United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Stanislaus 

National Forest 

R5-MB-200 

November 2009 

Motorized Travel Management

(17305) 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management

(17305) 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Lead Agency:	 USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: None 

Responsible Official: Susan Skalski, Forest Supervisor 

Stanislaus National Forest 

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

(209) 532-3671 

Information Contact: Sue Warren, Team Leader 

Stanislaus National Forest 

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

(209) 532-3671 ext. 321 

swarren@fs.fed.us 

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

Stanislaus National Forest to: (1) prohibit motor vehicle travel off designated National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS) roads and motorized trails by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization 

(excluding snowmobile use); (2) add 151.64 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS currently open to 

the public for motor vehicle use; and, (3) make vehicle class changes to the existing NFTS on 616.80 miles of 

roads. Season of use on all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface routes 

replaces all existing seasonal closures and restrictions. These actions are needed in order to implement the 

2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212) while providing for a diversity of motor vehicle recreation 

opportunities, and providing motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities on the Stanislaus National 

Forest. The EIS discloses environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, a no action alternative 

and 3 additional action alternatives developed in response to issues raised by the public. Of the alternatives 

under consideration at this stage, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is preferred by the responsible official. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (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, S.W., Washington, D.C.-20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. 
 

Cover Photos 

Clavey River 

looking north 

from 3N01 

Wheeled Over 

Snow use 

Developed 

Camping 

4WD on trail 

Dardanelles 

overlook from 

6N38Y 

Motorcycle trail 

Motorcycle trail Developed 

Camping Bourland Creek 

Trestle Special 

Interest Area 

Administrative 

use 

Tuolumne Fawn 

Lily Log truck 

ATV trail 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

Summary ......................................................................................................................................xiii
 

1. Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................1

1.01 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE....................................................................................................................1
 

1.02 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................1
 

1.03 PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................................................................5
 

1.04 PROPOSED ACTION...........................................................................................................................7
 

1.05 PRINCIPLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS..................................................................................................8
 

1.06 DECISION FRAMEWORK .....................................................................................................................8
 

1.07 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................................8
 

1.08 ISSUES...........................................................................................................................................10
 

1.09 GIS DATA......................................................................................................................................11
 

2. The Alternatives .....................................................................................................................13
 

2.01 HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED ....................................................................................14
 

2.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ............................................................................................18
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................18
 

Alternative 2 (No Action) ..............................................................................................................21
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited)......................................................................................21
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) ............................................................................................................22
 

Alternative 5 (Resources).............................................................................................................25
 

2.03 MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..............................26
 

Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................................................27
 

Other Requirements.....................................................................................................................28
 

2.04 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY................................................28
 

2.05 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................32
 

Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Effects .................................................36
 

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...............................................39

3.01 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................39
 

Analysis Process..........................................................................................................................39
 

Forest Plan Amendments .........................................................................................................40
 

Incomplete or Unavailable Information .....................................................................................40
 

Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................41
 

Affected Environment Overview...................................................................................................42
 

Assumptions and Limitations .......................................................................................................43
 

Resource Analysis .......................................................................................................................44
 

Resource Reports ........................................................................................................................44
 

Route Data...................................................................................................................................44
 

Law Enforcement .........................................................................................................................45
 

Information on Other Resource Issues.........................................................................................46
 

Air Quality.................................................................................................................................46
 

Calaveras Big Trees State Park ...............................................................................................46
 

Climate Change........................................................................................................................47
 

Fire ...........................................................................................................................................47
 

Geology ....................................................................................................................................48
 

Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................................................48
 

Private Property........................................................................................................................48
 

Range.......................................................................................................................................49
 

Special Events..........................................................................................................................49
 

Vegetation ................................................................................................................................49
 

Wilderness................................................................................................................................49
 

Yosemite National Park ............................................................................................................49
 

Analysis Framework.....................................................................................................................49
 

National Forest Management Act .............................................................................................50
 

2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212 ............................................................................50
 

Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................................50
 

3.02 BOTANICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................51
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ...............................51
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................53
 

Assumptions Specific to Botanical Resources..........................................................................55
 

i 
Stanislaus 

Table of Contents National Forest 

Assumptions Specific to Noxious Weeds..................................................................................55
 

Data Sources............................................................................................................................56
 

Botanical Resources Indicators ................................................................................................56
 

Noxious Weed Indicators..........................................................................................................56
 

Botanical Resources Methodology by Action............................................................................56
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................58
 

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

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ................................................................................................77
 

Alternative 2 (No Action)...........................................................................................................80
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ..................................................................................83
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .........................................................................................................86
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .........................................................................................................89
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives....................................................................92
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction..................................................................95
 

3.03 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................97
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ...............................97
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................99
 

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources ............................................................................99
 

Data Sources............................................................................................................................99
 

Cultural Resources Indicators...................................................................................................99
 

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action ..............................................................................99
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................101
 

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................101
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................106
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................................................106
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................109
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................109
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .......................................................................................................109
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................112
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................113
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................114
 

3.04 RECREATION RESOURCES .............................................................................................................115
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................115
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................116
 

Assumptions Specific to Recreation Resources .....................................................................116
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................117
 

Recreation Resources Indicators............................................................................................117
 

Recreation Resources Methodology by Action .......................................................................118
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................120
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................124
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................................................128
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................129
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................130
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .......................................................................................................132
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................133
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across all Alternatives..................................................................134
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................136
 

3.05 ROADLESS AND SPECIAL AREAS ....................................................................................................137
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................137
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................138
 

Assumptions Specific to Roadless and Special Areas............................................................138
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................139
 

Roadless and Special Areas Indicators ..................................................................................139
 

Roadless and Special Areas Methodology by Action..............................................................141
 

Roadless Areas - Affected Environment.....................................................................................141
 

Arnot Creek ............................................................................................................................141
 

Bald Peak ...............................................................................................................................142
 

Bell Meadow ...........................................................................................................................142
 

Carson-Iceberg.......................................................................................................................142
 

Cherry Lake ............................................................................................................................143
 

Dome......................................................................................................................................143
 

Eagle ......................................................................................................................................143
 

ii 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 

Mt. Reba.................................................................................................................................143
 

Night .......................................................................................................................................144
 

North Mountain.......................................................................................................................144
 

Pacific Valley ..........................................................................................................................144
 

Raymond Peak .......................................................................................................................144
 

Trumbull Peak ........................................................................................................................145
 

Tryon Peak .............................................................................................................................145
 

Tuolumne River ......................................................................................................................145
 

Waterhouse ............................................................................................................................145
 

Wheats Meadow.....................................................................................................................146
 

Roadless Areas - Environmental Consequences.......................................................................146
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................147
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................149
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................150
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation).......................................................................................................150
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................151
 

Research Natural Areas - Affected Environment........................................................................152
 

Bell Meadow Research Natural Area......................................................................................152
 

Clark Fork Candidate Research Natural Area ........................................................................152
 

Critchfield (Bourland Meadow) Research Natural Area ..........................................................152
 

Grizzly Mountain Research Natural Area ...............................................................................152
 

Research Natural Areas - Environmental Consequences ..........................................................153
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................153
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................153
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................153
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation).......................................................................................................153
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................154
 

Special Interest Areas - Affected Environment...........................................................................154
 

Bourland Creek Trestle Historic Area .....................................................................................154
 

Bull Run Scenic and Geologic Area........................................................................................154
 

Columns of the Giants Scenic and Geologic Area..................................................................155
 

Emigrant Road and the Big Trees-Carson Valley Road Historic Areas ..................................155
 

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area..................................................................................................155
 

Jordan Creek/Bower Cave Cultural and Geologic Area..........................................................155
 

Niagara Creek and Falls Scenic and Geologic Area...............................................................155
 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area ................................................................................................155
 

Sonora-Mono Toll Road Historic Area ....................................................................................156
 

Trumbull Peak Historic and Botanic Area ...............................................................................156
 

Windeler Cave Geologic Area ................................................................................................156
 

Special Interest Areas - Environmental Consequences .............................................................156
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................157
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................157
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................158
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation).......................................................................................................158
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................159
 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers - Affected Environment ............159
 

Clark Fork...............................................................................................................................160
 

Clavey River ...........................................................................................................................160
 

Merced Wild and Scenic River................................................................................................160
 

Middle Fork Stanislaus River..................................................................................................161
 

Niagara Creek ........................................................................................................................161
 

North Fork Mokelumne River..................................................................................................161
 

North Fork Stanislaus River....................................................................................................161
 

South Fork Tuolumne River....................................................................................................161
 

Stanislaus River......................................................................................................................161
 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River............................................................................................162
 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers - Environmental Consequences162
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................164
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................165
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................165
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation).......................................................................................................166
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................167
 

iii 
Stanislaus 

Table of Contents National Forest 

Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness - Affected Environment ..................................................168
 

Bald Peak Proposed Wilderness ............................................................................................169
 

Tryon Peak Proposed Wilderness ..........................................................................................169
 

Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness - Environmental Consequences.....................................169
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................................................169
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................170
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................170
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .......................................................................................................170
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................170
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................171
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................172
 

3.06 SOCIETY, CULTURE AND ECONOMY ................................................................................................175
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................175
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................175
 

Assumptions Specific to Society, Culture and Economy.........................................................175
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................175
 

Society, Culture and Economy Indicators ...............................................................................175
 

Society, Culture and Economy Methodology ..........................................................................176
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................177
 

Background ............................................................................................................................178
 

Current Population, Growth Trends and Demographics .........................................................178
 

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values .................................................................................181
 

Recreation Use.......................................................................................................................184
 

Roads and Trails Budget Projections......................................................................................195
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................195
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................................................195
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................196
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................197
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .......................................................................................................197
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................197
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................198
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................200
 

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Impact Analysis.........................................................200
 

3.07 SOIL RESOURCE...........................................................................................................................205
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................205
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................206
 

Assumptions Specific to the Soil Resource ............................................................................206
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................207
 

Soil Resource Indicators.........................................................................................................207
 

Soil Resource Methodology by Action ....................................................................................208
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................210
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................212
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................................................212
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................216
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................217
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .......................................................................................................217
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................220
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................221
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................224
 

3.08 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ........................................................................................................225
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................225
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................226
 

Assumptions Specific to Transportation Facilities...................................................................227
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................227
 

Transportation Facilities Indicators .........................................................................................227
 

Transportation Facilities Methodology by Action ....................................................................228
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................229
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................234
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................................................234
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................238
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................240
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) .......................................................................................................241
 

iv 
 

Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................244
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives .................................................................246
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................249
 

3.09 VISUAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................251
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................251
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................252
 

Assumptions Specific to Visual Resources.............................................................................253
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................253
 

Visual Resources Indicators ...................................................................................................253
 

Visual Resource Methodology by Action ................................................................................254
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................255
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................256
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................257
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................257
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................258
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation).......................................................................................................258
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................259
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives .................................................................259
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................260
 

3.10 WATER RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................261
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................261
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................262
 

Assumptions Specific to Water Resources.............................................................................263
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................263
 

Water Resources Indicators ...................................................................................................263
 

Water Resources Methodology by Action...............................................................................263
 

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................264
 

Watershed Setting..................................................................................................................264
 

Scope of the Water Resources Analysis ................................................................................265
 

Motorized Routes within Watersheds .....................................................................................266
 

Water Resources Condition....................................................................................................269
 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................275
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................278
 

