality within the area. Negative environmental impacts associated with unmanaged recreation 

within this area include: direct disturbance and/or destruction of wildlife, vegetation destruction 

through creation of unauthorized trails, litter and waste, and increased potential of wildfire through 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

41

unauthorized vehicle and associated activities. Potential negative indirect and cumulative effects to 

sensitive species from the No Action alternative include the continued disturbance and degradation of 

their habitats from unauthorized motorized use within these areas which reduces habitat suitability for 

wildlife species.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Gray Vireo

Potential negative direct impacts to this species are limited to short-term disturbance from route 

restoration and decommissioning activities. No negative indirect effects are expected to these species 

from the Proposed Action. Positive indirect and cumulative effects to this species from the Proposed 

Action include reducing the number of unauthorized OHV routes and activities which will reduce 

impacts and disturbance to this species and its habitat. 

Orange-throated Whiptail, San Diego Mountain Kingsnake,San Diego Ringneck Snake, Coastal Rosy 

Boa, Red-diamond Rattlesnake, California Legless Lizard, and San Diego Horned Lizard

Potential negative direct effects to these species from the Proposed Action include the potential loss 

of individuals from decommissioning and restoration (heavy equipment) activity. This is not expected 

to be significant due to the limited area and duration of individual route decommissioning activities 

and unsuitable habitat conditions within the routes. There are no known potential negative indirect 

effects from the action alternatives to this species or its habitat. Beneficial indirect and cumulative 

effects to this species from the Proposed Action include eliminating the continued use of these 

unauthorized routes which contributes to potential mortality and habitat degradation. 

Jacumba Milkvetch, Heart-leafed Pitcher Sage, and Felt-leaved Monardella 

Potential negative direct effects to these species from the Proposed Action include the potential loss 

of a limited number of individuals from decommissioning and restoration (heavy equipment) activity. 

This is not expected to be significant due to the limited area of impacts from route decommissioning 

activities and unsuitable habitat conditions within the routes. These three species have been 

documented within the general area of four routes. To avoid impacts to these species, routes where 

these species may occur will be surveyed prior to decommissioning activities. There are no known 

potential negative indirect effects from the action alternative to the milkvetch or pitcher sage. 

Potential negative indirect effects to the monardella include the closing and restoration of two routes 

(UND386 and UND386-0.67L-1) on Palomar Mountain which may provide the preferred disturbed 

habitat conditions for this species. 

Beneficial indirect and cumulative effects to these species from the Proposed Action include 

eliminating the continued use of these unauthorized routes which contributes to potential mortality 

and habitat degradation. 

San Diego Milkvetch, Laguna Mountains Aster, Orcutt’s Linanthus, and Moreno Currant

No negative direct or indirect effects are expected to these species or their habitats from the Proposed 

Action. These species are not documented within the unauthorized route areas, and habitats within the 

unauthorized route locations are generally unsuitable for plant occurrence. Beneficial indirect and 

cumulative effects to these species from the Proposed Action include eliminating the continued use 

and/or expansion of these unauthorized routes which contributes to potential mortality and habitat 

degradation. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

42

3.2.3 – Management Indicator Species

The project area contains potential habitat for 10 Management Indicator Species including 4 animal 

species – Mountain Lion, Mule Deer, Arroyo Toad, and Song Sparrow – and 6 plant species –

Engelmann Oak, Big-cone Douglas Fir, Coulter Pine, California Spotted Owl, California Black Oak, 

and White Fir. Potential effects to Arroyo Toad are described in Section 3.2.1 rather than here.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Potential negative indirect and cumulative effects to Management Indicator Species from the No 

Action alternative include the continued disturbance and degradation of suitable habitat from 

continued unauthorized motorized use which impacts vegetation and reduces habitat suitability for 

wildlife and plant species.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would have no measureable negative direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

any Management Indicator Species because no activities are proposed that would fragment, reduce, or 

negatively impact vegetation or habitat conditions for the identified and/or representative species. The 

Proposed Action would benefit all listed Management Indicator Species by reducing the number of 

unauthorized routes within sensitive habitat areas, thus reducing wildlife species disturbance, habitat 

degradation and associated changes to natural processes such as hydrology, vegetation composition, 

and fire frequency.

3.2.4 – Weed Risk Analysis

Isolated populations of highly invasive yellow starthistle, tamarisk, and Spanish broom, exist within 

the project area, including along several unauthorized routes.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Continued OHV use of unauthorized routes within the project area under the No Action alternative 

could result in the introduction of new invasive weed species as well as the spread of existing 

infestations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The decommissioning of unauthorized routes would not contribute to the spread of invasive weeds, 

due to the incorporation of prevention measures into the Proposed Action, and would also greatly 

reduce the future potential establishment of invasive weeds in these areas. For additions to the road 

and trail Systems, maintenance and monitoring would increase the likelihood of prevention, early 

detection, and rapid response to new infestations relative to the existing condition.

3.3 - Social Environment___________________________

This section evaluates impacts of the two alternatives to recreation and public safety and cultural 

resources.

3.3.1 – Recreation and Public Safety

The Cleveland National Forest Motorized Travel Management decision of November 12, 2008, 

prohibited cross-country motor vehicle travel by the public off designated National Forest System 

roads, trails, and areas, as depicted in Cleveland National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Maps.

 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

43

Unauthorized routes throughout the project area are unmaintained and often quite steep, and their use 

does not constitute recreation due to its illegal nature. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

There would be no direct or cumulative effects to recreation or public safety under the No Action

alternative. Safety issues would persist, and the recreational experiences of those seeking primitive 

recreation opportunities or intact scenery within the project area could be further impacted by the 

expansion of unauthorized routes. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would have both short and long term effects on recreation and public safety, 

and these effects would be positive for both motorized and non-motorized recreationists in the project 

area. The Proposed Action would not have any cumulative effects on recreation and public safety. 

Recreational opportunity would be lost for the current users of Carveacre Road (16S03), who are 

technical riders with highly capable OHVs. Meanwhile, recreational opportunity would be created 

through the addition to the System and maintenance of 7 relatively short routes for motorized public 

access and 10 routes as non-motorized trails. The motorized routes include a motorized trail off Bear 

Valley Road that would be accessible to many green-sticker vehicle riders looking for a more 

challenging ride. The other 6 would provide vehicle access to dispersed camping sites and viewpoints 

in desirable locations. The 10 non-motorized trail additions are those unauthorized routes that lead to 

desirable locations but where vehicle access would have adverse resource impacts. Their 

improvement and maintenance would improve recreational opportunity in these areas.

For non-motorized recreationists, more intact scenery and less noise and sign of human activity

would improve the recreational experience throughout the project area in the vicinity of unauthorized 

routes. For some that prefer to walk on wider, road-like trails, the restoration of unauthorized routes 

could detract from their recreational experience, while it could improve the experience of those 

seeking more primitive experiences. The Proposed Action would not alter the Recreational 

Opportunity Spectrum or Scenic Integrity Objective ratings for any lands within the project area. 

The decommissioning of unauthorized routes throughout the project area would avert safety issues 

associated with the use of trails that were neither designed nor maintained, are not patrolled, and are 

often quite steep. Another safety concern associated with the motorized use of unauthorized routes is 

increased wildfire ignitions due to dispersed campfires and vegetation or rocks scraping the 

undercarriages of vehicles. On the other hand, the addition of several National Forest System Roads 

for administrative use would improve safety by ensuring that wildfire suppression facilities are 

maintained and accessible.

Altogether, the Proposed Action would improve recreational opportunity and experience and public 

safety on the Cleveland National Forest.

3.3.2 – Cultural Resources

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources under the No Action alternative would 

consist of the damage to 29 prehistoric or historic sites throughout the project area that are crossed by 

unauthorized routes. Direct impacts would result from ground disturbance by the vehicles themselves, 

while indirect impacts would include ongoing soil erosion and resultant exposure of cultural 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

44

resources, exploratory vehicle use off the unauthorized route, and looting of cultural artifacts. 

Cumulative effects would consist of these effects combined with other effects to cultural resources 

due to recreation, fuels, special uses, facilities, and resource projects.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

All areas where the Proposed Action would occur have been surveyed for the presence of cultural 

resources, and 29 prehistoric or historic sites were found to be crossed by unauthorized routes.

Direct Effects to Historic Properties: The potential for direct effects to historic properties associated 

with the proposed project would include ground disturbance associated with the proposed extreme 

surface roughening for decommissioned route restoration, the use of a mechanical excavator or hand 

tools to loosen compacted soils and prevent further erosion, and the installation of pipe-rail barriers to 

prevent re-entry of decommissioned unauthorized routes by motorized vehicles. These activities have 

the potential to have a direct effect on historic properties that are within or directly adjacent to the 

segments of unauthorized routes for which decommissioning is the proposed management 

recommendation. The potential for direct effects to historic properties also exists for ground 

disturbing maintenance actions that may occur in the future for unauthorized routes that would be 

added to the National Forest System for Administrative or Public Use, which would both allow for 

the ongoing use of these routes by motor vehicles. 

Indirect Effects to Historic Properties: The potential indirect effects to historic properties would be 

limited for unauthorized routes proposed for decommissioning, as the proposed decommissioning and 

barrier construction would reduce rather than increase the potential for effects to historic properties in 

the vicinity by limiting OHV access and erosion within and in the vicinity of restored unauthorized 

routes, and that the Standard Protection Measure of “Flag and Avoid” would be implemented for all 

known sites during all restoration and barrier installation implementation. There would be a potential 

for indirect effects associated with unauthorized routes proposed for administrative or public use, but 

the Standard Protection Measure of “Flag and Avoid” would be implemented for all known sites 

during any future road maintenance activities, which would avoid the potential for effects to historic 

properties. 

Cumulative Effects to Historic Properties: Potential cumulative effects to historic properties would be 

reduced by the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed barrier construction and 

decommissioning of unauthorized routes would reduce rather than increase the potential for 

cumulative effects to historic properties. Unauthorized routes that may currently have the potential for 

having effects on historic properties associated with their ongoing use would be decommissioned in 

association with the proposed project. Implementation of the required Standard Protection Measures, 

including avoidance and monitoring will avoid potential effects to historic properties during 

implementation of ground disturbing activities associated with the restoration of decommissioned 

routes or any future maintenance of routes added for motorized use. 

The analysis finds that there would be no adverse effect to historic properties by implementation of 

this project where Standard Resource Protection Measures would be used to protect, manage, or 

maintain historic properties in a manner that avoids adverse effects (p. 7).

The analysis of the Proposed Action complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended in accordance with provisions as amended in accordance with the provisions 

of the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5), the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Nevada State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Processes for 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

45

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic 

Properties by the National Forest of the Pacific Southwest Region (RPA 2013).

4 - PERSONS, GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND 

AGENCIES CONSULTED

The Forest Service consulted the following Tribes; Federal, State, and local agencies; and 

organizations during the development of this EA:

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

Bleadorn, Spencer former Recreation and Lands Officer, Descanso Ranger District 

Christiansen, Donn former Descanso District Ranger

Fredrickson, Bjorn former Recreation and Lands Officer, Palomar Ranger District 

Friedlander, Joan former Palomar District Ranger

Fudge, Emily Forest Hydrologist

Harvey, Steve former Forest Archaeologist

Heys, Jeff Forest Planner

Nick, Andrea Southern California Province Air Resource Specialist

Quintana, Devin Forest GIS Specialist

Rodriguez, Jake Recreation and Lands Officer, Trabuco Ranger District 

Vance, Darrell Trabuco District Ranger

Wells, Jeff Forest Wildlife Biologist

Winter, Kirsten Forest Biologist

TRIBES

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol

State of California, Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicular Recreation

5 - REFERENCES

USDA Forest Service, 2005. Land Management Plan: Cleveland National Forest. San Diego, CA.

Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/cleveland/landmanagement/planning/

USDA Forest Service, 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands. FS-990A.

USDA Forest Service, 2015a. Air Quality Report. Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning. 

Cleveland National Forest files. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

46

USDA Forest Service, 2015b. Biological Assessment and Evaluation. Forest-wide Unauthorized Route 

Decommissioning. Cleveland National Forest files. 

USDA Forest Service, 2015c. Cultural Resource Management Report. Forest-wide Unauthorized Route 

Decommissioning. Cleveland National Forest files. 

USDA Forest Service, 2015d. Hydrology Report. Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning. 

Cleveland National Forest files. 

USDA Forest Service, 2015e. Management Indicator Species Report. Forest-wide Unauthorized Route 

Decommissioning. Cleveland National Forest files. 

USDA Forest Service, 2015f. Noxious Weed Risk Assessment. Forest-wide Unauthorized Route 

Decommissioning. Cleveland National Forest files

APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Access

1) General opposition statements to closing roads per the Travel Management Plan.

The vast majority of routes proposed for decommissioning through this project are already closed to 

motorized public use through the Motorized Travel Management decision of 2008. Only two National 

Forest System Roads would be closed through this project: 1) An impassable, administrative, 2-milelong segment of 17S08, South Boundary Road, is severely eroding. A passable road through private 

lands connects to both of its ends, and so it is not needed. 2) A steep, 1.6-mile-long segment of 

16S03, Carveacre Road, is currently passable only by high-clearance, 4-wheel-drive vehicles. It is 

severely eroding and impacting sensitive biological resource areas, and its use presents unacceptable 

fire hazards and safety risks. Its decommissioning would also render an additional 2.6 miles of 16S03 

inaccessible to motorized use by the public. Administrative use of this additional length would 

continue, given its gated connections to other roads at both ends. 

2) Your job is to maintain the roads, not close them.

See response to comment 1.

3) Please continue to maintain historic access roads and provide access to the lands that we love 

and pay to maintain.

See response to comment 1. Public access to unauthorized routes would not be eliminated by the 

Proposed Action. Motorized access, by contrast, would be eliminated.

4) Historical roads could conceivably be protected by historical preservation laws. Those roads 

deserve protection and research, not closure. Closing them would be a tragic loss of historical 

value. 

Parallel with the NEPA process, the Forest has conducted the Section 106 process in compliance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800). As part of that process, 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

47

we have considered effects to historic properties that may be eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. To summarize the findings, no adverse effect to historic properties is expected from 

implementation of the Proposed Action.

5) These roads are needed by the Forest Service in case of any emergency and/or Forest 

maintenance services.

The vast majority of unauthorized routes are not needed by the Forest Service. The few that are 

needed by the Forest Service are proposed as additions to the National Forest Road System through 

this project (p. 5).

6) This project flies in the face of RS2477, which is in full effect for any road, trail, or path in 

existence prior to 1974 – and can easily be proven through existing FS maps. RS2477 also 

states that *any* road, created for *any* purpose, is granted right-of-way by Congress – and 

thus these are not “Unauthorized Routes.”

The County of San Diego has asserted no RS2477 claim for these particular routes.

7) Use of the funding from the California Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Grants Program is a slap 

in the face. The funding is to create and maintain Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) sites and 

access, not to close roads.

The funding obtained by the Cleveland National Forest from the California OHV Grants for this 

project was specifically set aside for restoration of damage caused by OHVs and are not available for 

OHV planning, operations, or maintenance.

8) The FS has already closed far too many roads and we recreationists have been squeezed into 

smaller and smaller 'corridors' in your foolish attempt to return the land to some idealistic 

state of perfection.

See response to comment 1. The desired conditions of the Cleveland National Forest are laid out in its 

Land Management Plan, which was revised in 2005 through a public process.

9) Another reason I oppose the closures is if our access points are taken away it will leave the 

few remaining areas extremely crowded. I like to enjoy our public lands to get away from the 

crowds and city life. If the old routes are taken away it means there will be more congestion, 

trash, and take away from the "outdoor experience."

See response to comment 3. Access points would not be taken away by the Proposed Action. See also 

the Recreation and Public Safety analysis on pp. 42-43.

10) The San Diego Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation is a strong supporter of their 

“Save the Habitat, Save the Hunt” initiative, which directly affects wildlife and the habitat for 

all. Roads which improve access availability should be a priority, not a consideration for 

closure.

See responses to comments 1 and 3.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

48

11) Several of these roads provide hunting access and allows groups like Quail Forever, San 

Diego Chapter to access and maintain wildlife drinkers on public lands.

See response to comments 1 and 3. Wildlife drinkers and guzzlers could still be accessed and 

maintained without motorized access.

12) These closures will affect Quail Forever’s access to a wildlife drinker up behind the Buckman 

Springs Rest Stop. It will also close the old “deer camp road” just to the east that provides 

hunting access. These roads are marked *UND844* and *UND889* on the closure maps.

These two unauthorized routes were mistakenly included in the scoping map despite that they were 

previously authorized for decommissioning through the Descanso District Unauthorized Route 

Decommissioning 2014 Decision Memo. They were decommissioned in the summer of 2015.

13) There are several roads designated for closure at Buckman Springs Road & Bear Valley Road 

that provide hunting access. One of those road closures will block Quail Forever’s access to a 

drinker box and wildlife drinker.

See responses to comments 1, 3, and 11.

14) The road slated for closure off of the Cameron Truck Trail, *UND9531*, provides Quail 

Forever access to a guzzler as well as Cameron Spring. It also allows hunters to park off of the 

Cameron Truck Trail.

See responses to comments 1, 3, and 11. A parking area along Cameron Truck Trail would remain 

after implementation of the Proposed Action.

15) It looks like an access road of off Kitchen Creek Road when dog training is allowed, 

*UND9065* is slated for closure as well as two further up marked *UND8323 & 15S17A11R1*. These last two provide Quail Forever access to a drinker box and a wildlife drinker 

and hunting access east and south.

See responses to comments 1, 3, and 11.

16) There is a road designated *UND518* along Long Valley Road slated for closure that may 

provide access to a wildlife drinker as well as restrict hunting access.

See responses to comments 1, 3, and 11.

17) Many of the roads on the closure map lead to springs and other water containers for 

wildlife. I have hiked to many of the springs on the map and have cleaned them up every 

year. If you take away access to clean and maintain the springs and water containers for 

wildlife, many animals will suffer during our droughts.

See responses to comments 1, 3, and 11.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

49

18) There is another hunting access road at *UND865* in the Four Corners area slated for 

closure. This good passable road allows access south and is regularly used. What’s the 

rational for closure?

See response to comment 1. This particular route also enters the Hauser Wilderness, where motorized 

vehicles are prohibited.

19) There are several offshoot roads along the *Tule Springs Road* slated for closure. The area 

already has no public access? It is included in the “No Name” Wilderness that was designated 

a couple of years ago. I asked the USFS to allow me into the area back in 2012, via *Tule 

Springs Road*, to look for three wildlife drinkers but never heard back from the Forest 

Service after my initial inquiry.

See responses to comments 1, 3, and 11. There is no public motorized access to this area. 

20) We need access to what is ours to enjoy, respect, and save for generations to come after us.

See response to comment 3.

21) The public should never lose access to public lands.

See response to comment 3.

22) Not everyone can hike into the National Forest to experience it. Disabled people in particular 

need vehicle access. Federal ADA laws protect individuals with disabilities access and that 

access can not be removed, hampered, or diminished to gain this access without violation of 

the individuals Civil Rights.

There is currently no legitimate access to unauthorized routes, and so the Proposed Action would not 

affect access for these routes. With regard to the System roads that would be decommissioned by the 

project, see response to comment 1 for the reasons and note that motorized access would be 

eliminated for all people, not just disabled people. 

23) Without people the forest becomes a vast impregnable jungle of brush.... The authorities out 

here always say they will keep trails clear and open for travel but it never seems to happen..... 

Miners and prospectors are a god-send when it comes to accessible trails. 

See responses to comments 1 and 3. The unauthorized routes are neither roads nor trails and therefore 

have no need for maintenance.

24) I have heard from many of my constituents who have concerns with the manner in which this 

effort is proceeding and the adverse affect it can have on recreational access to our forest 

lands, which I know you understand is a high priority for our area in San Diego County.

See response to comment 3. The use of unauthorized routes by motor vehicles is an illegal activity 

and therefore does not constitute recreational access. The Cleveland National Forest will continue to 

provide legitimate recreational access to the public, while protecting sensitive resources.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

50

25) These closures will significantly and unreasonably curtail reasonable levels of access to forest 

lands by me, my family, and friends due to physical limitations that many of us face as part of 

routine life.

See response to comment 1. There are many legitimate motorized opportunities available across the 

Cleveland National Forest.

26) With these proposed closures, I will not be able to reasonably access lands that I have hiked, 

bird watched, and hunted free range organic pesticide free wild game for many years. I have 

long suffered from a lower back fracture and pain in my L 7 and suffered from knee pain and 

swelling following a knee operation 30 years ago. The inability to drive to these general areas 

unreasonably limits access.

See responses to comments 1, 3, 24, and 25.

27) With these proposed closures, my aging father will not be able to reasonably access many

parts of the forest to hike with me because of the road closures would dramatically limit

reasonable access for an individual that can only walk and hike short distances. The inability 

to drive to these general areas unreasonably limits access.

See responses to comments 1, 3, 24, and 25.

28) With these proposed closures, the young children of my friends will not be able to reasonably 

access many parts of the forest to hike with us because of the road closures would 

dramatically limit reasonable access for young children that can only walk and hike short 

distances.

See responses to comments 1, 3, 24, and 25.

29) There is a distinct age and activity preference discrimination to these sorts of closures.

See responses to comments 1, 3, 24, and 25.

30) I oppose the Cleveland NF decommissioning project, it is wrong and it works against the poor 

and middle class!

It is unclear how the project “works against the poor and middle class.”

31) While it is understood that the forest has a variety of considerations when evaluating whether 

a route can remain open, the list of reasons in the scoping letter did not address access. When 

routes go to places with resources such a mines, viewpoints, streams or lakes, the forest 

should look for ways to keep the route open, or failing that, find an alternate routes that can be 

opened. We hope the forest will apply standard authorizing criteria to all the identified routes, 

not close them simply because they are not in the Forest inventory. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

51

See responses to comments 1 and 3. Unauthorized routes are not proposed for decommissioning 

“simply because they are not in the Forest inventory.” See the Purpose and Need section on p. 2 for 

the reasons behind the Proposed Action.

32) The proposal takes a simplistic, forest-based approach that views public access to county 

areas as detrimental for California, when in fact they vary wildly across the state. Finally, the 

Forest Service does not properly evaluate the cumulative effects of the proposal. Among other 

things, it does not properly evaluate the impact of increased lack of public recreational access.