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................280
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................................281
 

Alternative 4 (Recreation).......................................................................................................282
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) .......................................................................................................284
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives .................................................................285
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................286
 

3.11 WILDLIFE: TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC SPECIES ............................................................................287
 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................287
 

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................288
 

Assumptions Specific to Terrestrial and Aquatic Species.......................................................291
 

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................291
 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species Methodology by Action.........................................................291
 

Affected Environment – General Wildlife....................................................................................293
 

Terrestrial Biota..........................................................................................................................298
 

American Marten – Affected Environment ..............................................................................298
 

American Marten – Environmental Consequences.................................................................298
 

Pacific Fisher – Affected Environment....................................................................................306
 

Pacific Fisher – Environmental Consequences ......................................................................307
 

California Spotted Owl – Affected Environment......................................................................312
 

California Spotted Owl – Environmental Consequences ........................................................313
 

Northern Goshawk – Affected Environment ...........................................................................324
 

Northern Goshawk – Environmental Consequences ..............................................................325
 

Mule Deer – Affected Environment.........................................................................................336
 

Mule Deer – Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................337
 

Bald Eagle – Affected Environment........................................................................................347
 

Bald Eagle – Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................347
 

Great Gray Owl – Affected Environment ................................................................................353
 

Great Gray Owl – Environmental Consequences ...................................................................353
 

Aquatic Biota..............................................................................................................................360
 

v 
 

 

Stanislaus 

Table of Contents National Forest 

Effects Common to all Aquatic Wildlife ...................................................................................360
 

California Red-legged Frog – Affected Environment...............................................................362
 

California Red-legged Frog – Environmental Consequences .................................................363
 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog – Affected Environment ..............................................................370
 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog – Environmental Consequences.................................................371
 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog – Affected Environment...........................................................379
 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog – Environmental Consequences .............................................380
 

Western Pond Turtle – Affected Environment.........................................................................386
 

Western Pond Turtle – Environmental Consequences ...........................................................387
 

Yosemite Toad – Affected Environment .................................................................................396
 

Yosemite Toad – Environmental Consequences....................................................................396
 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Direction......................................................................403
 

3.12 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.......................................................................413
 

3.13 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .................................................................................................413
 

3.14 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS ..........................................................................413
 

3.15 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................................................413
 

4. Consultation and Coordination..........................................................................................415
 

4.01 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ..................................................................................................415
 

4.02 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS ............................................................................................................419
 

Index............................................................................................................................................ 433
 

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................. 439
 

B. Cumulative Effects Analysis ..............................................................................................443
 

C. Forest Plan Direction .......................................................................................................... 451
 

D. Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 469
 

E. Law Enforcement................................................................................................................. 481
 

F. Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions............................................................................ 489
 

G. References ........................................................................................................................... 493
 

H. Resource Analysis Summary.............................................................................................507
 

I. Route Data............................................................................................................................ 517
 

I.01 ADDITIONS TO THE NFTS ..............................................................................................................517
 

I.02 CHANGES TO THE EXISTING NFTS: VEHICLE CLASS .......................................................................531
 

I.03 CHANGES TO THE EXISTING NFTS: SEASON OF USE.......................................................................547
 

J. Response to Comments .....................................................................................................563

1.00 NEPA PROCESS ..........................................................................................................................565
 

1.10 Background ...................................................................................................................570
 

1.20 Purpose and Need.........................................................................................................572
 

1.30 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................575
 

1.40 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................575
 

1.50 Issues ............................................................................................................................576
 

1.60 Alternatives....................................................................................................................577
 

1.61 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action).................................................................................583
 

1.62 Alternative 2 (No Action) ...........................................................................................583
 

1.63 Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited)...................................................................584
 

1.64 Alternative 4 (Recreation)..........................................................................................584
 

1.65 Alternative 5 (Resources)..........................................................................................584
 

1.70 Implementation..............................................................................................................585
 

1.80 Maps..............................................................................................................................588
 

2.00 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................589
 

2.10 Cross Country Travel.....................................................................................................591
 

2.20 Parking ..........................................................................................................................592
 

2.30 Public Safety..................................................................................................................594
 

2.40 Private Land ..................................................................................................................594
 

2.50 Road Closures...............................................................................................................597
 

2.60 Season of Use...............................................................................................................597
 

vi 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 

2.61 Wet Weather .............................................................................................................603
 

2.70 Special Uses .................................................................................................................603
 

2.80 Unauthorized Routes.....................................................................................................604
 

2.90 Vehicle Class.................................................................................................................606
 

3.00 RECREATION (EXCLUDING MOTORIZED)..........................................................................................610
 

3.10 Dispersed Recreation....................................................................................................610
 

3.20 Non-Motorized/Quiet Recreation ...................................................................................612
 

3.30 User Conflicts ................................................................................................................614
 

4.00 MOTORIZED RECREATION ..............................................................................................................615
 

4.10 Route Specific ...............................................................................................................617
 

4.20 Wheeled Over Snow......................................................................................................619
 

5.00 ROADLESS AND SPECIAL AREAS....................................................................................................622
 

5.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers..................................................................................................624
 

6.00 SOCIETY, CULTURE AND ECONOMY ................................................................................................626
 

7.00 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................628
 

8.00 NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................629
 

8.10 Air Quality......................................................................................................................630
 

8.20 Botanical Resources .....................................................................................................631
 

8.21 Noxious Weeds.........................................................................................................633
 

8.30 Soil Resource ................................................................................................................635
 

8.40 Water Resources...........................................................................................................638
 

8.50 Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species ......................................................................642
 

8.51 Analysis.....................................................................................................................642
 

8.52 Law, Regulation and Policy.......................................................................................656
 

8.53 Species Protection ....................................................................................................661
 

9.00 ENFORCEMENT .............................................................................................................................675
 

List of Tables 

Table S.01-1 Significant Issue Statements......................................................................................... xiv
 

Table S.01-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Alternative Components and Outputs ............................. xvi
 

Table S.01-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects.........................................................xvii
 

Table 1.03-1 Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................6
 

Table 1.08-1 Significant Issue Statements..........................................................................................11
 

Table 2.01-1 Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation ..........................................................................13
 

Table 2.01-2 Additions to the NFTS: Refinements between Draft and Final EIS...............................15
 

Table 2.01-3 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Refinements between Draft and Final EIS..................17
 

Table 2.02-1 Vehicle Class Changes: Alternative 1...........................................................................18
 

Table 2.02-2 Wheeled Over Snow Routes..........................................................................................19
 

Table 2.02-3 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 1.......................................................19
 

Table 2.02-4 Western Pond Turtle Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 1........................................20
 

Table 2.02-5 Non-Motorized Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 1.................................................20
 

Table 2.02-6 Existing Public Motorized Opportunities.........................................................................21
 

Table 2.02-7 Existing NFTS Seasonal Closures and Restrictions ......................................................22
 

Table 2.02-8 Vehicle Class Changes: Alternative 4...........................................................................23
 

Table 2.02-9 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 4.......................................................23
 

Table 2.02-10 Western Pond Turtle Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 4........................................24
 

Table 2.02-11 Non-Motorized Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 4.................................................25
 

Table 2.02-12 Vehicle Class Changes: Alternative 5...........................................................................26
 

Table 2.02-13 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 5.......................................................26
 

Table 2.05-1 Comparison of Alternatives: How the Alternatives Were Developed ............................33
 

Table 2.05-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Additions to the NFTS......................................................34
 

Table 2.05-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Changes to Existing NFTS...............................................34
 

Table 2.05-4 Comparison of Alternatives: Forestwide Issues and Indicators.....................................34
 

Table 2.05-5 Comparison of Alternatives: Actions Resulting from Changes to the Existing NFTS ....34
 

Table 2.05-6 Comparison of Alternatives: Alternative Components and Outputs ..............................35
 

Table 2.05-7 Comparison of Alternatives: Mitigation Measures (Additions to the NFTS)...................35
 

Table 2.05-8 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects..........................................................36
 

Table 3.01-1 MTVM and ROS Allocations ..........................................................................................50
 

Table 3.02-1 Sensitive Plant Species and Habitat Description ...........................................................59
 

Table 3.02-2 Sensitive Moss and Lichen Species and Habitat Description ........................................60
 

vii 
Stanislaus 

Table of Contents National Forest 

Table 3.02-3 Stanislaus National Forest Watchlist Species ................................................................61
 

Table 3.02-4 Sensitive Taxa and Watchlist Species Occurrences ......................................................61
 

Table 3.02-5 Noxious Weeds and Non-native Invasive Plants............................................................71
 

Table 3.02-6 Weed Species Infestations.............................................................................................75
 

Table 3.02-7 Motorized Routes Infested with Invasive Weeds............................................................75
 

Table 3.02-8 Additions to the NFTS with Weeds and Direct Impacts to Sensitive Plants ...................75
 

Table 3.02-9 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 1..........78
 

Table 3.02-10 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 2..........81
 

Table 3.02-11 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 3..........84
 

Table 3.02-12 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 4..........87
 

Table 3.02-13 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 5..........91
 

Table 3.02-14 Botanical Resources Indicator Measures.......................................................................93
 

Table 3.02-15 Direct and Indirect Effects to Sensitive Plants................................................................94
 

Table 3.02-16 Direct Effects to Sensitive Plants ...................................................................................94
 

Table 3.02-17 Summary of Effects for Botanical Resources.................................................................94
 

Table 3.03-1 Status of Cultural Resources Survey within APE.........................................................102
 

Table 3.03-2 Cultural Resources within APE ....................................................................................103
 

Table 3.03-3 Examples of Site Disturbances Documented within Project APE.................................104
 

Table 3.03-4 Severity of Effects ........................................................................................................105
 

Table 3.03-5 Cultural Resource Effect Severity ................................................................................105
 

Table 3.03-6 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources: Alternative 1 ...........................................107
 

Table 3.03-7 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources: Alternative 4 ...........................................110
 

Table 3.03-8 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources: Alternative 5 ...........................................113
 

Table 3.03-9 Effects to Cultural Resources: Changes to Existing NFTS .........................................113
 

Table 3.03-10 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources ..................................................................113
 

Table 3.04-1 NVUM Classified Activities...........................................................................................122
 

Table 3.04-2 Visitors by Activity ........................................................................................................124
 

Table 3.04-3 Effects on SPNM..........................................................................................................124
 

Table 3.04-4 Effects on Quiet Recreation .........................................................................................125
 

Table 3.04-5 Additions to the NFTS: Degree of Difficulty.................................................................126
 

Table 3.04-6 Additions to the NFTS: Trail Categories and Season of Use ......................................126
 

Table 3.04-7 Additions to the NFTS: Dispersed Access and Season of Use...................................127
 

Table 3.04-8 Effects on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands......................................................128
 

Table 3.04-9 Summary of Effects for Recreation Resources ............................................................135
 

Table 3.05-1 Forest Plan Management Area Allocations: Roadless Areas......................................137
 

Table 3.05-2 Existing Motorized Routes: Roadless Areas ...............................................................141
 

Table 3.05-3 Additions to the NFTS: Roadless Areas......................................................................146
 

Table 3.05-4 Vehicles Class Changes: Roadless Areas..................................................................147
 

Table 3.05-5 Existing Motorized Routes: Special Interest Areas .....................................................154
 

Table 3.05-6 Additions to the NFTS: Special Interest Areas............................................................156
 

Table 3.05-7 Vehicles Class Changes: Special Interest Areas ........................................................156
 

Table 3.05-8 Existing Motorized Routes: Wild and Scenic Rivers....................................................160
 

Table 3.05-9 Additions to the NFTS: Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers..........................................162
 

Table 3.05-10 Vehicles Class Changes: Wild and Scenic Rivers ......................................................163
 

Table 3.05-11 Effects on Roadless and Wilderness Characteristics in Roadless Areas.....................171
 

Table 3.05-12 Summary of Effects across All Alternatives: Roadless and Special Areas..................172
 

Table 3.05-13 Summary of Effects: Roadless and Special Areas......................................................172
 

Table 3.06-1 Indicators and Methods................................................................................................175
 

Table 3.06-2 Stanislaus National Forest Lands by County ...............................................................178
 

Table 3.06-3 Population Demographics............................................................................................180
 

Table 3.06-4 Racial Composition ......................................................................................................180
 

Table 3.06-5 Activity Participation.....................................................................................................186
 

Table 3.06-6 Party Trips by Activity ..................................................................................................188
 

Table 3.06-7 Expenditures by Activity...............................................................................................189
 

Table 3.06-8 Employment and Labor Income Response Coefficients by Activity Type ....................190
 

Table 3.06-9 Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type .............................................191
 

Table 3.06-10 Percent of Total Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type ...................192
 

Table 3.06-11 Employment and Labor Income Effects .......................................................................193
 

Table 3.06-12 Role of Forest Service Recreation and Related Contributions to the Area Economy...194
 

Table 3.06-13 Employment and Labor Income Effects .......................................................................194
 

Table 3-06-14 Road and Trail Construction and Maintenance Budget................................................195
 

Table 3.07-1 Routes by Action..........................................................................................................222
 

viii 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 

Table 3.07-2 Routes by Action and MEHR .......................................................................................223
 

Table 3.07-3 Routes with High Rutting and Erosion Potential (HFC)................................................223
 

Table 3.07-4 Additions to the NFTS: MEHR, Hydrologic Function Class and Gradient Class .........224
 

Table 3.07-5 Summary of Effects: Soil Resource ............................................................................224
 

Table 3.08-1 Existing Maintenance Levels .......................................................................................231
 

Table 3.08-2 Estimated Maintenance Costs .....................................................................................232
 

Table 3.08-3 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 1 ...............................................................................235
 

Table 3.08-4 Combined Use Roads: Alternative 1...........................................................................236
 

Table 3.08-5 Mixed Use Roads (changing from ML 3 to ML 2): Alternative 1..................................236
 

Table 3.08-6 ML 1 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 1 ...........................................................237
 

Table 3.08-7 ML 2 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 1 ...........................................................237
 

Table 3.08-8 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 2 ...............................................................................239
 

Table 3.08-9 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 3 ...............................................................................240
 

Table 3.08-10 Combined Use Roads: Alternative 4...........................................................................242
 

Table 3.08-11 Mixed Use Roads (changing from ML 3 to ML 2): Alternative 4..................................242
 

Table 3.08-12 ML 1 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 4 ...........................................................243
 

Table 3.08-13 ML 2 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 4 ...........................................................243
 

Table 3.08-14 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 4 ...............................................................................244
 

Table 3.08-15 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 5 ...............................................................................245
 

Table 3.08-16 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 5 ....................................................................246
 

Table 3.08-17 NFTS Roads: Maintenance Level and Vehicle Class .................................................247
 

Table 3.08-18 NFTS Roads: Maintenance Level Changes................................................................248
 

Table 3.08-19 Affordability Indicator Measures...................................................................................248
 

Table 3.08-20 Summary of Effects to Transportation Facilities...........................................................248
 

Table 3.09-1 Management Area VQOs.............................................................................................252
 

Table 3.09-2 Visual Quality Objectives: NFTS.................................................................................256
 

Table 3.09-3 Visual Quality Objectives: Additions to the NFTS .......................................................256
 

Table 3.09-4 Summary of Effects to Visual Resources.....................................................................260
 

Table 3.10-1 Hydrologic Unit Code System (HUC)...........................................................................265
 

Table 3.10-2 Principal Areas of Concentrated Vehicle Use on Unauthorized Routes.......................266
 

Table 3.10-3 Additions to the NFTS: Hydrologically Sensitive Areas (Watersheds) ........................268
 

Table 3.10-4 Water Quality Summary for the South Fork and Lower Middle Fork Stanislaus River .272
 

Table 3.10-5 Water Quality Summary for the Clavey and North Fork Tuolumne Rivers...................273
 

Table 3.10-6 Water Quality Summary for the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers...................275
 

Table 3.10-7 Additions to the NFTS: Hydrologically Sensitive Areas (action alternatives)...............276
 

Table 3.10-8 Additions to the NFTS and Existing Condition .............................................................276
 

Table 3.10-9 Summary of Cumulative Watershed Effects ................................................................277
 

Table 3.10-10 Maintenance and Mitigation in Hydrologically Connected Segments...........................279
 

Table 3.10-11 Routes Not Recommended for Addition to the NFTS ..................................................279
 

Table 3.10-12 Summary of Effects on Water Resources ....................................................................285
 

Table 3.11-1 Road and Trail Factors with Documented Effects on Wildlife Species and Group.......289
 

Table 3.11-2 Special Status Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species...............................................294
 

Table 3.11-3 Wildlife Group and Terrestrial and Aquatic Species.....................................................295
 

Table 3.11-4 Wildlife Groups and Species........................................................................................297
 

Table 3.11-5 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (American marten)......................301
 

Table 3.11-6 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (American marten)......................303
 

Table 3.11-7 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (American marten)......................304
 

Table 3.11-8 Drivable Routes in American marten habitats..............................................................305
 

Table 3.11-9 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (American marten)...................................................306
 

Table 3.11-10 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Pacific fisher).............................308
 

Table 3.11-11 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Pacific fisher).............................310
 

Table 3.11-12 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Pacific fisher).............................310
 

Table 3.11-13 Drivable Routes in Pacific fisher habitat.......................................................................312
 

Table 3.11-14 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (Pacific fisher)..........................................................312
 

Table 3.11-15 Alternative 1: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (California spotted owl).................315
 

Table 3.11-16 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California spotted owl)...............317
 

Table 3.11-17 Alternative 4: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (California spotted owl).................319
 

Table 3.11-18 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California spotted owl)...............320
 

Table 3.11-19 Alternative 5: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (California spotted owl).................321
 

Table 3.11-20 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California spotted owl)...............322
 

Table 3.11-21 Drivable Routes in California spotted owl habitats.......................................................323
 

Table 3.11-22 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (California spotted owl)............................................324
 

ix 
Stanislaus 

Table of Contents National Forest 

Table 3.11-23 Alternative 1: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (Northern goshawk) ......................327
 

Table 3.11-24 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (northern goshawk).....................329
 

Table 3.11-25 Alternative 4: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (Northern goshawk) ......................331
 

Table 3.11-26 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (northern goshawk).....................332
 

Table 3.11-27 Alternative 5: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (Northern goshawk) ......................333
 

Table 3.11-28 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (northern goshawk).....................334
 

Table 3.11-29 Drivable Routes in northern goshawk habitats.............................................................335
 

Table 3.11-30 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (northern goshawk)..................................................336
 

Table 3.11-31 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mule deer) .................................340
 

Table 3.11-32 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mule deer) .................................343
 

Table 3.11-33 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mule deer) .................................344
 

Table 3.11-34 Drivable Routes in mule deer habitats .........................................................................346
 

Table 3.11-35 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (mule deer) ..............................................................347
 

Table 3.11-36 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (bald eagle).................................349
 

Table 3.11-37 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (bald eagle).................................351
 

Table 3.11-38 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (bald eagle).................................351
 

Table 3.11-39 Drivable Routes in bald eagle habitats.........................................................................352
 

Table 3.11-40 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (bald eagle)..............................................................352
 

Table 3.11-41 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (great gray owl)...........................355
 

Table 3.11-42 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (great gray owl)...........................357
 

Table 3.11-43 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (great gray owl)...........................358
 

Table 3.11-44 Drivable Routes in great gray owl habitats...................................................................359
 

Table 3.11-45 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (great gray owl)........................................................360
 

Table 3.11-46 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California red-legged frog).........364
 

Table 3.11-47 Route compliance with USFWS PDC for the California red-legged frog ......................365
 

Table 3.11-48 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California red-legged frog).........367
 

Table 3.11-49 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California red-legged frog).........368
 

Table 3.11-50 Drivable Routes in California red-legged frog habitats.................................................370
 

Table 3.11-51 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (California red-legged frog)......................................370
 

Table 3.11-52 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog).........373
 

Table 3.11-53 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog).........374
 

Table 3.11-54 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog).........375
 

Table 3.11-55 Drivable Routes in foothill yellow-legged frog habitats.................................................378
 

Table 3.11-56 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog)......................................378
 

Table 3.11-57 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog).....381
 

Table 3.11-58 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog).....383
 

Table 3.11-59 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog).....383
 

Table 3.11-60 Drivable Routes in mountain yellow-legged frog habitats ............................................385
 

Table 3.11-61 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog) .................................386
 

Table 3.11-62 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (western pond turtle)...................390
 

Table 3.11-63 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (western pond turtle)...................392
 

Table 3.11-64 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (western pond turtle)...................393
 

Table 3.11-65 Drivable Routes in western pond turtle habitats...........................................................395
 

Table 3.11-66 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (western pond turtle)................................................395
 

Table 3.11-67 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Yosemite toad) ..........................398
 

Table 3.11-68 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Yosemite toad) ..........................399
 

Table 3.11-69 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Yosemite toad) ..........................400
 

Table 3.11-70 Drivable Routes in Yosemite toad habitats ..................................................................402
 

Table 3.11-71 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (Yosemite toad) .......................................................402
 

Table 3.11-72 Routes inconsistent with USFWS PDC for the California red-legged frog ...................410
 

Table 3.11-73 Routes inconsistent with the Forest Plan for the California red-legged frog.................411
 

Table B.01-1 Past Land Disturbance Actions (2000-2008)................................................................443
 

Table B.01-2 Past Land Disturbance Actions: Wildfires (2000-2008)...............................................445
 

Table B.01-3 Present Land Disturbance Actions...............................................................................445
 

Table B.01-4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Land Disturbance Actions ........................................447
 

Table H.01-1 Resource Analysis Summary.......................................................................................507
 

Table I.01-1 Additions to the NFTS: Vehicle Class, Season of Use and Mitigations.......................517
 

Table I.02-1 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Vehicle Class, Season of Use and Mitigations..........531
 

Table I.03-1 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Season of Use ..........................................................547
 

x 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.02-1 Stanislaus National Forest Vicinity Map...........................................................................4
 

Figure 2.05-1 Season of Use/Wheeled Over Snow Route Map ...........................................................38
 

Figure 3.04-1 Recreation Use by Activity ...........................................................................................123
 

Figure 3.04-2 Recreation Use by Type of Activity ..............................................................................123
 

Figure 3.05-1 Roadless and Special Area Map..................................................................................173
 

Figure 3.06-1 Population Trends and Comparisons...........................................................................179
 

Figure 3.06-2 Household Income.......................................................................................................181
 

Figure 3.06-3 Income (per capita)......................................................................................................181
 

Figure 3.06-4 Visitor Origin Maps ......................................................................................................183
 

Figure 3.06-5 Visitor Characteristics: Segmentation of Visitors ........................................................184
 

Figure 3.06-6 Visitor Characteristics: Ethnicity..................................................................................185
 

Figure 3.06-7 Visitor Characteristics: Age Distribution......................................................................185
 

Figure 3.06-8 National Forest Recreation Visits (in thousands) by Activity Group. ............................187
 

Figure 3.06-9 Employment and Labor Income by Activity ..................................................................193
 

Figure 3.07-1 Existing Condition: All Unauthorized Routes with Soil Hazard Classification..............213
 

Figure 3.07-2 Soil Analysis: Unauthorized Routes with Soil Erosion Hazard Rating.........................215
 

Figure 3.07-3 Soil Analysis: Route Additions and Close-to-Open with Soil Hazard Classification ....219
 

Figure 3.08-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Maintenance Level and Vehicle Class ...........................249
 

Figure 3.10-1 Distribution of Off-Highway Motorized Travel in HUC Level 7 Watersheds..................267
 

xi 
Stanislaus 

Table of Contents National Forest 

xii 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary 

Summary 

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

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

regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would 

result from the proposed action, a no action alternative and 3 additional action alternatives developed 

in response to issues raised by the public. Of the alternatives under consideration at this stage, 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is preferred by the responsible official. 