See responses to comments 3 and 24.

33) I would like to suggest an alternative to the closure. Ask the groups using this access to help 

maintain the roads and do the cleanups. We know that there are some who break the rules, 

but we would rather work with you and clean up their problems, than be restricted from our 

endeavors.

See responses to comments 3 and 23.

34) Most of the forest lands in San Diego are extremely thick with tick infested brush. If the 

public cannot walk and hike on old roads and trails there will be no way to enjoy our public 

lands without getting covered with ticks. 

See responses to comment 3. National Forest System Roads and Trails provide recreational 

opportunities with reduced tick exposure. 

35) If the old roads and trails are taken away the fire danger will be increased. The last thing we 

need is more thick brush. The old roads at least provide fire breaks and access for fire fighters 

to travel through our public lands.

Wildland firefighters do not use unauthorized routes for motorized travel, except in the event of 

emergencies, when they may be opened for use, if needed, by heavy equipment regardless of their 

status.

36) I see this as an irresponsible act to put the national forest in danger of uncontrollable wild land 

fire. This would be due to the roads no longer available to get heavy equipment to remote site 

where the possibility of disastrous fires might occur.

See response to comment 36.

37) We pack in and out, remove dangerous metals safely from the land, and actively volunteer to 

clean the land when others pollute our precious homeland. Please reconsider your actions to 

close more roads in the Cleveland National Forest. Please consider the recreational miner and 

the good we do when we do have access to these great lands.

See responses to comments 1 and 3. Volunteer stewardship of National Forest System lands is greatly 

appreciated. People who wish to access areas under the authority of the General Mining Act do have a 

right of reasonable access. The level of activity will generally determine what kind of access is 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

52

reasonable. The need for large equipment to develop a deposit may require road construction or 

reconstruction, whereas the use of small equipment such as pans, sluices or even dredges may only 

require access by foot. The need for vehicle access through a closed road may require a gate, 

reconstruction, reclamation and requisite bonding, all of which would be authorized under a plan of 

operation (36 CFR 228).

38) Miners are entitled access to their Federal Mining Claims under the Mining Law of 1872.

See response to comments 3 and 37. Miners engaged in activity authorized by the General Mining 

Act do have a right of reasonable access, commensurate with the level of activity proposed. For 

decommissioned routes, this may require authorization through a mining plan of operation which 

could require gates, maintenance standards, reconstruction standards, a reclamation plan, and a bond. 

39) Stop closing OUR roads, stop putting up gates and obstructions to OUR valid mining claims 

and prospective mineral areas, start regulating intrusive and destructive motor vehicles. This 

means restrict vehicles that are destroying our roads and trails under the guise of 

“recreational” purposes and support vehicles that are there rebuilding roads and trails for 

economic purposes.

See responses to comments 1, 37, and 38. Decommissioned routes could be reopened and used if 

required for reasonable access authorized under a plan of operation.

40) Whatever roads are being considered for closure need to have alternative routes for the miners 

to access their claims before closing any roads. 

See responses to comments 1, 3, 37, 38, and 39. 

41) It is an unnecessary burden to require miners to manually carry in mining equipment and 

supplies to their claims.

See responses to comments 37, 38, and 39. Reasonable vehicular access could be authorized through 

a mining plan of operation, and could include use of all-terrain vehicles, high-clearance vehicles, or 

the like. Authorization could be provided under a plan of operation.

42) If you stop a miner from mining his claim, you could be liable for takings.

See responses to comments 3, 37, 38, 39, and 41. The Proposed Action would not stop any miner 

from mining his or her claim. Reasonable access can be provided through a plan of operation.

43) Recent court decisions have shown that mining is a protected activity and local regulations 

cannot limit travel or access to a federally registered mining claim. 

See responses to comments 3, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42. 

44) After looking at your map on the Routes I have a question on UND 509 (T16S, R4E, sec. 25) 

also known as Long Valley Trail. Our group, S.P.M.A. , has a valid Mining Claim (SPMA 

Long Valley) with a notice of Intent that uses this trail as an access road to our claim. We 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

53

also have on file a Special Use Permit for this trail at your office. Why is this UND route on 

this map when it was pulled from last years Barrier proposal ?? 

See responses to comments 3, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42. The unauthorized route in question is not 

permitted for motorized use. In response to public concerns, it was removed from a prior 

decommissioning project on the condition that the applicant seek alternative access to their mining 

claim from outside of the riparian conservation area. Given that no alternative access has been sought,

the route is once again proposed for decommissioning.

45) Also looking at the same map, I see you are going to decommission another route- UND 

9077-79 ( T16S, R5E, Sec. 19,20). I am confused on this route since multiple groups use the 

route. S.P.M.A. uses it to access their claim (SPMA Starlight) . Also Cal Fire can use this 

route to fight fires on the upper reaches of the hill since the route ends at the 3/4 mark of the 

hill height and there is a nice flat area for equipment and personal to fight fires. Finally I have 

seen Border Patrol /Homeland Security vehicles use the route to watch for illegal activity on 

the valley below.

See comments 1 and 3. See responses to comments 3, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 63. The unauthorized 

route in question is in a highly sensitive area. 

Recreation management

46) Specifically, the concerns I have received, and share, center on the fact that this project is 

seemingly being conducted with a priority on a wholesale closure of unauthorized routes as 

opposed to the full and thorough inspection of the routes with the goal of incorporating as 

many into the forest inventory as possible. 

See responses to comments 1 and 3. “Incorporating as many into the forest inventory as possible” 

would not meet the Purpose and Need for the project (p. 2).

47) The authorized routes are quite dull to drive on and often these parallel 4x4 routes give the 

forest user a little feeling of actually being in a wild forest, and often the view of the 

surrounding area is better from these routes.

One motorized trail in particular is proposed to be added to the National Forest System to provide a 

more interesting and scenic ride off Bear Valley Road, a popular OHV destination. The Cleveland 

National Forest has many Level 2 roads and two OHV areas that are not viewed by most drivers to be 

“dull to drive on.” And while the motorized user of unauthorized routes may experience a “wild 

forest,” others recreating in the area may have the opposite experience due to the motorized trespass.

48) Hikers can benefit also as the motorized use helps control the encroachment of common 

plants that can harbor deadly rattle snakes on the sides of the otherwise narrow trails.

Rattlesnake encounters should be expected and precautions taken whenever recreating on the 

Cleveland National Forest.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

54

49) We suggest that you consider the following, as part of the Environmental Assessment 

prepared for the project:

1. Extended monitoring. There could be few decommissioned routes that will still attract 

OHV interest 5 years after closure, but if monitoring could be optionally extended beyond 

5 years at any problem closure site it might be possible to ultimately retrain or outlast the 

uncooperative OHVers.

2. Use of state of the art technology. Game trail camera and drone camera surveillance 

technology could be a cost effective method for collecting data about success and failure 

of closure sites. Imagery could also be valuable for educational, training and other 

purposes. 

3. Create substitute virtual OHV route trips to meet OHVer demands for routes to explore. 

(This would need partnership with the video game industry.)

4. Authorized drone trails. This could create a novel recreational activity that might mitigate 

perceived reduction of OHV opportunities. Have designated trails and/or free-flight zones 

where drones can be flown safely and legally.

The Proposed Action would neither prohibit nor require monitoring beyond five years. The use of 

game trail cameras and drone cameras are currently infeasible, since there is no budget to support 

their purchase. Virtual OHV trips and authorized drone trails are interesting ideas for our recreation 

staff to consider, but their creation falls outside the scope of this analysis. 

50) We think the greatest challenge for completing a successful project will be communicating 

with and educating the public, while attempting to keep persistent OHV enthusiasts from reentering closed sites, while also trying to teach and train all other OHVers to respect and 

observe the authorized sites and boundaries for their activities throughout the Forest.

Public communication is extremely important for this project, and to that end the Proposed Action

includes signage for each site while our management approach includes regular patrols by Forest 

staff.

51) Enhanced signage would help to ensure that riders are aware of routes that are not authorized.

Signage would be installed at each site to direct riders to authorized areas for vehicle use.

52) My only concerns will be how to keep your work intact and avoid more of these types of 

incursions. Appropriate signage that shows the open routes and available route maps are one 

of the best ways to help, in my opinion. Showing clear designated routes will encourage the 

responsible users to stay on the correct trail. You will probably have to have some sort of 

barriers in some spots, but the more "positive" signs showing arrows and "open", the better.

See response to comment 51.

53) Enforcement of the existing authorized route plan is a major issue to address.

See response to comment 50.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

55

54) Sufficient funds have to be allocated to enforcement to stop the usage of unauthorized routes 

and the damage to surrounding properties. Forest Service personnel are competent 

professionals dedicated to carrying out the mission of the Forest Service as reflected in the 

Forest Plan that was developed over many years of public input. Unless enforcement of the 

authorized route designations is given a high priority and adequate funding is provided for this 

purpose, a fundamental pillar of the Forest Plan will be undercut.

See response to comment 50.

55) Penalties for using unauthorized routes should be hefty enough to make an impact on a rider.

Fines for motorized access off designated roads and trails average $150 and could range up to $500, 

but violators could also be held accountable for much greater restoration costs.

56) Issuing Permits that entail identification cards/placards that are highly visible would help with 

enforcement (done all the time for fishing from boats in the rivers of the West).

Such a permit need would fall into the jurisdiction of the State of California and so is outside the 

scope of this analysis.

57) Engaging the responsible leaders and enthusiasts of the ORV community to assist in educating 

and, where necessary, self-policing ORV riders who disregard the authorized route limitations 

will be an important part of this process. I imagine most ORV riders are very happy to pursue 

their recreation within the established rules that govern the varied use of the Forest by the 

public. If legal, reasonable use of the Forest is not fostered by the ORV community, the 

public opposition to this use of the Forest will only grow.

Cleveland National Forest staff are continually working to engage OHV leaders and communities in 

rider education and stewardship. This does not reduce the need for the decommissioning project.

58) The scoping letter states that "unauthorized routes contribute to other illegal activities on the 

forest, such as dumping, target shooting and dispersed campfires..." this logic could be also 

used for authorized routes. If this criteria were to be strictly followed, every single route in 

the forest would need to be closed. I am sorry that there is target shooting, dumping and 

dispersed campfires, but those are not the fault of the routes and should not be used as excuses 

to close them.

The difference between unauthorized routes and authorized routes in the context of illegal activities 

results from the lack of patrol and enforcement by Forest staff, the searching out of such areas by 

those with something to hide, and the lack of maintenance that can lead to fire starts. 

59) U.S. Border Patrol Challenges and Concerns:

• Border Patrol Agents use many of these routes in the course of their duties.

• Inability to access certain areas can significantly increase the time it takes for an agent to 

detect, classify, and resolve illegal activity.

• Closing the routes used in some of these areas will increase response time to emergency 

situations.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

56

• The closures are intended to curb unauthorized off-road activity by the public who will likely 

attempt to circumvent these measures, potentially creating more issues for agents on patrol as 

well as for the USFS. 

• Maintain positive relationship with the U.S. Forest Service.

The Cleveland National Forest appreciates the need for the U.S. Border Patrol to execute its mission 

on the National Forest, the level of detail provided in its scoping comments, and the office and field 

meetings that followed their submission. The Proposed Action has been modified in response to U.S. 

Border Patrol concerns but not to the degree originally requested. Instead, where critical motorized 

access was identified in the field, the decommissioning proposals were eliminated, whereas less 

critical routes in particularly sensitive resource areas remain proposed for decommissioning. Nowhere

should this lead to significant delays in responses to illegal activity or emergencies. The likelihood of

attempts to circumvent decommissioning efforts was incorporated into project planning and does not 

negate the need for the Proposed Action. Finally, unauthorized routes that the U.S. Border Patrol 

needs for its operations should be permitted by the U.S. Forest Service and maintained by the U.S. 

Border Patrol, but that need falls outside the scope of this analysis.

60) The following unauthorized routes off of Skye Valley Road are critical to Border Patrol

operations:

• UND8561

• UND865

• UND8102

• UND8103

• UND8104

• UND8106

• UND8107

• UND8108

• UND8109

• UND833

It is operationally very important for the El Cajon Station (ECJ) to maintain its current access 

to the routes listed above. They are connected by road 17S06 and form two (separate)

continuous routes that provide their agents access to a remote yet desired traffic area for

smugglers. In one month alone nearly three dozen undocumented aliens (UDAs) were

apprehended in or immediately south of this area with almost twice that many apprehended in

zones that lead directly to Hauser wilderness. Because of these routes an agent can respond to

groups of UDAs in the area much quicker. The response time decreases from 4-5 hours to

approximately 45 minutes. In this area of rugged, steep and dangerous terrain this time saving

measure is critical for many reasons. Rapidly accessing Hauser Canyon has saved lives when

searching for UDAs who have been deserted by their guides and left to fend for themselves.

The Border Patrol has received many calls from other agencies reporting that UDAs are in

distress (via 911 calls). With the very high temperatures during the summer months a quick

response is critical for both the agents' welfare and the UDAs', not to mention other first

responders who may be summoned to assist with a rescue operation. This area is one that is

preferred by smugglers/foot guides due to the difficulty of apprehending people before they

can find a route past the agents and because the natural environment provides a lot of cover to
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

57

obscure them from sight. It should also be factored in that when agents can quickly apprehend

UDAs in this area there is a decreased amount of impact being made to the wildness by virtue

of the UDAs' travel being halted. Without these routes agents would be forced to start at one

end of the wilderness area and walk east or west until the UDAs are apprehended.

Additionally, these two trails allow agents the ability to quickly get to and maintain a high

observation point known as "Fisherman's Point." This high point allows agents to have a view

of almost the entire canyon. Being able to monitor Hauser Canyon without actually having to

walk into it limits the Border Patrol footprint in and along the canyon. Being posted at visible

high point is also a method of deterring smugglers from traversing that area.

See response to comment 59. Many of the routes listed here were found upon field visits to no longer 

exist on the ground. The two primary routes (UND865 and UND8102) that lead to the rim of Hauser 

Canyon were found to be severely eroding. Moreover, these routes lead to the heart of the Hauser 

Wilderness, where motorized vehicles are prohibited. Border Patrol agents on foot with handheld 

scopes could reach these viewpoints within 5 to 10 minutes of the time required to drive there. It is 

acknowledged that they would not be as visible for deterrence without vehicles, that handheld scopes 

are not as powerful as truck-mounted scopes, and that Border Patrol agents can benefit the 

Wilderness through apprehension efforts. Nevertheless, these routes are proposed for 

decommissioning due to their resource impacts.

61) A second set of routes south of Hauser Wilderness is also critical:

• 17S12

• UND569

• UND570

Routes 17S12 and UND569 form a lengthy east/west route on the southern side of Hauser

Canyon. This allows the agents to travel near Hauser Wilderness on already established routes

instead of creating an alternate path every time they are in pursuit of individuals. This string 

of routes is also critical for apprehending subjects before they are able to get into the 

wilderness (please note the apprehension figures in the above paragraph). Agents make every 

effort to get to UDAs before they are able to enter the wilderness, thus avoiding further

disruption/damage to the wilderness by both agents and UDAs. Route UND570 leads to a

critical high vantage point that agents use to both spot and deter UDAs from entering the

canyon.

See response to comment 59. Based on an office meeting and field visit with Border Patrol staff, 

several segments of the listed routes were eliminated from the Proposed Action for decommissioning. 

Specifically, UND570 is no longer proposed for decommissioning, nor are several segments of 

17S12. These were eliminated from the Proposed Action since they are critical for Border Patrol 

operations. The segments of 17S12 that remain proposed for decommissioning were not needed to 

access the critical locations for Border Patrol operations. UND569 is a redundant route to 17S08, 

South Boundary Road, would save less than a minute of driving time, and lies in a particularly 

sensitive area. It therefore remains proposed for decommissioning.

62) The following unauthorized routes on Horsethief Ridge are on/near an authorized road that is

critical to Border Patrol operations:
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

58

• UND449

• UND451

This road on Horsethief Ridge that is accessed by a gate at the south end of Martin Ranch 

Road is very important to Border Patrol operations in Horsethief Canyon, Secret Canyon, 

Espinosa Trail, and Pine Valley. Border Patrol needs continued access through this gate in 

order to access the ridge. The two unauthorized routes listed along this ridge road are not in 

and of themselves critical. The concern is that their blockage could impede access to the entire 

ridge. The aforementioned canyons and trails are major egress routes that UDAs utilize to 

attempt to bypass both the State Route 94 and 1-8 freeway checkpoints run by the Border 

Patrol. The canyons on either side of Horsethief Ridge act as funnels that guide UDA groups 

to the 1-8 which is used as a pick-up point by the transportation node of the smuggling 

organization. Each month dozens of UDAs attempt to travel through this area. Access to this 

ridge road is critical as a tactical advantage when attempting to apprehend them before they 

escape at the freeway. It is also vital in order to perform rescues in the area.

These routes are not included in the Proposed Action.

63) The following unauthorized, interconnected routes parallel to Buckman Springs Road are 

critical to the safety of Border Patrol Agents in pursuit of UDAs:

• UND9073

• UND9077

This short route (referred to by agents as Cottonwood Valley Trail) provides agents access to

search for evidence of and to track illega l activity south of Buckman Springs Road. Losing

access to this trail would result in agents performing this task from the blacktop, thus putting

themselves and the public unnecessarily at risk. This section of Buckman Springs Road sees

numerous vehicle accidents (some fatal), has a narrow shoulder, and ices over during the

winter months. This route is not one that agents overuse but it is critical to their safety when

illegal activity has been previously detected on/near the trail. UDAs frequently use this route

and Buckman Springs Road as a means of circumventing Border Patrol's traffic checkpoints 

on Old Highway 80 and the 1-8 Freeway.

See response to comment 59. A field visit with Border Patrol staff revealed that the listed routes were 

not critical to their operations after all, since this stretch of Buckman Springs Road has a wide 

shoulder, and the primary unauthorized route parallels the road in very close proximity to it. Because 

they lie in a particularly sensitive area, these routes remain proposed for decommissioning.

64) There are three additional unauthorized routes that Campo Station needs to maintain access to:

• 17S12

• UND569

• UND566

Two of these routes are the same routes that the El Cajon Station requires access to as well.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

59

Campo Station uses them to enter the southeast end of Barrett Lake and the southern parts of

Hauser Creek and Cottonwood Creek. The ability to retain access to these roads allows agents

to pursue and apprehend UDAs prior to entering Hauser Canyon where the terrain and the 

poor radio communications are an officer safety concern. Route 17S12 serves as a crossover 

road that will save agents significant time to interdict illegal activity before it can make it into 

Hauser Canyon. More importantly, agents, UDAs, and hikers have had to be rescued from this 

area. Route UND569 connects to 17S12 and it helps agents respond westbound more quickly.

Continued access to these routes decreases the response time to perform rescue operations.

Route UND566 is not absolutely critical to operations but it is used at times when agents are

unable to apprehend UDAs before they successfully enter the canyon.

See response to comments 59 and 61. Route UN566 is extraordinarily steep and eroded, making it 

impassible by motor vehicle, and so it remains proposed for decommissioning.

65) There are numerous gates listed on maps

DRDSouth_UNA_Resource_Ranking_Scoping_FVM and

PRDSouth_DRDNorth_UNA_Resource_Ranking_Scoping_FVM that are critical to the 

Border Patrol's mission. It is unclear by looking at the map the type of gate or blockage that is 

being considered. There is currently a downed tree at the access gate labeled "M" on 

Appendix B that is hampering patrol efforts. Border Patrol would like for that tree to be 

removed so that access is restored. These gates are absolutely necessary for patrol operations. 

Appendix A-D identifies the critical gates/access points. It is imperative that these particular 

routes are not blocked by immoveable barriers such as boulders and logs. If these gates need 

to remain locked Border Patrol can add a lock and agents will ensure that the gates are locked 

behind them.

The gates shown on the scoping maps are not part of the Proposed Action and so would not be 

affected by the project. Continued partnership on gate management is appreciated.

66) There were unauthorized routes in the Newton-Azrak (Murrieta) station area of responsibility

but none were identified as being critical to operations.

This confirmation is appreciated.

67) In the process of reviewing the Unauthorized Route Decommissioning Project I found the

method used by the Forest Service to depict the routes and their identifiers to be clear and 

easy to understand. The fact that we were able to magnify the image to the degree necessary to

view the route numbers without distortion was very helpful. While the maps were large and it

took some time to familiarize myself with the route locations, it did not take long to fully

understand how to use/read the maps.

This supportive comment is appreciated.

68) The Special Operations Supervisor at the Campo Station asked me to share with you that 

some of the current gates are being circumvented by smugglers as well as recreational OHV 

users. He has video and photographic evidence that he can provide if you would like me to 

obtain it for you. Fortifying the existing gates would not only assist you with your project, it
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

60

would help Border Patrol Agents secure and patrol the area more effectively. The following 

are the gates that were specifically mentioned:

Bear Valley Gate - Being circumvented by motorcycles and ATVs

Lower and Middle Kitchen Creek Gate - Being circumvented by motorcycles (on weekends)

Thing Valley Gate at Fred Canyon Road intersection - Rocks placed by USFS have been 

moved by locals so they can ride their motorcycles through the area

This information and offer of assistance are greatly appreciated.

Resource Concerns

69) At Mile 15 where the county put a miniature mountain of dirt - what we call the McCoy trail 

head and definitely needs another name.. oh yea the BjornFried overlook.... You guys put a 

barricade there at a time when the dirt covered part of the issue. Once the dirt was gone there 

are people going around it and shooting, shooting oak trees. Additionally they are driving 

around it and way up on the hill to the east there to sit and watch for whatever they are 

hunting, even car camp hidden up there. Extending that barricade would be high on the list as 

this is not a wise location for a shooting range. The whole pasture areas from mile fourteen 

and fifteen has a lot of vulnerability to hunters and offroaders going up on the hill and 

connecting with SDG&E's access and getting into Cedar Gorge, or just making a mess right 

there. It is also vulnerable to hunters driving onto the pasture to the south and east side.

The Proposed Action includes the addition a short segment (UND102) to the National Forest Road 

System as a parking area off of Boulder Creek Road, along with extension of the existing barrier on 

the north side back to the road. The existing barrier and barbed wire was found to be functional to the 

east and south.