Purpose and Need 

The following needs were identified for this proposal: 

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

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

cross-country travel adversely impacts the environment. The 2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 

CFR, Section 212, Subpart B provides for a system of National Forest Transportation System 

(NFTS) roads, NFTS motorized trails and areas on National Forest System lands that are 

designated for motor vehicle use. After roads, trails and areas are designated, motor vehicle use 

off designated roads and motorized trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 

261.13. Subpart B is intended to prevent resource damage caused by unmanaged motor vehicle 

use by the public. In accordance with national direction, implementation of Subpart B of the 

travel management rule for the Stanislaus is scheduled for completion in 2009. 

2. There is a need for limited changes to the National Forest Transportation System to: 

a.	 Maintain motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, 

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). 

b.	 Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (4WD, motorcycles, ATVs, 

passenger vehicles, etc.). 

Proposed Action 

The Stanislaus National Forest proposes to: (1) prohibit motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS 

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

snowmobile use); (2) add 151.64 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS currently open to 

the public for motor vehicle use; and, (3) make vehicle class changes to the existing NFTS on 616.80 

miles of roads. Season of use on all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native 

surface routes replace all existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). These actions 

are needed in order to implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212) while 

providing for a diversity of motor vehicle recreation opportunities and providing motorized access to 

dispersed recreation opportunities on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Significant Issues 

An issue is a matter of public concern regarding the proposed action and its environmental impacts. 

Scoping identified issues which are a point of discussion, dispute, or debate with the Proposed 

Action. An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. An issue is not an 

activity; instead, the predicted effects of the activity create the issue. The Forest Service separated the 

issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues are defined as those directly 

or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. 

xiii 
 

Stanislaus 

Summary National Forest 

Significant Issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze 

environmental effects. Issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. The Forest used the 

following significant issue statements to formulate and compare alternatives, prescribe mitigation 

measures, or analyze and compare the environmental effects of each alternative. 

Table S.01-1 Significant Issue Statements 

Issue/Element Cause and Effect 

Significant Issue Statement 1: Changes to NFTS routes that reduce motorized opportunities, increase restrictions on vehicle 

class and season of use, and prohibit cross-country travel, may affect forest visitors. 

1.1 Motorized 

Opportunities1 

a. Changing the vehicle class and season of use may affect available camping opportunities. 

b. Route designations may not provide adequate motorized opportunities. 

c. Route designations may not provide adequate distinction between vehicle classes. 

d. Route designations may not provide adequate opportunities for motorized special use events. 

e. Vehicle class, season of use and cross-county travel restrictions may limit motorized access for big 

game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

Significant Issue Statement 2: Changes to NFTS routes that increase motorized opportunities, reduce restrictions on vehicle 

class and season of use, and allow cross-country travel, may affect forest resources, private property and forest visitors. 

2.1 Administration a. Increasing motorized use may result in increased non-compliance, unsafe conditions near private 

residences and unsafe encounters between forest visitors. 

b. Current and future budgets may not provide adequate funding for maintenance, administration and 

enforcement of the proposed road and motorized trail system. 

c. Route designations may cause environmental impacts requiring more maintenance. 

d. Allowing mixed use on system routes may result in unsafe recreation opportunities. 

2.2 Private Property a. Allowing motorized use near private property may result in noise, dust, trespass and other conflicts 

with private property owners. 

b. Some private property owners are unwilling to grant public right of way, thereby limiting motorized 

route opportunities. 

2.3 Recreation a. Increasing motorized use may result in noise disturbance affecting quiet recreation opportunities. 

b. Increasing motorized use may result in user conflicts between forest visitors. 

2.4 Resources2 a. Increasing motorized use may increase fire risk and the spread of noxious weeds. 

b. Increasing motorized use may affect heritage resources, recreation, sensitive plants, soils, 

vegetation, watershed and wildlife. 

c. Allowing motorized access for big game retrieval and dispersed camping may affect forest 

resources. 

d. Authorizing travel corridors allowing cross-country travel within 100’ of roads and motorized trails, or 

allowing parking greater than one car length from the road may affect forest resources. 

e. Increasing motorized use may result in undesirable road densities. 

f. Proposed seasonal closures may not adequately protect natural resources 

g. Motorized use may not be compatible with Roadless Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness and 

Yosemite National Park. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5) and the no action alternative (Alternative 2) are 

considered in detail (see Map Package and project record for detailed maps of each alternative). The 

no action alternative represents the continuation of cross-country travel including continued use of all 

unauthorized routes by motor vehicles. Alternative 2, required by the implementing regulations of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), serves as a baseline for comparison among the 

alternatives (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). Table S.01-2 shows a side-byside comparison of the features of each alternative. 

1 This element groups significant issues from the Routes, Special Uses and Travel Corridor topics. 

2 This element groups significant issues from the Resources, Routes, Special Areas, and Travel Corridor topics. 

xiv 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (72 Federal Register 222, November 

19, 2007; p. 64988- 64991), with corrections based on updated data and map information and 

refinements responding to the administration, motorized recreation, private property, recreation and 

resource issues raised during scoping (EIS Chapter 1.08). These corrections and refinements provide 

additional motorized recreation opportunities, reduce conflicts and provide additional resource 

protection. Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as allowed 

by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS routes 

unless otherwise prohibited. 151.64 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails. Vehicle class changes would occur on 616.80 miles of NFTS roads. Season of use on 

all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface routes replace existing 

seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is the Forest 

Service preferred alternative. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under the No 

Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project 

area. This alternative would not change the use of any NFTS roads and would not add any miles of 

NFTS motorized trails. Under this alternative the agency would take no affirmative action (no change 

from current management or direction) and cross country travel with continued use of unauthorized 

routes would occur. It would include only existing closures and would not include any restrictions on 

motorized dispersed recreation access. No changes would be made to the current NFTS and no cross 

country travel prohibition would be put into place. The Travel Management Rule would not be 

implemented and no MVUM would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be 

limited to NFTS routes. Unauthorized routes would continue to have no status or authorization as 

NFTS facilities. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Alternative 3 responds to the administration and resource issues by prohibiting cross country travel 

without adding any new facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a baseline for 

comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS in the form of new 

facilities (roads and motorized trails). None of the currently unauthorized routes would be added to 

the NFTS under this alternative. Alternative 3 would not change the use of the NFTS and would not 

add any miles to the NFTS. It would include seasonal closures on routes with existing seasonal 

closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7) and prohibit motorized access beyond existing NFTS 

routes. Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as allowed by 

permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS routes unless 

otherwise prohibited. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Alternative 4 responds to the motorized recreation opportunities issue by providing additional routes 

and reducing restrictions. This alternative would maximize motorized recreation opportunities 

(including those accessing dispersed recreation activities thereby partially replacing the need for 

travel corridors). Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as 

allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS 

routes unless otherwise prohibited. 175.97 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS 

as motorized trails. Vehicle class changes would occur on 367.94 miles of NFTS roads. Season of use 

on native surface routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface routes replace 

existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). All surfaced routes, except wheeled 

over snow routes (see Table 2.02-2), are open year round. 

xv 
 

 

Stanislaus 

Summary National Forest 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Alternative 5 responds to the administration, private property, recreation and resource issues by 

limiting additions to the NFTS and increasing restrictions that would reduce conflicts and provide 

additional resource protection. This alternative would limit motorized recreation opportunities 

(including those accessing dispersed recreation activities) by providing greater protection for forest 

resources. Motor vehicle travel off NFTS roads and NFTS motorized trails by the public would be 

prohibited except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle 

length off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. 28.37 miles of unauthorized routes would be 

added to the NFTS as motorized trails. Vehicle class changes would occur on 525.73 miles of NFTS 

roads. Season of use on all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface 

routes replace existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). 

Table S.01-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Alternative Components and Outputs 

Component Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Cross Country Travel prohibited not prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited 

Parking allowed off NFTS one vehicle length no restriction one vehicle length one vehicle length one vehicle length 

Add existing unauthorized 

routes to the NFTS (miles) 

151.64 0.00 0.00 175.97 28.37 

Convert NFTS roads to 

NFTS motorized trails (miles) 

62.17 0.00 0.00 99.28 21.45 

Change NFTS roads from 

Closed to Open (miles) 

67.37 0.00 0.00 101.24 11.66 

Change NFTS Roads from 

Open to Closed (miles) 

45.98 0.00 0.00 10.66 59.03 

Change NFTS roads from 

HLO to ALL (miles) 

93.36 0.00 0.00 99.52 0.00 

Change NFTS roads from 

ALL to HLO (miles) 

400.56 0.00 0.00 145.69 440.93 

Existing Closures and 

Restrictions 

replaced remain remain replaced replaced 

Season of Use 

Elevation 1 year round none none year round year round 

Elevation 2 4/1-11/30 none none 4/1-12/311 4/15-11/15 

Elevation 3 5/15-11/30 none none 4/1-12/311 5/15-11/15 

Wet Weather Closures 

(native surface routes) 

close during the 

season of use when 

1” rain occurs in a 

24 hr period and 

allow 72 hrs drying 

none none same as 

Alternative 1 

same as 

Alternative 1 

Wheeled Over Snow Routes 

(miles) 

105.92 none none 105.92 none 

Forest Plan Amendments 

(miles) 

10.36 0.00 0.00 13.80 0.00 

1 Native surface routes only 

xvi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary 

Summary of Environmental Consequences 

Table S.01-3 shows a summary of the environmental effects of the alternatives. 