70) We appreciate this effort. The former decommissioning in the Palomar region a few years ago 

made a significant difference to the quality of the land. 

This supportive comment is appreciated.

71) At mile 14.8 on Boulder Creek Road there is already some steel barricades. Hunters have 

been able to go right around this and drive up on to the top of the hill overlooking the McCoy 

Ranch area. Additionally there is considerable target shooting. This is an inappropriate and 

dangerous combination. 

No new barrier needs or signs of vehicle trespass were observed in this area.

72) At mile 13.5 and the green Forest Service gate leading up the hill and reconnecting with 

Boulder Creek Road about mile 14.5 SDG&E uses half of this road. When the TL626 is 

decommissioned all of the associated roads should be decommissioned to. There is some 

illegal offroading that extends into the northern half of this that is not SDG&E. this should be 

stopped now. On both sides of Boulder Creek Road for the mile between 13.5 and 14.8ish 

offroaders and especially hunters randomly decide to tear down the fence if there even is one 

and drive across the meadows. This area needs some restrictions from this. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

61

Permitted SDG&E access roads in this vicinity are proposed for decommissioning via the SDG&E 

Master Special Use Permit and Permit to Construct Powerline Replacement EIR/EIS that is nearing a 

final decision at the current time. No additional barrier needs or signs of vehicle trespass were 

observed in this area.

73) The access road to TL626 from the McCoy Ranch to the Weflen ranch that goes across 

Boulder Creek Road needs to be decommissioned NOW as well as the TL626 access road that 

goes across Cedar Creek . This has been well acknowledged as a clean water act issue for both 

streams. The issues are very similar and not good for the streams. SDG&E needs to manage 

whatever 12kv portions of their line that are to remain by air or foot. However because these 

are to be 12kv in the future we are adamant that they should be underground and continue to 

be a fire and environmental hazard above ground. Nevertheless these stream crossing areas 

are a league of their own and need to be closed as a priority. Likewise you need to assure that 

there is no local access offroading going on there. 

See response to comment 63.

74) At Tule Springs there are a number of user created roads that were significantly expanded in 

the pig search frenzy. The only access was from reservations, not necessarily by local tribes 

people. While we agree that Native Americans have access to sacred Sites, the type of access 

and offroading that is going on in the Tule Springs, Dubois Road, Tule Springs Road areas is 

far from Sacred. This is not appropriate and these user offroading areas need to be closed off. 

Tribal elders should be alerted as well. 

Multiple unauthorized routes are proposed for decommissioning in this vicinity, and the Viejas Band 

of Kumeyaay Indians has assisted with and kept informed about the project.

75) The offroaders should be kept off of SDG&E access roads. As mentioned they should all be 

removed with a 12kv underground. 

See response to comment 63.

76) Green Sticker Vehicles should not be allowed on Boulder Creek Road and signage should 

reflect this. I do not favor Green Sticker vehicles on Cedar Creek Road and I would argue 

that that option was not provided legal review during the Road Review a few years ago. In 

every open house before the decision I was told that Cedar Creek Road was NOT for Green 

sticker type offroading. There is no real area for trailers and portions of the road are quite 

dangerous for this activity as well as being a terrible place for noise and environmental 

impacts. 

Green Sticker Vehicle appropriateness and management falls outside the scope of this analysis. 

77) One of the best moves in all of the Forest is the closure at Smith Pond. This was one of the 

most far reaching impacts in a good way to date. Unfortunately a USFS employee un-decommissioned the road months after it was all raked out and decommissioned. It has been 

closed off again but the rehab is slow. PLEASE make sure all employees are onboard and not 

doing this!!!!! 

Forest staff are being made aware of this project, and the Proposed Action includes signage to clearly 

show where restoration is occurring.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

62

78) ON eagle peak road at the pond trail head the barricade is a farce as it would come right open. 

If you haven’t found this yet please fix. I personally rather liked this at the pond but I won’t 

argue. 

This work is already authorized by the 2009 Upper San Diego River Unauthorized Routes 

Decommissioning Project Decision Memo and so falls outside the scope of this analysis.

79) The road along the rim of Hauser Canyon in a yellow area you are now labeling 

“Recommended Wilderness”—I’m a tad surprised but I won’t argue. Christmas Card for life 

if this is really true! There are a number of issues in this region. This road was on the old 

topos when I first whent there but very over grown. When it approached on the westleg to the 

lake and then turns east there is a dog leg north that definitely should not be there. I think I 

am the first to go to that overlook and it is breathtaking but it never had a road to it. It was 

difficult to find the continuity there but now it appeared to be well trodden. This all needs 

some review with the Border Patrol. It would be out of sync with wilderness but not 

necessarily with IRA status. I DO think it should be definitive with the Border Patrol as they 

have acted on their own a lot in BLM and this should not carry over the the USFS. They 

should Pay for a permit if they want road access. To date I’m sure that was not happening. 

The Forest Service has consulted with US Customs and Border Patrol about the routes that surround 

Hauser Canyon, and their input has been incorporated into the Proposed Action.

80) There are some very serious offroading issue IN the Hauser Wilderness . These should be 

given priority closure. They are not on you map but if you look on Google maps they are 

clearly there. 

Two primary routes in the Hauser Wilderness are proposed for decommissioning: UND865 and 

UND8102. No other unauthorized routes were found there that need to be addressed at the current 

time.

81) There is an offroad trail in the center of Pat’s canyon and another where someone has lifted 

your barricade out of the ground to access Dry canyon and can now go quite a ways. Their 

route goes in the middle of a stream with a lot of tadpoles when there is water. There is a lot 

of bogus offroading there and south through Rattlesnake Canyon. 

There were few known unauthorized routes in this vicinity, and the survey need surpassed the amount 

of time available on the part of the project interdisciplinary team, and so this area was not surveyed. 

82) There is additionally a portion of Pats Canyon between Sunrise and Barber Mt Road that is 

exceptionally fragile and unique. I hope you are monitoring from time to time. 

See response to comment 81.

83) There is a parallel road to the Barret lake Road that should not be there. It may be a Boulder 

Patrol created route. The access road in there to Sunrise is disgusting. This tower should have 

been accessed by air or foot. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

63

See response to comment 81. Access roads permitted to SDG&E for the Sunrise Powerlink are 

beyond the scope of this project.

84) Also the road to the upper San Diego River Gorge should be a priority closure. 

This unauthorized route (UND384) is proposed for decommissioning.

85) Ideal spot for additional gates. Multiple old fences in area to tie gates into. In the area between 

UND735 and UND736 along Tule Springs Rd.

The Proposed Action includes the installation of barrier and a gate at Pine Grove to prevent the 

unauthorized use of Tule Springs Road to the east rather than the suggested placement. 

86) Please add additional gates shown in blue to restrict offroad vehicle racing from adjacent 

Native American land. New gates would act as further restrictions when gates are 

compromised. Tule Springs area has no oversight to stop repeat unauthorized road 

establishment.

See response to comment 85.

87) Mile 10 Boulder Creek road. Please add pipe fencing to this area. Small turnout historically 

used for beehives has since become a huge gravel yard, landing strip, place to spin your tires, 

etc. Unauthorized road to right goes down to turn around area which frequently has illegal 

campfires and target shooting since it is out of sight. Some people even drive further east into 

the small meadow. Additional pictures will show current situation. Area has plentiful native 

bunch grass that is been disturbed.

The Proposed Action includes the partial decommissioning of this site (13S08-8.83R-1), including 

barrier along the road with a gate to allow apiary access for the permittee.

88) This unauthorized route was done by gold miners in 2014 who repeatedly cut the barbed wire 

fence on the south side of Boulder Creek/North side of Boulder Creek Road to drive in gold 

mining equipment on CNF land. Entrance is partially blocked now with branches. Please 

replace old fence along Boulder Creek riparian area. See additional photos of area.

The Proposed Action includes the decommissioning of this route (Boulder Creek 1) through the 

placement of boulders to block access.

89) Please install barrier and gate blocking McCoy Ranch road in CNF section. Please include 

gate and access for property owners, but limit the public vehicles that race up and down these 

roads. McCoy ranch road is privately maintained in the CNF forest section, yet the public 

does all the damage. Controlled access at this point would also limit meadow off road 

damage.

The gating of this permitted road would be the responsibility of the permittees, not the US Forest 

Service, since no vehicle trespass was observed originating from the road.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

64

90) Please repair, replace, and or install as needed fencing along Boulder creek road in the 

meadow near mile 14. See blue lines on map. This section gets several vehicles a year who 

think they can drive cross country through the meadow to get to a better spot. The meadow 

currently has some old fencing in spots, but was never properly fenced when this section 

became CNF land. An additional photo showing vehicle tracks through meadow has been 

submitted.

No new barrier needs or signs of vehicle trespass were observed in this area.

91) Area circled in red is access point for private inholding that has turned into parking area, 

campfire area, spin your tires in the dirt area. Please evaluate this riparian meadow area. 

Please allow access to private land beyond, but block unauthorized vehicle use in the 

meadow. Location is south side of Boulder Creek Road south side of Boulder Creek.

This short unauthorized route was determined not to warrant the extent of barrier that would be 

needed to block access to it, and a gate would be the responsibility of the private landowner.

92) Boulder Creek crossing and Boulder Creek Road south side. Red Circle area and line are 

area's of unauthorized vehicle travel. Needs barriers and private property access gate.

See response to comment 91.

93) Location UND102. Unauthorized route around barrier. Illegal target shooting.

See response to comment 69.

94) Tire tracks through meadow mile 14 Boulder Creek Road near intersection of McCoy Ranch 

Road. Area needs a fence on both sides of the road in meadow area. Summer 2014.

No new barrier needs or signs of vehicle trespass were observed in this area.

95) Location UND114. Needs proper barriers. Unauthorized route leads to secluded area that has 

frequent illegal campfires. Please see additional two photos of this area.

The Proposed Action would add the first half of this route (UND114) to the National Forest Road 

System for public use and block vehicle access to the second half (UND114-2) while adding it to the 

National Forest Trail System for non-motorized use.

96) Unauthorized mining route 2014. Current state as blocked by local residents. Please block and 

fence CNF riparian area along south side of Boulder Creek and North side of Boulder Creek 

Road. See additional comments with map location added.

See response to comment 88.

97) This unauthorized route up mineral hill starts just outside private fence line on North side of 

private property along Boulder Creek Road near Johnson Creek. Route is purposely hidden by 

tree branches and several strands of unattached barbed wire.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

65

Private landowner permission would be needed to survey this site and has not yet been obtained.

98) Location UND114. Area used for remote vehicle based camping utilizing UND114. Please 

note illegal campfire ring and with recent use, summer 2014.

See response to comment 95.

99) Tule Springs road at Pine grove on CNF land. Off highway vehicle full of people who 

appeared to be of Native American decent. Vehicle is roaring up and down all unauthorized 

routes in this area. This picture was taken after over an hour of racing around in and out of 

CNF and Indian land. Vehicle came from the west and returned to the reservation land west of 

the CNF after this picture was taken of them. This picture is clearly taken on CNF land, these 

law breakers told me I needed to leave and that I was not allowed to be there. March 2013.

The Proposed Action includes multiple decommissioning efforts along Tule Springs Road.

100) Tule Springs road in the CNF vicinity of Tule Springs has long been an illegal offroad 

playground for Native Americans and their friends. I approve of the proposal closures in this 

area and ask you go one step further and install additional locking gates every .5-1.0 mile 

along Tule Springs road on CNF lands. These additional gates will serve as additional 

protection to off road racing in this area. Tule Springs road is never patroled by any CNF 

officials, so additional barriers are needed.

See response to comment 85.

101) The unauthorized route UND 102 has illegal target shooters every few weeks. An 

unauthorized new road now extends north to get around barriers. See pictures of illegal target 

shooting, shot up Oak tree, and new road.

See response to comment 69.

102) Near location UND735 and UND736 on Tule Springs Road. Fence has been cut with 

new unauthorized route.

Both of these unauthorized routes were surveyed, and the barrier and gate proposed for Tule Springs 

Road at Pine Grove would block access and allow them to naturally revegetate. 

103) Picture 1a. Unauthorized route off Boulder Creek Road south of trail head to Three Sisters 

Waterfall. This road was blocked prior to cedar fire with wood posts put in by CNF. Post 

burned out and this isolated canyon became a place to have illegal campfires, dump stolen 

cars, etc. Please block this unauthorized route.

The Proposed Action includes the decommissioning of this route (13S08-10.95R-1).

104) Near UND736 on Tule Springs road. Image shows illegal off road use. Note how 

unauthorized vehicle tracks turn and cross country travel into the chaparral.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

66

See response to comment 102.

105) Tule Springs Road at Pine Grove. CNF illegal off road activity.

See response to comment 85.

106) McCoy ranch road at the intersection of Boulder Creek Road needs to be blocked to public 

access. Please maintain private property and SDG&E access. Road maintenance is only done 

by property owner with shovel. CNF users like to drive up and down in the mud and make a 

mess of these private roads. Closure of this private road infastructure on CNF land would stop 

further damage to surrounding meadow area.

See response to comment 89.

107) Please see red line drawn in. This illegal road was bulldozed maybe 7 years ago. Entrance is 

hidden, but located just outside private property boundary on boulder creek road. Someone 

was trying to create access to an iholding without CNF approval. Old green painted over real 

estate signs mark entrance. Further description of entrance to the road is in additional 

comments.

See response to comment 97.

108) The Proposed Action calls for field surveys to determine the final restoration methods for 

each route. However, it is stated: “... For most routes, restoration would be accomplished 

through extreme surface roughening ... to loosen compacted soils and prevent further erosion. 

...” OCCNPS has three concerns with this method:

1. Depending on the route’s slope and soil type, breaking up its surface may lead to 

greatly increased erosion during rain events. The roughened ground can easily become 

colonized by fast-growing, fast-drying non-native invasive plants, which would add 

corridors of flashy fuels throughout the areas that are supposed to be returned to their 

“desired condition.” OCCNPS strongly recommends that the restoration sites and 

adjacent areas should be surveyed for existing non-native invasive plants and any 

found should be treated/removed before ground-roughening or other methods are 

begun. The ground-roughening equipment should be cleaned at an offsite location to 

ensure that it doesn’t bring in invasive seeds from elsewhere. Likewise, any rocks or 

gravel that may be brought in should be cleaned beforehand.

2. “Seeding of native plant species” seems almost an afterthought to “... require different 

strategies to prevent resource impacts ...” for particular routes. OCCNPS strongly 

recommends that seeding or planting of appropriate native plant species in the 

restoration sites will greatly enhance the sites’ natural recolonization by propagules 

from the surrounding native vegetation, and keep the sites from remaining open to 

colonization by invasives.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

67

3. It is stated that: “... each site would be monitored annually for five years to ensure that 

the barriers remain effective ... and that soil erosion has been halted.” OCCNPS 

strongly recommends that the monitoring include a specific maintenance plan to 

discourage invasives and encourage natives. Strong growth of native vegetation will 

be an effective barrier and erosion preventive.

The language of the Proposed Action has been adjusted to clarify that multiple methods will be used 

for restoration. The methods are specifically prescribed for each route by the Forest Hydrologist to 

reduce erosion. Surveys were conducted for invasive plants, and design features were included in the 

Proposed Action to require their treatment and the cleaning of equipment before earthwork would 

begin. The Proposed Action has also been adjusted to include seeding of native plant species where 

disturbance would exceed 10 feet in width, a threshold determined by the Forest Biologist for local 

vegetation to swiftly recolonize the disturbance. Where invasive plants were found along 

unauthorized routes, the vegetative restoration would be monitored, but this level of monitoring was 

not determined necessary for other routes.

109) The basalt-derived clay soils in the vicinity of Elsinore Peak are home to a suite of specialstatus native plants (see Table 1) in addition to the Federally-listed Munz’ onion, making the 

area one of OCCNPS’ favorite wildflower field trip sites. We are glad that the area’s 

unauthorized vehicle routes are on the list to be studied for decommissioning. We ask that the 

area’s flower-watching trails not be among those deemed redundant.

TABLE 1: Special-status native plants found on the basaltic soils in the vicinity of Elsinore Peak

botanical name common name CRPR

Allium lacunosum var. lacunosum pitted onion 1B.1

Allium munzii Munz’ onion 1B.1

Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea 1B.1

Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s brodiaea 1B.1

Brodiaea santarosae Santa Rosa basalt brodiaea 3

Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina. long-spined spineflower 1B.2

Fritillaria biflora chocolate lily 4.2

Harpagonella palmeri Palmer’s grappling hook 4.2

Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha San Diego silverpuffs 4.2

Sibaropsis hammittii Hammitt’s clay-cress 1B.2

Toxicoscordion venenosum meadow death camas 4.2

The unauthorized routes in the vicinity of Elsinore Peak were mistakenly included in the scoping map 

but were already decommissioned in the summer of 2015, as authorized by the Wildomar OffHighway Vehicle Management Plan EA and Decision Notice signed in 2014.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

68

110) We completely support the project to eliminate unauthorized routes on the Cleveland 

National Forest, and to restore the landscape resources to their best possible natural conditions 

at the selected sites. We agree that educating and directing motor vehicle users to legal 

opportunities should be part of the project (as stated in Purpose and Need, Scoping Letter), 

and also that signage and a 5-year monitoring period should be included (Proposed Action, 

Scoping Letter). The information included in the Scoping Letter about the project’s Purpose 

and Need, the Proposed Action, and the guiding goals, strategy and standards of the Land 

Management Plan for the Forest provides a clear justification and mandate for the project 

activities. This project is a good example of professional civil service management and good 

stewardship of National Forest public resources for the greatest overall, balanced public 

benefit.

This supportive comment is appreciated.

Cultural Resources

111) The Rincon Band has concerns for the impacts to historic and cultural resources and the 

finding of items of significant cultural value that could be disturbed or destroyed and are 

considered culturally significant to the Luiseno people. This is to inform you, your identified 

location is not within the Luiseno Aboriginal Territory. We recommend that you locate a tribe 

within the project area to receive direction on how to handle any inadvertent findings 

according to their customs and traditions.

All Tribes within the project area were notified about this project during scoping.

112) The San Diego County Archaeological Society believes that cultural resources need to be 

included in the analysis. While closing some routes may have favorable impacts to cultural 

sites located along any routes to be closed, and any unauthorized collecting at sites made 

accessible by those routes, it could also happen that the decommissioning activities 

themselves could result in adverse impacts. By including cultural resources in the analysis, 

such positive and negative impacts could be addressed.

Each unauthorized route proposed for decommissioning were surveyed by the Forest Archaeologist, 

and this Draft EA includes the resultant cultural resource section for analysis of potential effects.

NEPA Process

113) The time allotted for comments is far too short for public review and the maps are very hard 

to read and impossible to print full size.

The time period for scoping was within the ordinary range for a project of this sort. The new maps 

included in this Draft EA were developed in response to this concern for ease of use by the public.

114) Some of the concerns expressed to me include difficulties accessing information, both 

electronically and hard copy, as well as the public only being provided maps as opposed to 

specific route data, all coupled with an abbreviate amount of time for public review. Despite 

these challenges, it is my understanding that several user-groups have provided your office 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

69

with information on specific closures where such action would impede access to existing 

conservation resources such as wildlife drinkers and guzzlers, as well as resources for hunters, 

dog-training, and other recreational activities.

See response to comment 113. The project leader swiftly assisted any member of the public that 

expressed difficulty accessing information. Public scoping does not require detailed information 

about the Proposed Action, which was not available at that time. It is true that many such user-groups 

provided scoping comments.

115) Appendix H is referred to under subheads S11 and S12 as the source of criteria for TEPCS 

design and conservation practices, but there is no Appendix H attached or linked to the 

scoping letter. A search for Appendix H in CNF’s LMP (online PDF) found a reference to 

Part 3, which in turn contained 9 mentions of Appendix H but not the Appendix itself or 

indication of how it may be accessed. As a rule of clear writing, when reference is made to a 

document or resource, a clear way to access it should be included. The same may be said re 

Appendix E, referred to under subhead S47.

Appendices E and H of the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan can be found on pages 

65-66 and 71-75 of Part 3. A hard copy or CD may be requested of the Forest Planner, or the 

electronic file (in .pdf format) is available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/cleveland/landmanagement/planning/. 

116) Some of your maps are not clear. There are status color coded routes on your grid but I 

could not tell what they implied. 

New maps were developed for this Draft EA. The color coding of the scoping maps reflected a 

preliminary ranking of importance using GIS data for sensitive resources.

117) The Forest Service should focus on decommissioning virtually all of the unauthorized 

routes, and not acquiesce to permitting some illegal, unauthorized routes to continue being 

used. Stated another way, the basic objective of this project should be that all unauthorized 

will be decommissioned, to be consistent with the existing Forest Plan. Any exception to this 

position should be required to be justified as an enhancement to the existing Forest plan. The 

current “purpose” of this project is described in the 2/17/15 letter from the Supervisor as being 

“to decommission the highest priority unauthorized routes....”, which is much too weak, 

creates ambiguity as to what “priority” each illegal route is, and undermines a key provision 

of the existing plan. 

It would be infeasible to include all unauthorized routes on the Cleveland National Forest in this 

analysis, and so prioritization of routes is essential. The Cleveland LMP does not preclude the 

addition of National Forest System Roads or Trails, and the Purpose and Need for the project was 

adjusted to reflect field discovery and line officer direction for where such additions were needed and 

acceptable. The Proposed Action does not permit any unauthorized routes to continue being used.

118) The authorized routes were established as part of the original plan, and all unauthorized 

routes are basically illegal.
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

70

Authorized routes were not established by the LMP. Instead, they were authorized by the Motorized 

Travel Management EA and Decision Notice of 2008.

119) To not decommission an unauthorized route is to encourage the continuing expansion of 

unauthorized routes. The message would be to some in the ORV community, that the way to 

get more routes is to create more unauthorized routes and then to be patient until the Forest 

Service basically accepts them.

There are multiple factors to consider for each particular unauthorized route beyond that of public 

communication. In some cases, routes decommission naturally; in others, decommissioning would 

require far greater investment than the resource benefit that would be gained. In still other cases, 

unauthorized routes are proposed for addition to the National Forest Road or Trail System. These 

factors were carefully weighed for each unauthorized route in the development of the Proposed 

Action.