Table S.01-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Botanical 

mileage and number of 

routes increases effects 

to sensitive plants and 

suitable habitat; third 

greatest risk to sensitive 

plants affected by routes 

within 200 feet of areas 

infested with noxious 

and invasive plants 

greatest effects to 

sensitive plants and 

suitable habitats along 

existing routes and to 

lava cap and moist 

habitat types 

reduction in routes and 

mileage concentrates 

use, increasing effects to 

roadside occurrences; 

least overall impacts to 

sensitive plants 

mileage and number of 

routes increases effects 

to sensitive plants and 

suitable habitat; highest 

impacts to known 

sensitive plants; greatest 

risk to sensitive plants 

affected by routes within 

200 feet of areas 

infested with noxious 

and invasive plants 

reduction in routes and 

mileage concentrates 

use increasing effects to 

roadside occurrences; 

second least impacts to 

unique habitats such as 

lava caps and meadows 

Cultural 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads could adversely 

effect cultural resources 

cross country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation adversely 

effects cultural resources 

none same as Alternative 1 none 

Recreation 

third highest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; reduces impacts to 

non-motorized activities; 

reduces motorized 

access to dispersed 

recreation sites 

highest mileage 

available to motorized 

use with fewest 

limitations; greatest 

conflicts with adjacent 

landowners; alters 

recreation settings; 

highest impacts on nonmotorized or quiet 

lowest mileage available 

to motorized use; least 

conflicts with adjacent 

landowners; recreation 

setting changes from 

predominately motorized 

to predominately nonmotorized; highest 

reduction of motorized 

second highest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; conflicts with 

adjacent landowners 

may occur; second 

greatest impacts to nonmotorized activities; 

reduces motorized 

access to dispersed 

second lowest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; few loops and very 

limited riding 

opportunities; reduces 

conflicts with adjacent 

landowners; reduces 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

recreation activities; 

continues motorized 

access to all dispersed 

recreation sites 

access to dispersed 

recreation sites 

recreation sites sites 

Roadless and Special Areas 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads reduce 

opportunities for solitude 

in the Carson-Iceberg, 

Mt. Reba, North 

Mountain, Raymond 

Peak and Tuolumne 

River roadless areas 

noise and more 

evidence of human 

activity due to cross 

country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation reduce 

roadless character in all 

roadless areas; cross 

country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation could 

reduce values in all 

Special Areas (Proposed 

Wilderness, SIAs, RNAs, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

and Proposed Wild and 

Scenic Rivers) outside of 

Wilderness 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads reduce 

opportunities for solitude 

in the Carson-Iceberg, 

Mt. Reba, North 

Mountain, Raymond 

Peak and Tuolumne 

River roadless areas 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

reduce opportunities for 

solitude in the CarsonIceberg and Raymond 

Peak roadless areas 

Transportation 

greatest risks to public 

safety with the most 

miles where motorized 

mixed use occurs on 

roads; reduces road 

maintenance costs 

none none same as Alternative 1 least risk to public safety 

with the lowest miles 

where motorized mixed 

use occurs on roads; 

results in the least 

reduction in road 

maintenance costs 

xvii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stanislaus 

Summary National Forest 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Society, Culture and 

Economy 

does not meet demand 

for motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

sites; proliferation of new 

sites impacts land and 

driving experiences 

cross country travel and 

route proliferation 

degrade the quality of 

the recreation setting 

does not meet demand 

for motorized routes 

displacing use to other 

locations; does not meet 

demand for motorized 

access to dispersed 

recreation sites; 

proliferation of new sites 

impacts land and driving 

experiences 

same as Alternative 1 same as Alternative 3 

Soil 

128 miles of additions to 

the NFTS occur on high 

MEHR soils; 55 miles of 

additions to the NFTS 

occur on soils with HFC 

concerns; opens 29 

miles of closed roads 

prone to loss of 

hydrologic function and 

water control 

204 miles of 

unauthorized routes 

occur on high MEHR 

soils with route 

proliferation adding 

another 22 miles over 10 

years representing a 

loss of soil productivity 

on 158 acres 

vegetation growth on 

most unauthorized 

routes stabilizes them to 

background erosion 

rates 

151 miles of additions to 

the NFTS occur on high 

MEHR soils; 68 miles of 

additions to the NFTS 

occur on soils with HFC 

concerns; opens 45 

miles of closed roads 

prone to loss of 

hydrologic function and 

water control 

24 miles of additions to 

the NFTS occur on high 

MEHR soils; 8.6 miles of 

additions to the NFTS 

occur on soils with HFC 

concerns; opens 2.9 

miles of closed roads 

prone to loss of 

hydrologic function and 

water control 

Visual 

high positive effect on 

the overall scenery by 

prohibiting cross country 

travel; parking and 

camping along NFTS 

roads makes roads 

appear less natural and 

more congested 

negative effect on the 

overall scenery by 

continued cross country 

travel and route 

proliferation resulting in 

loss of natural character 

and a inconsistency with 

VQOs; parking and 

same as Alternative 1 

except: highest positive 

effect on the overall 

scenery; reduced 

motorized touring and 

enjoyment of the 

scenery at many 

locations; increased 

same as Alternative 1 

except: lower positive 

effect on the overall 

scenery; maximizes 

motorized viewing 

opportunities at the 

expense of some nonmotorized 

same as Alternative 1 

except: higher positive 

effect on the overall 

scenery although less 

access to early spring 

(wildflowers) and fall 

(peak fall color) scenery 

at some locations 

camping remain hidden 

from view in most 

locations 

parking along NFTS 

roads makes roads 

appear least natural and 

most congested 

Watershed 

reduces direct, indirect 

and cumulative 

watershed effects by 

prohibiting cross country 

travel; water quality is 

good to excellent; meets 

beneficial uses of water; 

sediment, water 

temperature and oil and 

grease are consistent 

with water quality 

objectives 

cross country travel and 

route proliferation slightly 

increase sedimentation 

but do not adversely 

affect beneficial uses 

same as Alternative 1 

except: most reduction 

in direct, indirect and 

cumulative watershed 

effects 

same as Alternative 1 

except: less reduction in 

direct, indirect and 

cumulative watershed 

effects 

same as Alternative 1 

except: more reduction 

in direct, indirect and 

cumulative watershed 

effects 

Wildlife 

reduces direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects to 

wildlife species by 

prohibiting cross country 

travel and by closing 

some routes; some 

negative effects to 

species from resulting 

system 

cross-country travel 

negatively impacts 

individuals of numerous 

wildlife species; 

continued route 

proliferation exacerbates 

long-term impacts 

same as Alternative 1 

except: more reduction 

in impacts on species 

because fewer additions 

to the NFTS, fewer 

closed roads opened, 

and more routes closed 

same as Alternative 1 

except: less reduction in 

impacts on species 

because more additions 

to the NFTS, more 

closed roads opened, 

and fewer routes closed 

same as Alternative 1 

except: more reduction 

in impacts on species 

because fewer additions 

to the NFTS, fewer 

closed roads opened, 

and more routes closed 

xviii 
 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 1 

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action 

1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

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

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

regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

1.01 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE 

The document is organized into the following chapters and sections: 

 Chapter 1 (Purpose of and Need for Action): briefly describes the proposed action, the need for 

that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. It also details how the Forest 

Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public responded. 

 Chapter 2 (The Alternatives): provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as 

well as alternative actions developed in response to comments raised by the public during 

scoping. It includes summary tables comparing the proposed action and alternatives with respect 

to their environmental impacts. 

 Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences): describes the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 

 Chapter 4 (Consultation and Coordination): provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted 

during the development of the EIS. 

 Index: provides page numbers by document topic. 

 Appendices: provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EIS. 

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

in the project record located at: 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Forest Supervisor’s Office 

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

1.02 BACKGROUND 

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

vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) increased tremendously. Retail sales of all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) and OHVs between 1993 and 2006 jumped almost threefold nationwide. The 

number of ATVs in the United States represents about 70% of the total number of OHVs, not 

counting full-size 4-wheel drive vehicles. Based on the latest data (2005-2007), nearly one in five 

Americans (19.2%) ages 16 and older participated one or more times in OHV recreation within the 

past year. California is experiencing the highest level of OHV use of any state in the nation with 

4,986,000 OHV participants or about 18% of the total population (Cordell 2008)3

. A total of 786,914 

ATVs and OHV motorcycles were registered in 2004, an increase of 330% since 1980. Annual sales 

of ATVs and OHV motorcycles in California were the highest in the U.S. for the last 5 years. 

Unmanaged OHV use resulted in unplanned roads and trails, compaction, erosion, watershed and 

habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent 

3 Sources: NSRE 1999-2004. Versions 1-16, except 3, 6, 12. NSRE 2005-2007, Versions 2 and 3. 

1 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus 

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest
 

species are particularly vulnerable to unmanaged OHV use. Unmanaged recreation, including impacts 

from OHVs, is one of “Four Key Threats Facing the Nation’s Forests and Grasslands” (see 

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats). 

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

of Intent (MOI) with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission and the OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 

That MOI set in motion a region-wide effort to “Designate OHV roads, trails, and any specifically 

defined open areas for motorized vehicles on maps of the 19 National Forests in California by 2007” 

(project record). 

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations (70 Federal 

Register 216, November 9, 2005; p. 68264-68291). Subpart B of the final Travel Management Rule 

(36 CFR 212), requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use 

on National Forests. Only roads and trails that are part of a National Forest Transportation System 

(NFTS) may be designated for motorized use. Designations are made by class of vehicle and, if 

appropriate, by time of year. Part 261 – Prohibitions, Subpart A (36 CFR 261.13) of the final rule 

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

vehicles on roads and trails that is not consistent with the designations. All of the National Forests, 

including the Stanislaus, must complete travel management planning and any associated needed 

changes to their individual transportation systems by 2010. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest, long managed as open to cross country motor vehicle travel, 

repeated use resulted in unplanned and unauthorized roads and trails. These routes generally 

developed without environmental analysis or public involvement. These routes do not possess the 

same status as roads and trails included in the NFTS. Nevertheless, some unauthorized routes are 

well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and non-motorized 

users, and would enhance the NFTS. Other unauthorized routes are poorly located and cause 

unacceptable impacts. Only NTFS roads and NTFS motorized trails can be designated for motor 

vehicle use. In order for an unauthorized route to be designated, the route must first be added to the 

NFTS. 

In 2006, the Stanislaus completed an inventory of unauthorized routes on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands as described in the MOI and identified approximately 230 miles of unauthorized routes. 

The 2006 Inventory also showed 61.2 miles of unauthorized use on Maintenance Level 1 roads closed 

to the public. The Stanislaus used an interdisciplinary process to conduct travel analysis that included 

working with the public to identify proposed changes to the existing NFTS. Roads and motorized 

trails currently part of the NFTS and open to motor vehicle travel will remain designated for such use 

except as described below under the Proposed Action. This proposal makes needed changes (vehicle 

restrictions, additional motorized trails, etc.) to the NFTS in accordance with the Travel Management 

Rule (36 CFR 212, Subpart B). 

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

on this proposal, the Stanislaus will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) designating all 

NFTS roads and trails open to motor vehicle use. The MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles 

and, if appropriate, the time of year for which motor vehicle use is designated. Upon publication of 

the MVUM, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on NFS lands other than in 

accordance with those designations. These maps will be made available to the public on the internet 

and at the headquarters of the corresponding administrative unit and Ranger Districts of the National 

Forest System. The unauthorized routes (roads and motorized trails) not included in this proposal are 

not precluded from future consideration for either removal from the landscape and restoration to the 

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

2 
Motorized Travel Management Chapter 1 

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action 

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

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

Travel Management on the Stanislaus National Forest 

The Stanislaus National Forest currently manages approximately 2,947 miles of NFTS roads and 85 

miles of NFTS motorized trails. About 2,279 miles of those NFTS routes are open to public motor 

vehicle use. The NFTS, developed over many decades, meets a variety of needs including timber 

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

uses management and recreation. The NFTS provides the public with many opportunities to enjoy the 

National Forest including OHV riding, access to recreation sites, access to trailheads, and access for 

harvesting special forest products such as firewood, greenery, mushrooms and plants. 