120) The reality we have experienced historically, is that once an “accepted” route is established, 

there will be some users who will veer off into nearby areas and expand the routes.

The potential for exploratory vehicle use was considered in the development of the Proposed Action.

121) It is better to take a strong stance now and establish the precedent that unauthorized routes 

will not be tolerated, without amending the basic Forest Plan through a public process, than to 

postpone the hard decision until there are more unauthorized routes and the Forest Service has 

set a precedent that unauthorized routes can become permanent.

See response to comment 117. The Forest does not propose to amend the LMP through this project, 

since it is consistent with the LMP.

122) I recommend that CNF extend the duration of the subject process to arrange for a 

collaborative partnership with members of the local community of outdoor recreationists to 

objectively analyze the proposed road closure plan, while using appropriate maps, to insure a 

correct final disposition.

See response to comment 1. The Motorized Travel Management process of 2008 was the ripe time for 

the recreational users of the Cleveland National Forest to attempt to secure roads and trails for 

motorized use. This project primarily concerns the decommissioning of unauthorized routes with only 

minor adjustment of the National Forest Road and Trail Systems.

123) A quick way to facilitate the implementation of this approach would be for CNF to “reachout-to” the San Diego County Wildlife Federation (SDCWF): a non-profit amalgam of local 

conservation-oriented clubs and organizations, as well as the local chapters of similar national 

organizations; which number in excess of twenty organizations with a combined constituency 

that stems from over 12,000 San Diego County households.

The Forest Service cannot provide any particular organization with special privileges outside the 

public process. The San Diego County Wildlife Federation and its members are welcome to provide 

input into project planning. 
Draft Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Unauthorized Route Decommissioning

71

124) Boulder Creek Road is very problematic with the numbers of visitors to Three Sisters. This 

needs a cooperative Study / Solution with the County. My first priority would be to permit 

the Three Sisters trail since it is in a recommended wilderness.

This matter falls outside the scope of this project. A Draft Environmental Assessment is currently 

being prepared for Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management.

125) Your map should the trail leading from the Three Sisters Trail head which historically is 

called “The Turntable” –and I hope you keep the historical name—this trail is shown as being 

decommissioned. However your rangers park at the bottom of this saddle frequently. This 

should have a definitive decision. I would not get in the way of rescue usage or fire usage but 

routine should have a discussion and decision. 

See response to comment 124.

126) In its place, I urge the Board to work with the community that enjoys and uses this area to 

create a program that will properly consider the entire environment, allow for more 

independent oversight, and incorporate the more natural science suitable for this regional 

environment.

This request falls outside the scope of the Purpose and Need for this project.

127) In Lakeland Village, we have a number of trails that date back to the 1930's. These trails are 

non-motorized. In recent years I have asked the Forest Service to choose one or more of these 

trails to encourage recreational activities in our area. My husband and I will help to maintain 

them. I was told we do not have walking trails into our beautiful forest from here.

See response to comment 126.

128) In the environmental analysis we would like a defined forest boundary with signage so that

when we see homeless camping above our homes our citizens will know who to call.

See response to comment 126.

129) We would like the commission to authorize a trail from Lakeland Village into the forest.

See response to comment 126.
72
UND314

UND8296

UND8294

UND8020

UND8023

UND313

SUA114-0.26L-1

UND314-0.44L-1 SUA114

UND324

UND314

15S30-ANDERSON

116°45'0"W

116°45'0"W

116°46'0"W

116°46'0"W

116°47'0"W

116°47'0"W

32°53'0"N

32°53'0"N

32°52'0"N

32°52'0"N

0 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Cleveland NF

Escondido

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger District

15

8

56

54

78

79

52

125

67

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Anderson Valley,

Capitan Grande

Indian Reservation

Area

73
UND450

SUA-133

16S12-1

16S12-3.70L-1

DRD500001-1

16S12-1.25L-1

16S12-1.59R-1

UND447 16S06-UNGALLO FLAT

16S06-UNGALLO FLAT

16S12-BEAR VALLEY

116°30'0"W

116°30'0"W

116°31'0"W

116°31'0"W

32°48'0"N

32°48'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Public Use

Consider for Permitted Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

San

San Diego

DiegoDes

c

a

n

s

oR

a

n

g

e

r

D

i

s

tr

i

c

t

Palomar Ranger

District

8

188

79

78

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Bear Valley

Area

74
UND125

UND8026

UND375

15S26-0.47R1

15S24-GOUDIE

116°36'0"W

116°36'0"W

116°37'0"W

116°37'0"W

116°38'0"W

116°38'0"W

116°39'0"W

116°39'0"W

116°40'0"W 32°54'0"N

32°54'0"N

32°53'0"N

32°53'0"N

32°52'0"N

32°52'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger District

8

8 54

79

67

94

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Boulder Creek

Road South

Area

75
16S12-6.68L-1

UND9076

UND9084

16S12-5.85R-1

UND9075 UND9073

UND842

UND9070

16S12-6.014L-2

UND9077

116°29'0"W

116°29'0"W

116°30'0"W

116°30'0"W

32°46'0"N

32°46'0"N

32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Buckman Springs

Area

76
16S03-CARVEACRE

17S09-WISECARVER

16S03-CARVEACRE

116°42'0"W

116°42'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°44'0"W

116°44'0"W

32°44'0"N

32°44'0"N

32°43'0"N

32°43'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Descanso Ranger

District

Palomar Ranger

District

5

8

54

188

79

52

125

67

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Carveacre

Area

77
SUA22

UND847

16S17-0.84R-1

16S16-KERNAN

16S17-LOS PINOS

16S17-LOS PINOS

116°33'0"W

116°33'0"W

116°34'0"W

116°34'0"W

32°46'0"N 32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

San

Diego

San

Diego

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District

8

188

79

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Corte Madera

Area

78
13S10-15.72L1 UND784

UND783

UND8139

UND8139

UND8137-0.02L1

UND8137-0.1L1

13S10-17.15L1

UND8139-0.15R1

13S10-17.03L1

UND782

UND138

UND8135

13S10

13S10-16.8R1

UND8137

UND785

13S10-15.93L1 13S10-15.77L1

13S10-16.8R2

UND8137-0.02L1

13S10-17.03L2

UND783

UND8139 13S10-15.72L1

UND784

116°48'0"W

116°48'0"W

116°49'0"W

116°49'0"W

32°55'0"N

32°55'0"N

32°54'0"N

32°54'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Ranger District Boundary

San

Diego

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District

155

805

8

56

54

78

125

79

52

67

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

El Cajon 

Mountain Area

79
17S12

17S12-Spur

17S08-3.96L-1

UND865-1.06L-1

17S12

UND371

UND568

17S12-5.92L-1

UND569

UND566

UND8102

UND865

17S08

17S08-SOUTH

BOUNDRY

17S04-CORRAL

CANYON

17S08-SOUTH BOUNDRY

17S07-HAUSER CREEK

17S06-SKYE VALLEY

116°34'0"W

116°34'0"W

116°35'0"W

116°35'0"W

116°36'0"W

116°36'0"W

116°37'0"W

116°37'0"W

116°38'0"W

116°38'0"W

32°42'0"N

32°42'0"N

32°41'0"N

32°41'0"N

32°40'0"N

32°40'0"N

32°39'0"N

32°39'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Cleveland

NF

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger District

8

188

79

54

67

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Hauser Wilderness

Area

80
16S04-HORSETHIEF

15S33-WILDWOOD GLEN

BANCAS-PINE 15S25-LAS CREEK TH

16S04-HORSETHIEF

15S28

116°36'0"W

116°36'0"W

116°37'0"W

116°37'0"W

116°38'0"W

116°38'0"W

32°50'0"N

32°50'0"N

32°49'0"N

32°49'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger

District Desc

a

n

s

o

Ra

n

ger

D

i

s

t

ri

ct

8

188

54

67

79

78

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Japatul Valley

Road Area

81
15S18-Spur 1

15S18-Spur 2

UND8426

UND8436

UND173 -SDC KCR Connector

16S08-FRED CANYON

16S08-FRED CANYON

15S18-SHEEPHEAD MOUNTAIN

15S17-KITCHEN CREEK

15S18-SHEEPHEAD MOUNTAIN

116°27'0"W

116°27'0"W

116°28'0"W

116°28'0"W

116°29'0"W

116°29'0"W

32°48'0"N

32°48'0"N

32°47'0"N

32°47'0"N

32°46'0"N

32°46'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Palomar Ranger

District Desca

n

s

o

Ra

n

ge

r

D

i

s

tri

ct

8

188

79

78

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Kitchen Creek

Central/

Sheephead 

Area

82
15S17-1.44L-1

UND162

15S09-2.46L 15S10A Spur

15S03-RED TAILED ROOST

15S19-FLINN

15S16-MORRIS RANCH

15S16-MORRIS RANCH

15S16-MORRIS RANCH

15S10-WOODED HILL

15S19-FLINN

15S09-ESCONDIDO RAVINE

15S17-KITCHEN CREEK 15S10-WOODED HILL

116°26'0"W

116°26'0"W

116°27'0"W

116°27'0"W

116°28'0"W 32°51'0"N

32°51'0"N

32°50'0"N

32°50'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Add for Public Use

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District 8

79

94

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Kitchen Creek

North/Wooded

Hill Area

83
KitchenCreek 3

UND527

CAMERON TK TR-1.74R-1

CAMERON TK TR-2.34R-1

UND525

UND379

Kitchen Creek 2

KitchenCreek 1

UND9065

UND8323

UND9531

15S17A-0.11R1

15S17C-4-CAMERON

STATION

116°26'0"W

116°26'0"W

116°27'0"W

116°27'0"W

116°28'0"W

116°28'0"W

116°29'0"W 32°44'0"N

32°44'0"N

32°43'0"N

32°43'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Decommission

Ranger District Boundary

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District

8

188

79

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Kitchen Creek 

South Area

84
UND342

UND342

UND382

UND382

UND382

UND382

UND340

UND335

UND335

UND9090

UND560

17S08-0.45R-1

UND335-0.31R-1

17S07-3.23R-1

UND335-0.25R-1

UND9091

UND555

UND9549-0.20R-1

17S02A-0.27R-1

UND370

UND333

UND565

UND601

UND330

UND602

UND9549

UND340

UND553

UND342

UND572

UND382

UND335

17S07-HAUSER

CREEK

17S04-CORRAL CANYON

17S06-SKYE

VALLEY

116°29'0"W

116°29'0"W

116°30'0"W

116°30'0"W

116°31'0"W

116°31'0"W

116°32'0"W

116°32'0"W

116°33'0"W

116°33'0"W

32°43'0"N

32°43'0"N

32°42'0"N

32°42'0"N

32°41'0"N

32°41'0"N

32°40'0"N

32°40'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger District

8

188

79

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Lake Morena

Area

85
UND509

16S12-6.68L-1

16S15-0.98R-1

16S15-4.18R-1

16S15-1.97R-1

16S15-1.78R-1

16S15-1.24R-1

UND490-0.06R-1

16S15-1.38R-1

16S15-1.53R-1

16S15-6.10R-1

UND488

UND504

SUA171

UND492

SUA172

UND9095

UND502

UND490

UND9096

UND507

16S15-1.65L-1

16S15-3.79R-1

UND-Trail57

UND-Trail130

16S15-1.15R-1

16S16-0.04R-1

UND500

UND509

16S12-BEAR

VALLEY

16S16-KERNAN

16S12-BEAR

VALLEY

16S15-LONG VALLEY LOOP

116°31'0"W

116°31'0"W

116°32'0"W

116°32'0"W

32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

San

Diego

San

Diego

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger District

8

188

79

94

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Long Valley

Area

86
UND389

UND-Trail17 15S20B

15S02-LAGUNA STATION

15S11D-LAGUNA CG

15S08-OASIS SPRINGS

15S07-HORSE HEAVEN GROUP CAMP

15S11A-EL

PRADO GROUP

CAMP

15S20-LOS RESERVOIR HUECOS

15S11C-LAGUNA

CG

15S09-ESCONDIDO RAVINE

15S07A-CHULA VISTA RESERVOIR

15S11B-LAGUNA CG

15S09A-ESCONDIDO RAVINE SPUR 15S09-ESCONDIDO RAVINE

15S11-LAGUNA CG

116°25'0"W

116°25'0"W

116°26'0"W

116°26'0"W

116°27'0"W

116°27'0"W

32°54'0"N

32°54'0"N

32°53'0"N

32°53'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger

District Descans

o

R

a

n

g

e

r

Distr

i

c

t

8

79

94

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Mount Laguna

Area

87
Pine Creek 1

UND985

14S05-6.25R1

Pine Creek 4

Pine Creek 3

Pine Creek 2

UND8114

UND985

UND872

14S05D-Extension

14S05-6.61L-1

14S05-7.6R1

UND162

14S05-PINE CREEK

15S21-MINERS

14S04-DEER PARK

14S05-PINE CREEK

116°28'0"W

116°28'0"W

116°29'0"W

116°29'0"W

116°30'0"W

116°30'0"W

116°31'0"W

116°31'0"W

32°54'0"N

32°54'0"N

32°53'0"N

32°53'0"N

32°52'0"N

32°52'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Add for Public Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger District

8

79

94

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Pine Creek

Area

88
UND744

UND741

UND735

UND747

14S07-6.35L1 14S07-6.79R-1

UND740

UND736

UND745

UND742

UND720B

UND720A

UND-Trail81

14S10-SAND

14S07-TULE SPRINGS

116°42'0"W

116°42'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°44'0"W

116°44'0"W

32°57'0"N

32°57'0"N

32°56'0"N

32°56'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Escondido

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District

8

54

76

79

125

67

94

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Tule Springs

Area

89
River Gorge 1

13S06-11.6L1

UND191

116°43'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°44'0"W

116°44'0"W

32°59'0"N

32°59'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

San

Diego

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District

8

94

79

125

67

76

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Boulder and

Cedar Creeks

Area

90
Boulder

Creek 1

13S08-10.95R-1

13S08-8.83R-1

UND102

UND114

13S11-CEDAR

CREEK

116°39'0"W

116°39'0"W

116°40'0"W

116°40'0"W

116°41'0"W

116°41'0"W 32°59'0"N

32°59'0"N

32°58'0"N

32°58'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Add for Public Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

San

Diego

San

Diego

Descanso Ranger

District

Palomar Ranger

District

8

54 8

79

94

76

67

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Boulder Creek

Road Area

91
13S10-WESTSIDE

13S11-CEDAR CREEK

13S06-5.2R1

River Gorge 1

13S06-11.6L1 UND191

116°41'0"W

116°41'0"W

116°42'0"W

116°42'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°43'0"W

116°44'0"W

116°44'0"W

33°1'0"N

33°1'0"N

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

32°59'0"N

32°59'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger District

Descanso Ranger

District

8

52

94

79

125

67

76

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Cedar Creek

Area

92
9S09A-HIGHPOINT

9S07A-HIGH LOOKOUT POINT

9S09-OAK GROVE

9S07-PALOMAR

High Point 1

DIVIDE

116°49'0"W

116°49'0"W

116°50'0"W

116°50'0"W

33°22'0"N

33°22'0"N

33°21'0"N

33°21'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Ranger District Boundary

Riverside

San

Diego

San

Diego

Palomar Ranger

District 15

78

79

79

371

78

76

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

High Point

Area

93
UND384

UND384

UND384-SPUR3

UND384-SPUR2

UND384

116°39'0"W

116°39'0"W

116°40'0"W

116°40'0"W

116°41'0"W

116°41'0"W

33°6'0"N

33°6'0"N

33°5'0"N

33°5'0"N

33°4'0"N

33°4'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Escondido Palomar Ranger Distr ci t

Descanso Ranger

District

8 52

79

67

76

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Inaja & Upper 

San Diego River

Area

94
UND148

9S05A

UND55

UND149

UND856

UND268

PCT-SPUR-PRD

UND51

9S05-6.98R1

9S05-5.25R-1

9S05-4.70L-1

9S05-INDIAN FLATS

9S05A-INDIAN

FLAT CG

9S05-INDIAN FLATS

9S05-INDIAN FLATS

116°39'0"W

116°39'0"W

116°40'0"W

116°40'0"W

116°41'0"W

116°41'0"W

33°21'0"N

33°21'0"N

33°20'0"N

33°20'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Add for Public Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

San

Bernardino NF

Cleveland NF

Escondido

Palomar Ranger

District

79

371

74

76

78

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Indian Flats

Area

95
UND94

UND105

UND115

UND887

UND106

12S07-1.27R-1 UND9003 11S03-LUSARDI 11S03-LUSARDI

11S04A-BLACK MOUNTAIN SPUR

11S03-LUSARDI

11S04-BLACK MOUNTAIN 12S07-UPPER SANTA YSABEL

116°49'0"W

116°49'0"W

116°50'0"W

116°50'0"W

116°51'0"W

116°51'0"W

116°52'0"W

116°52'0"W

33°10'0"N

33°10'0"N

33°9'0"N

33°9'0"N

33°8'0"N

33°8'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Add for Public Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Palomar Ranger

District

Descanso Ranger

District

15

15

56

78 78

79

67

76

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Pamo Valley

Area

96
UND386

UND386-0.67L-1

UND386

116°47'0"W

116°47'0"W

116°48'0"W

116°48'0"W

33°18'0"N

33°18'0"N

33°17'0"N

33°17'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Riverside

San

Diego

Temecula--Murrieta

Palomar Ranger

District

15

78

79

67

79

371

76

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Will Valley

Area

97
BD-4

BD-2BD-4

BD-5

BD-7

UND-Trail301

UND-Trail302 4S03-BEDFORD RIDGE

117°31'0"W

117°31'0"W

117°32'0"W

117°32'0"W

117°33'0"W

117°33'0"W

33°48'0"N

33°48'0"N

33°47'0"N

33°47'0"N

33°46'0"N

33°46'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Trabuco Ranger

District

215

15

83

71

57

133

90

31

1

55

73

241

74

60

91

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Bedford

Area

98
7S04-Spur

6S07C-ELSINORE PEAK

7S03-LOS ALAMOS

MAIN DIVIDE 6S07-SOUTH

7S04-WILDOMAR

6S07-SOUTH MAIN DIVIDE

117°19'0"W

117°19'0"W

117°20'0"W

117°20'0"W

33°36'0"N

33°36'0"N

33°35'0"N

33°35'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Cleveland NF

Trabuco Ranger

District

Palomar Ranger

District

15

15

5

215 79

241

91

76

74

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Elsinore Peak

Area

99
7S09-SITTON PEAK

UND418

117°28'0"W

117°28'0"W

117°29'0"W

117°29'0"W

117°30'0"W

117°30'0"W

33°34'0"N

33°34'0"N

33°33'0"N

33°33'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Cleveland NF

Corona

Trabuco Ranger

District

15

15

215

5

261

91

76

1

73 241 74

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Fox Spring &

Lucas Canyon

Area

100
6S05-LONG CANYON

UND8406

UND8408

UND8405

117°25'0"W

117°25'0"W

117°26'0"W

117°26'0"W

33°38'0"N

33°38'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Trabuco Ranger

District

15

5

215

1

31

73

79

91

241

74

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Long Canyon &

Ortega Highway

Area

101
8S01-3.54L-1

UND9120

8S01-5.95R-1

8S03-ROBLAR

8S01-MARGARITA

117°22'0"W

117°22'0"W

117°23'0"W

117°23'0"W

117°24'0"W

117°24'0"W

33°28'0"N

33°28'0"N

33°27'0"N

33°27'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Cleveland NF

Trabuco Ranger

District

Palomar Ranger

District

15

215

5

1

73 79

78

241

76

74

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Margarita Peak

Area

102
UND8706

UND11

UND5

SKYLINE-SPUR1

3S04-5.26L-1

SKYLINE-SPUR2

3S04-5.86L-1

3S04-10.05R-1

3S04-NORTH MAIN DIVIDE

3S04-NORTH MAIN DIVIDE

3S04-NORTH MAIN DIVIDE

117°36'0"W

117°36'0"W

117°37'0"W

117°37'0"W

117°38'0"W

117°38'0"W

117°39'0"W

117°39'0"W

117°40'0"W

117°40'0"W

33°51'0"N

33°51'0"N

33°50'0"N

33°50'0"N

33°49'0"N

33°49'0"N

33°48'0"N

33°48'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Administrative Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Trabuco Ranger

District

215

15 83

261

142

57

1

72 91

31

22

90

73

241 74

60

39

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

North Main

Divide Area

103
5S04-0.45R-1

5S04-5.25R-1

5S04-0.33L-1

5S04-MAPLE

SPRINGS

5S03-SILVERADO MOTOR WAY

5S04-MAPLE SPRINGS

117°34'0"W

117°34'0"W

117°35'0"W

117°35'0"W

33°45'0"N

33°45'0"N

33°44'0"N

33°44'0"N

0 0.25

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Trabuco Ranger

District

5

15

215

261

71

57

22

31

1

83

90

73 241 74

60

91

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Silverado Canyon

Area

104
TC Pvt Spur

UND201

6S13-4.54R-1

6S13-5.56L-1

6S13-2.86L-1 6S13-3.66R-1

6S13-3.08R-1

6S13-TRABUCO

CANYON

6S14-HOLY

JIM CANYON

6S13-TRABUCO CANYON

117°31'0"W

117°31'0"W

117°32'0"W

117°32'0"W

117°33'0"W

117°33'0"W

33°41'0"N

33°41'0"N

33°40'0"N

33°40'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Already Obliterated

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Cleveland NF

Trabuco Ranger

District

215

5

15

133

31

90

71 60

1

55

73

241

74

91

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Trabuco Canyon

Area

105
UND8243

SUA28-SPUR

UND8248

SUA28

UND8250

6S07-SOUTH MAIN DIVIDE

117°20'0"W

117°20'0"W

117°21'0"W

117°21'0"W

117°22'0"W

117°22'0"W

117°23'0"W

117°23'0"W

33°33'0"N

33°33'0"N

33°32'0"N

33°32'0"N

33°31'0"N

33°31'0"N

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend

Proposed Action

Add for Non-Motorized Use

Decommission

Land Ownership

USDA Forest Service

Non-Forest Land

Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness

Cleveland NF

Oceanside Vista

Trabuco Ranger

District

Palomar Ranger

District

15

215

5

1

79

241

76

74

Location Map

Detail Map 

Extent

Wildomar - 

South Main

Divide Area

106