The Forest Service manages and maintains the NFTS to various road and trail standards depending on 

management objectives. These range from paved roads to roughly graded high clearance roads and 

motorized trails, depending on the type of access necessary. In some cases, where public access is not 

needed, roads are “stored” for future management use. The Forest Transportation Atlas displays the 

NFTS. The initial atlas consisted of the maps, inventories and plans for forest transportation facilities 

and associated information available as of January 12, 2001 (FSM 7711.2). The Forest maintains 

details concerning the management of individual roads and motorized trails in the Forest 

Infrastructure Database (INFRA). 

Although the term Transportation Atlas originated in 2001, the INFRA database originated in the late 

1990s with data imported from the previous road inventory database (Transportation Information 

System). The spatial data part of the initial atlas first consisted of quad maps in 2001 and since 

converted to computer-based Geographical Information System (GIS) layers from which roads and 

motorized trail maps are now produced. Both the tabular database residing in INFRA and the spatial 

database in the GIS layers are updated continuously as features and conditions change, as new 

information is found and as new management decisions are made. 

In 2002, the Stanislaus National Forest populated the INFRA database by examining previous records 

(maintenance plans, maintenance expenditures, existing road and trail atlases, forest maps, etc.) in 

order to capture the entire NFTS. The process transferred the necessary information into INFRA and 

verified the Forest Transportation Atlas. Roads or trails without record of being mapped or 

maintained for a specific use were not included in the NFTS. 

Since then, adjustments to the Transportation Atlas and INFRA database corrected errors and account 

for NFTS roads either newly constructed or overlooked in the 2002 effort. The current Forest 

Transportation Atlas identifies the existing NFTS and the road and trail management objectives for 

each transportation facility or route. Decisions regarding changes to the NFTS (new road 

construction, realignment, decommissioning, etc.) are subject to NEPA and require public 

involvement and disclosure. The NFTS is always changing depending on resource needs and 

management concerns 

This travel management proposal is just one of many in a continuing effort to manage the NFTS to 

meet current and future needs. Previous plans and projects (forest planning, vegetation management, 

watershed restoration, fuels treatments, trail construction, trail management, landscape analysis, 

watershed analysis, roads analysis, etc.) resulted in decisions that reduced or added NFTS miles 

available for motor vehicle use. Some of those decisions resulted in new road construction, new trail 

construction and adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Other decisions resulted in 21.2 miles of 

roads closed and 488.7 miles of road decommissioned. The project record contains a list of these 

routes and the associated projects. All of these efforts contributed to sustainable management of the 

NFTS on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

3 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus 

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest
 

Other ongoing efforts include: project-specific efforts to reduce the impacts from unauthorized routes 

and from the current NFTS through the Forest’s road operation and maintenance program. 

Implementation of this project is only one step in the overall management of motor vehicle travel on 

the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Project Location 

The project location is the Stanislaus National Forest including all four Ranger Districts (see Figure 

1.02-1). The Forest contains 898,099 acres located in the central Sierra Nevada. The Forest is 

bounded on the north by the Mokelumne River and the Eldorado National Forest; on the east by the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests and Yosemite National Park; on the south by the Merced River 

and the Sierra National Forest; and on the west by the Sierra foothills. 

Figure 1.02-1 Stanislaus National Forest Vicinity Map 

4 
Motorized Travel Management Chapter 1 

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action 

1.03 PURPOSE AND NEED
 

The Forest Service identified the following needs for this proposal: 

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

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

cross-country travel adversely impacts the environment. The 2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 

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

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

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

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

resource damage caused by unmanaged motor vehicle use by the public. In accordance with 

national direction, implementation of Subpart B of the travel management rule for the Stanislaus 

is scheduled for completion in 2010. 

2.	 There is a need for limited changes to the National Forest Transportation System to: 

a.	 Maintain motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, 

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

activities are not typically located directly adjacent to NFTS roads or NFTS motorized trails. 

Some dispersed recreation activities depend on foot or horseback access, and some depend on 

motor vehicle access. Those activities accessed by motor vehicles are typically accessed by 

short spurs created primarily by the passage of motor vehicles. Many such unauthorized 

‘user-created’ routes are not currently part of the NFTS. Without adding them to the NFTS 

and designating them on a MVUM, the regulatory changes noted above would make 

continued use of such routes illegal and would preclude access by the public to many 

dispersed recreation activities. 

b.	 Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (4WD, motorcycles, ATVs, 

passenger vehicles, etc.). It is Forest Service policy to provide a diversity of road and 

motorized trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel 

consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2)). 

Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule will reduce acres available for 

cross country travel because this activity will be prohibited. Miles of motorized recreation 

opportunities relative to current levels could be negatively affected. As a result, there is a 

need to consider limited changes to the NFTS to provide motorized recreation opportunities. 

In making any limited changes to the NFTS, the Stanislaus will consider criteria contained in 

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which include the following: 

a.	 Impacts to natural and cultural resources. 

b.	 Public safety. 

c.	 Access to public and private lands. 

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

would arise if the uses under consideration are designated. 

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

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

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

NFS lands or neighboring federal lands. 

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

neighboring federal lands. 

5 
 

Chapter 1 Stanislaus 

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest
 

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

account sound, emissions, and other factors. 

When making any changes to NFTS roads, the Stanislaus will also consider the following: 

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

2.	 Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing 

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

Table 1.03-1 provides a summary of the Purpose and Need details related to the four components of 

the Proposed Action. 

Table 1.03-1 Purpose and Need 

What Where Why How 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Travel and Parking forestwide outside of 

Wilderness 

implement 36 CFR 212, Subpart B limiting 

motorized use to the NFTS system; protect 

resources by preventing route proliferation; 

provide parking 

prohibit cross country travel; 

parking allowed one vehicle 

length off of NFTS routes 

unless otherwise prohibited 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Add existing 

unauthorized routes to 

the NFTS 

specific routes 

(151.64 miles) 

described shown in 

Appendix I 

provide variety of motorized trail 

opportunities; enhance loop opportunities; 

access destinations; reduce conflicts; most 

managed motorized trails 

add unauthorized routes to the 

motorized trail system; on 

MVUM pending completion of 

mitigations 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Convert NFTS roads to 

NFTS motorized trails 

specific routes (62.17 

miles) shown in 

Appendix I 

road not maintained; don’t need as road; road 

never physically closed; access popular 

destinations 

remove from road system; add 

to motorized trail system; on 

MVUM 

Change NFTS roads 

from Closed to Open 

specific routes (67.37 

miles) shown in 

Appendix I 

existing NFTS roads; access destinations or 

private property; enhance loop opportunities 

by connecting motorized trails 

open any existing gates or 

remove barriers as needed; on 

MVUM 

Change NFTS Roads 

from Open to Closed 

specific routes (45.98 

miles) shown in 

Appendix I 

protect facilities; not needed for recreation; 

reduce conflicts between different uses 

close any existing gates 

Change NFTS roads 

from Highway Legal 

Only (HLO) to All 

Vehicles (ALL) 

specific routes (93.36 

miles) shown in 

Appendix I 

provide a variety of motorized mixed use 

opportunities; enhance loop opportunities by 

connecting motorized trails; reduce 

maintenance needs 

on MVUM as open to all 

vehicles pending completion of 

combined use and mixed use 

mitigations 

Change NFTS roads 

from ALL to HLO 

specific routes 

(400.56 miles) shown 

in Appendix I 

county roads; private property; short roads; 

no connection to non-highway legal 

opportunities; reduce incursions into adjacent 

non-motorized areas; reduce conflicts 

between different uses 

on MVUM as open to highway 

legal only 

Season of Use forestwide outside of 

Wilderness 

protect resources including road and trail 

surfaces during the normal winter season 

all routes open by elevation 

zone; on MVUM 

Wet Weather Closures forestwide outside of 

Wilderness 

protect resources including road and trail 

surfaces in storm events during the normal 

season of use 

native surface routes are 

subject to closure when 1” rain 

occurs in a 24 hr period and 

allow 72 hrs drying; on MVUM 

Wheeled Over Snow 

Routes 

specific routes 

(105.92 miles) shown 

in Table 2.02-2 

protect resources; provide variety of 

motorized winter recreation; reduce conflicts 

open to ATVs with 12” or more 

of snow; on MVUM 

4. Forest Plan Amendments 

Amendments specific routes (10.36 

miles); cross country 

travel prohibition 

update cross country travel prohibition to 

comply with 36 CFR 212; allow continued 

existing motorized use 

route specific exceptions 

allowing motorized routes; on 

MVUM 

6 
 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 1 

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action 

1.04 PROPOSED ACTION
 

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (72 Federal Register 222, November 

19, 2007; p. 64988-64991), with corrections based on updated data and map information and 

refinements responding to the administration, motorized recreation, private property, recreation and 

resource issues raised during scoping. These corrections and refinements provide additional 

motorized recreation opportunities, reduce conflicts and provide additional resource protection. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is the Forest Service preferred alternative. 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length4 

off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: 151.64 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails (see Table 2.05-2). Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, 

season of use and mitigations. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: Vehicle class changes would occur on 616.80 miles of NFTS 

roads. Season of use on all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface 

routes replaces existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). Appendix I (Route 

Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use and mitigations. 

Vehicle Class 

Table 2.02-1 shows vehicle class changes would occur on 616.80 miles of NFTS roads including: 

opening 67.37 miles of closed roads; closing to public use 45.98 miles of open roads; converting 

93.36 miles of roads from highway legal only to all vehicles; and, converting 400.56 miles of 

roads from all vehicles to highway legal only. This alternative also converts 62.17 miles of the 

616.80 miles of NFTS roads to motorized trails (the mileage overlaps with the other changes 

described above and shown in Table 2.02-1 and Table 2.05-5). 

Season of Use 

Except as allowed by permit or other authorization (i.e. wheeled over snow routes), NFTS 

motorized routes are open to motorized use during the season of use shown below, unless 

specifically prohibited (see Figure 2.05-1). Roads open year round are not maintained for winter 

travel; however, they are available for over snow travel consistent with the vehicle class 

designation. 

1.	 Lower Elevations Open year round 

2.	 Middle Elevations Open April 1 – November 30 

3.	 Upper Elevations Open May 15 – November 30 

Wet Weather Closures: During the season of use, native surface routes are subject to wet 

weather closure when 1 inch of rainfall occurs in a 24 hour period and allowing for 72 hours of 

drying. 

Wheeled Over Snow (WOS) Routes: wheeled over snow use is prohibited, except by ATVs 

when 12 inches or more of snow is present, on the routes listed in Table 2.02-2 (see Figure 2.05­

1). These routes are dual designated as Snow Trails. 

1.	 Forest Plan Amendments: includes the amendments shown in Tables 2.02-3, 2.02-4, and 2.02­

5. 

4 Vehicle Length equals the length of the vehicle along with the trailer it tows. 

7 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus 

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest
 

1.05 PRINCIPLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
 

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

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

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

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

agencies shall prepare environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with 

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

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

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

National Forest Management Act of 1976 as expressed through the Forest Plan, the Clean Air Act of 

1955, the Clean Water Act of 1948 and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

of 1974. 

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295): this Motorized Travel Management 

EIS is designed specifically to implement the requirements of the November 5, 2005 Rule for Travel 

Management, Subpart B. 

1.06 DECISION FRAMEWORK 

As the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor may decide to: (1) select the proposed action; (2) 

select one of the alternatives; (3) select one of the alternatives after modifying the alternative with 

additional mitigating measures or combination of activities from other alternatives; or, (4) select the 

no action alternative, choosing to take no action at this time to prohibit cross country motor vehicle 

travel by the public off the designated system and make changes to the existing Stanislaus NFTS. 

1.07 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) relied on public involvement to ensure that a full range of 

alternatives, representing a broad array of perspectives, would be analyzed in this EIS. Public 

involvement occurred during four key periods: first, in 2003 when a group of concerned publics held 

a community forum to discuss OHV recreation on the Stanislaus National Forest over 150 individuals 

attended to identify issues and possible management solutions for OHV recreation (as a result of the 

forum, a group called the Stanislaus Recreation Stakeholders (SRS) formed with the Forest Service as 

an ad hoc member to discuss OHV and associated recreational issues); second, a broadened public 

collaboration process for Travel Management that began in 2005; third, during the 60-day public 

scoping period for the proposed action; and, fourth, during the 75-day public comment period on the 

DEIS. 

In 2005, the Forest Service requested the SRS, with the assistance of the Center for Collaborative 

Policy, Sacramento State University, to serve as a design team to help develop the process for public 

involvement, identification of key stakeholders, and act as a sounding board for critical issues 

associated with motorized recreation. In 2007, they assisted in designing all the community 

“Discussion Proposal” workshops for the collaborative development of the Proposed Action, and 

designing the workshops for rolling out the Notice of Intent. In late 2005, the Forest held three public 

meetings in Sonora, Greeley Hill and Arnold, sharing the route designation process developed with 

the State of California MOI and OHV inventory process with 240 attendees. The Forest completed 

the OHV inventory in June 2006, with CD copies of the OHV Inventory mailed to 500 individuals. 

In late 2006 and early 2007, the Forest held seven meetings and three open houses in Sonora, Greeley 

Hill, Arnold, and West Point presenting a series of “discussion proposals” to 340 attendees. The 

8 
Motorized Travel Management Chapter 1 

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action 

Forest Service presented concepts at these “Discussion Proposal” workshops sharing maps, data and 

time to draw routes on maps, circle areas of concern, and accept written and verbal comments and 

ideas. District personnel also met with individuals and OHV clubs, identifying important motorized 

trails needed for the OHV recreation experience. The Forest conducted informal briefings with the 

Tuolumne Band of Mi-Wuks. 

The Forest Service first listed the Motorized Travel Management project in the January 2007 issue of 

the Stanislaus National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The Forest distributes the 

SOPA to about 160 parties and it is available on the internet 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/sopa]. 

Public Scoping Period (60-days) for the Notice of Intent 

On November 13, 2007 the Forest sent a scoping letter to 950 individuals, permittees, organizations, 

agencies, and Tribes interested in this project. The letter requested comments on the Proposed Action. 

The Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) that asked for public comment on the proposal 

between November 19, 2007 and January 18, 2008 (72 Federal Register 222, November 19, 2007; p. 

64988-64991). In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency held five public 

meetings attended by 237 individuals and four open houses attended by fourteen individuals. In April, 

2008, the Forest sent an informational mailing to the public, containing information on how to obtain 

a copy of the Scoping report. The SRS was instrumental in helping design the public meeting format, 

suggesting communication strategies, key stakeholder contacts, and meeting locations. The Forest 

developed the issues (Chapter 1.08) based on public comments submitted during the scoping period. 

Public Comment Period (75-days) for the DEIS 

On February 27, 2009 the Forest released the Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) by mailing over 1,115 CDs to individuals, 90 CDs to organizations, county 

governments, and other agencies and 72 hard copies and CDs to organizations, county governments 

and tribes. The information was also posted on the Forest’s Website on February 27, 2009. 

The Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS in the 

Federal Register (Volume 74, Number 43; Page 9817-9818) on March 6, 2009 with a 60-day public 

comment period. On May 1, 2009 the Forest Supervisor extended the public comment period until 

May 20, 2009. The Forest held six workshops, five open houses and hosted one pilot Webinar where 

the public was invited to attend an Internet/Phone In meeting as part of the public involvement 

process. Approximately 175 persons attended these sessions. The Forest continued tribal consultation 

and briefed four County Boards of Supervisors or individual County supervisors. Congressional 

briefings were also conducted. The Forest sent out three additional post card mailings to notify the 

public of the comment period, additional meeting locations and times, and extension of the comment 

period. 

In response to the Forest’s request for comments, 927 interested parties submitted 841 letters. The 

Forest documented and analyzed public comments using a process called content analysis. This is a 

systematic method of compiling the full range of public viewpoints and concerns regarding a plan or 

project. Content analysis ensures that every comment is considered. It facilitates the Forest’s response 

to comments and leads to good decision-making by helping the Forest to clarify, adjust or incorporate 

technical information into the final EIS. 

Forest Service direction requires that final Environmental Impact Statements respond to substantive 

comments on the DEIS (FSH 1909.15, 24.1). Substantive comments are within the scope of the 

proposed action; are specific to the proposed action; have a direct relationship to the proposed action; 

and, include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider (36 CFR 215.2). 

The IDT reviewed all 841 letters and, for tracking purposes, assigned a letter number to each letter; 

and, an identification number to 3,123 specific comments. They reviewed each specific comment and 

9 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus 

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest
 

determined that 1,233 did not meet the substantive test and screened them as non-substantive 

comments. Then, they reviewed the remaining 1,890 specific substantive comments; combined 

similar comments into 489 summary statements grouped by 9 general topic areas; and, provided a 

response to each. The content analysis spreadsheet titled “Public Comments Summary Report” 

(project record) contains all 3,123 specific comments and identifies the reasons for those screened as 

non-substantive. That spreadsheet also includes respondents sorted by letter number and respondents 

sorted by identification number. Appendix J (Response to Comments) contains the 489 summary 

comment statements, organized by 9 general topics, along with the appropriate ID numbers, followed 

by the Forest Service response to each. 

1.08 ISSUES 

Comments from the public, other agencies, and the Tuolumne Band of Mi-Wuk Indians were used to 

formulate issues concerning the proposed action (Public Comment Summary, project record). An 

issue is a matter of public concern regarding the proposed action and its environmental impacts. 

Scoping identified issues which are a point of discussion, dispute, or debate with the Proposed 

Action. An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. An issue is not an 

activity; instead, the predicted effects of the activity create the issue. The Forest Service separated the 

issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues are defined as those directly 

or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. 

Significant Issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze 

environmental effects. Issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. Non-Significant Issues were 

identified as those that were: 1) outside of the scope of the proposed action; 2) already determined 

through law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific fact; 5) a comment, opinion, or position 

statement; or, 6) a question for clarification or information. Although non-significant issues are not 

used to formulate alternatives or prescribe mitigation measures, the EIS will disclose all significant 

environmental effects including any related to non-significant issues. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 

1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which 

have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues and 

reasons why they were found non-significant may be found in the project record. 

As described above, issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. The IDT used the following 

significant issue statements to formulate and compare alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or 

analyze and compare the environmental effects of each alternative. The significant issue statements 

identify elements (individual or groups of significant issue topics) along with a cause and effect based 

on public comments. Based on public comment, the IDT identified the significant issues shown in 

Table 1.08-1. 

10 
 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 1 

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action 

Table 1.08-1 Significant Issue Statements 

Issue/Element Cause and Effect 

Significant Issue Statement 1: Changes to NFTS routes that reduce motorized opportunities, increase restrictions on vehicle 

class and season of use, and prohibit cross-country travel, may affect forest visitors. 

1.1 Motorized 

Opportunities5 

a. Changing the vehicle class and season of use may affect available camping opportunities. 

b. Route designations may not provide adequate motorized opportunities. 

c. Route designations may not provide adequate distinction between vehicle classes. 

d. Route designations may not provide adequate opportunities for motorized special use events. 

e. Vehicle class, season of use and cross-county travel restrictions may limit motorized access for big 

game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

Significant Issue Statement 2: Changes to NFTS routes that increase motorized opportunities, reduce restrictions on vehicle 

class and season of use, and allow cross-country travel, may affect forest resources, private property and forest visitors. 

2.1 Administration a. Increasing motorized use may result in increased non-compliance, unsafe conditions near private 

residences and unsafe encounters between forest visitors. 

b. Current and future budgets may not provide adequate funding for maintenance, administration and 

enforcement of the proposed road and motorized trail system. 

c. Route designations may cause environmental impacts requiring more maintenance. 

d. Allowing mixed use on system routes may result in unsafe recreation opportunities. 

2.2 Private Property a. Allowing motorized use near private property may result in noise, dust, trespass and other conflicts 

with private property owners. 

b. Some private property owners are unwilling to grant public right of way, thereby limiting motorized 

route opportunities. 

2.3 Recreation a. Increasing motorized use may result in noise disturbance affecting quiet recreation opportunities. 

b. Increasing motorized use may result in user conflicts between forest visitors. 

2.4 Resources6 a. Increasing motorized use may increase fire risk and the spread of noxious weeds. 

b. Increasing motorized use may affect heritage resources, recreation, sensitive plants, soils, 

vegetation, watershed and wildlife. 

c. Allowing motorized access for big game retrieval and dispersed camping may affect forest 

resources. 

d. Authorizing travel corridors allowing cross-country travel within 100’ of roads and motorized trails, or 

allowing parking greater than one car length from the road may affect forest resources. 

e. Increasing motorized use may result in undesirable road densities. 

f. Proposed seasonal closures may not adequately protect natural resources 

g. Motorized use may not be compatible with Roadless Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness and 

Yosemite National Park. 

1.09 GIS DATA
 

The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing 

accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being 

created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those intended may yield 

inaccurate or misleading results. 

The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without 

notification. The information contained within Chapter 2 (The Alternatives) of this EIS takes 

precedence in case of disagreement with the GIS data (including maps created using that data). 

5 This element groups significant issues from the Routes, Special Uses and Travel Corridor topics. 

6 This element groups significant issues from the Resources, Routes, Special Areas, and Travel Corridor topics. 

11 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus 

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest
 

12 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

2. The Alternatives 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives under consideration for the Stanislaus National 

Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It describes both 

alternatives considered in detail and those considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

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

developed other action alternatives that achieve the purpose and need differently than the proposed 

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

action, no action and the other action alternatives are described in detail. 

The chapter is divided into five parts: 

- Part 1 describes how the alternatives were developed. 

- Part 2 presents the alternatives considered in detail. 

- Part 3 describes the mitigation measures that are common to all action alternatives. 

- Part 4 presents the alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, 

including the rationale for eliminating them. 

- Part 5 compares the alternatives based on their environmental, social and economic 

consequences including a comparative display of the projected effects of the alternatives. 

Implementation Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions and 

the accuracy of analysis assumptions and conclusions. Monitoring of road and motorized trail 

conditions is required, and must meet regional and/or national standards. If monitoring determines 

additional resource damage is occurring, steps to prevent further damage may be taken. If the 

mitigations are not effective or are not possible, additional road or motorized trail closures may be 

required. Such closures may require additional NEPA analysis. The Forest Service will conduct 

implementation monitoring based on the Forest Plan7

 (see Table 2.01-1) and the Motorized 

Recreation Programmatic Agreement8

 (USDA 2006a). 

Table 2.01-1 Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation 

Indicator Standard Monitoring Method Monitoring 

Personnel 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Conflicts with Private 

Property, other 

Motorized Users or 

Non-Motorized Users 

No more than one conflict presenting 

immediate threat to life or property per 

National Forest System Watershed. 

No conflicts in non-motorized areas 

Field observations and photos 

during patrols. Reports from 

property owners, motorized 

users and non-motorized users 

OHV Patrols Annual 

Designated Route 

Miles 

No more than +/- 20% total miles 

difference between designated route 

goals and achievements 

20% annual sample of the 

motorized portions of the Forest 

OHV Patrols 5 years 

Trail Condition Rating No more than 20% of the total trail 

miles per National Forest System 

Watershed rated as Needs Major 

Attention 

Annual sample of motorized 

routes in selected watersheds 

Trail Condition 

Rating Teams 

Annual 

7 Stanislaus National Forest Motor Vehicle Travel Management (MVTM) Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice and Forest Plan 

Amendment (USDA 1998). 

8 The Motorized Recreation PA (project record) mandates monitoring “at-risk” properties within the APE over a two-year period after 

designation. If monitoring demonstrates that mitigation measures initially prescribed prove ineffective, other protection measures in the 

PA will be used as appropriate or the SHPO will be consulted to identify other resource protection or management needs. 

13 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

2.01 HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED
 

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

identified through scoping and described in the purpose and need (Chapter 1). The IDT used those 

issues to develop each of the action alternatives as shown in Table 2.05-1. 

The planning area includes National Forest System lands, on the Stanislaus National Forest, outside 

of Wilderness. It does not include any private, state or other federal lands. Each alternative assumes 

that other adjacent federal lands, such as those administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 

Yosemite National Park will be managed according to existing management plans and applicable 

federal laws. Each alternative also assumes that private lands will meet applicable state and federal 

land use regulations. 

The alternatives are described in four parts: 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: All of the action alternatives prohibit cross-country travel. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: The alternatives vary in the numbers of unauthorized roads and 

motorized trails (routes) proposed for addition to the NFTS as motorized trails with each 

identified by a trail number. Resource specialists conducted their site specific review of each 

proposed route. Appendix H (Resource Analysis Summary) presents a summary of the resource 

analysis with additional details in the Route Analysis Database Summary Report (project record). 

All proposed additions will receive the appropriate level of routine maintenance such as brushing, 

signing, cleaning and clearing debris. For some routes, no work beyond routine maintenance is 

needed. For others, additional mitigation is needed to bring the route up to a safe and 

environmentally sustainable condition. The specific mitigations must be completed prior to 

designation of the route for public motorized use. All proposed route additions have assigned trail 

management objectives. Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use 

and mitigations for all proposed route additions. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: The alternatives vary in changes to the existing National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) in terms of vehicle class, season of use and wheeled over snow 

routes. Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use and mitigations 

for all proposed changes to the existing NFTS. 

4.	 Forest Plan Amendments: Some of the alternatives include Forest Plan Amendments. 

Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public 

During the 60-day public scoping process and 75-day public comment period on the DEIS, many 

different groups and individuals submitted alternatives for consideration. The Forest Service reviewed 

and considered each proposal. The alternatives considered in detail incorporate portions of those 

proposals. The alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study address the remaining 

portions of those proposals. Also important in this process, the Forest Service gathered information in 

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

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

Refining Alternatives between Draft and Final EIS 

The ID team refined the alternatives between release of the DEIS and this EIS making minor changes 

to the routes and associated mitigations based on better information. These refinements apply to all of 

the action alternatives accounting for the differences in route mileages between the DEIS and EIS. 

Table 2.01-2 shows refinements for additions to the NFTS. Table 2.01-3 shows refinements for 

changes to the existing NFTS. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Table 2.01-2 Additions to the NFTS: Refinements between Draft and Final EIS 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad EIS Change 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name What Why 

15EV38 MW 0.60 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4754 Columbia SE change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

15EV43G MW 0.51 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4753 Columbia change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

15EV46 MW 0.28 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4754 Columbia SE change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

15EV47A MW 0.12 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4754 Columbia SE change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

15EV48 MW 0.64 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4754 Columbia SE change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

15EV54 MW 0.18 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4754 Columbia SE change SS from 4 to 3; add 

hardened drain dips > 15% 

grade 200' and drain dips 

remainder 

SOIL 

16E182A MW 0.19 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt change SS from 4 to 3; add 

rock barriers 40' to block 

access beyond the corral 

WAT 

16EV137 MW 0.45 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

16EV248 MW 0.93 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte change SS from 4 to 3; add 

tread harden 2 sections 1850' 

MP 0.2-0.25 and 0.4-0.7 

(same as REC) 

SOIL 

16EV257 MW 1.46 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte change from 1.37 to 1.46 mi correction 

16EV305 MW 0.54 INV UNT MC NAT PER PER PER 4742 Crandall Peak drop all PER correction 

16EV79 MW 0.85 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak change SS from 1 to 4 WLF 

17EV11 MW 0.40 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek change from 0.48 to 0.40 mi correction 

17EV11 MW 0.91 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek change SS from 4 to 2 SOIL 

17EV121 MW 0.50 INV UNT MC NAT PER PER 4742 Crandall Peak drop all PER correction 

17EV122B MW 0.05 INV UNT MC NAT PER PER 4742 Crandall Peak drop all PER correction 

17EV122B MW 0.29 INV UNT MC NAT PER PER 4742 Crandall Peak drop all PER correction 

17EV182 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak change to from 1.65 to 0.02 

mi; change SS from 3 to 2; 

drop annual maintenance 

correction 

17EV183 GR 0.64 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

17EV184 GR 0.60 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4391 Buckhorn Peak change SS from 3 to 2; drop 

annual maintenance 

REC 

17EV205 MW 0.25 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte change SS from 4 to 3; add 

annual maintenance 

SOIL 

17EV220 MW 0.33 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4743 Twain Harte delete existing 

NFTS 

17EV220B MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4743 Twain Harte delete existing 

NFTS 

17EV231 MW 0.32 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte change SS from 4 to 2 SOIL 

17EV233 MW 0.13 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4742 Crandall Peak add tread harden stream 

approaches 100' each side of 

drainage 

correction 

17EV233 MW 0.25 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4742 Crandall Peak drop tread harden stream 

approaches 100' each side of 

drainage 

correction 

17EV261 MW 0.18 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4744 Hull Creek delete existing 

NFTS 

17EV317 GR 0.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge change SS from 4 to 2 GEO 

17EV321 GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge change to from All to ATV; 

change SS from 4 to 2 

correction; 

GEO 

17EV327 GR 0.17 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge change from 0.30 to 0.17 mi correction 

17EV331 GR 0.11 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge change from All to ATV correction 

17EV332 GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge change from All to ATV correction 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad EIS Change 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name What Why 

18EV133 MW 0.35 INV UNT ALL NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek change from All to ATV; 

change SS from 4 to 3; add 

hardened drain dips >15% 

grade 200' and drain dips 

remainder 

SOIL 

18EV258 MW 0.57 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek change SS from 4 to 3; drop 

SHPO consultation; add low 

impact barriers 360' each side 

MP 0.0-0.05 (3N56Y to 

3N56YA) 

CR 

18EV304 MW 0.19 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek change from All to ATV correction 

18EV308 MW 0.12 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek change SS from 4 to 3; drop 

SHPO consultation; add low 

impact barriers 30' south side 

MP 0.04, block just before 

creek 

CR 

18EV309 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek change from 0.12 to 0.04 mi correction 

18EV310 MW 0.56 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest add rock barriers 30' MP 0.30 

to block access 

REC 

18EV315 MW 0.36 INV UNT ALL NAT 4741 Strawberry delete DEC 

1S1930 GR 1.69 MAP UNT ALL NAT ATV ATV ATV 4563 Ascension Mt change from All to ATV; 

change SS from 4 to 3; add 

hardened drain dips >15% 

grade 600' and drain dips 

remainder 

SOIL 

20EV100 CAL 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass change SS from 2 to 3; add 

rock barriers 30' MP 0.08 to 

block access 

REC 

61618A CAL 0.04 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4924 Dorrington delete no access 

FR8165 GR 0.05 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt change SS from 4 to 2; drop 

SHPO consultation 

CR 

FR8986 GR 0.32 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S change from 0.51 to 0.32 mi correction 

FR9090 CAL 0.11 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack change from 0.17 to 0.11 mi correction 

FR9501 CAL 0.09 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack drop low impact barriers 300' 

north side 

correction 

FR98486 GR 0.21 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak change SS from 4 to 2 GEO 

FR98488 GR 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4391 Buckhorn Peak delete nonmotorized 

FR98491 GR 0.19 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge change SS from 4 to 2 GEO 

FR98495 GR 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4563 Ascension Mt delete does not 

exist 

FR98549 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge change from 0.39 to 0.04 mi correction 

FR98563 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt change from 0.86 to 0.086 mi correction 

FR98587 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S change SS from 4 to 2 GEO 

FR98591 GR 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4744 Hull Creek delete DEC 

FR98616 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak drop evaluate 51-646 against 

NRHP criteria 

correction 

FS08490 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4574 Jawbone Ridge delete DEC 

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; CAL=Calaveras; DEC=Decommissioned; GEO=Geology; 

GIS=Geographic Information System; GR=Groveland; INV=Inventory; MC=Motorcycle; MI=Miles; MW=Mi-Wok; NAT=Native; 

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places; PER=Permit Only; RD=Ranger District; REC=Recreation; SOIL=Soil Resource; SS=Site 

Specific Review (1-4); SRC=Source; SUR=Surface; SYS=System (National Forest Transportation System); UNR=Unauthorized Road; 

UNT=Unauthorized Trail; WAT=Water Resources; WLF=Wildlife 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Table 2.01-3 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Refinements between Draft and Final EIS 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad EIS Change 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name What Why 

01N01 MW 8.47 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4572 Tuolumne drop mixed use sign correction 

01N03 MW 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4572 Tuolumne drop changes no access 

01N15Y GR 0.53 GIS ML1 AGG 4562 Cherry Lake S drop changes correction 

01N16 MW 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4571 Duckwall Mt drop changes no access 

01N32Y GR 0.91 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt change from 1.03 to 0.91 

mi; add rock barriers 30' 

MP 0.91 

REC 

01N86 GR 1.19 GIS ML1 NAT 4562 Cherry Lake S drop changes correction 

01S01 GR 2.95 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge drop changes to ADM correction 

01S03 GR 0.01 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt change from combined 

use to mixed use sign 

correction 

01S03 GR 0.68 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt change from combined 

use to mixed use sign 

correction 

01S03 GR 0.91 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4563 Ascension Mt change from combined 

use to mixed use sign 

correction 

01S03 GR 2.33 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt change from combined 

use to mixed use sign 

correction 

01S23E GR 0.16 GIS ML1 NAT 4574 Jawbone Ridge drop changes correction 

01S26A GR 0.10 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt change from 0.20 to 0.10 

mi; add gate at MP 0.10 

correction 

01S28B GR 0.59 GIS ML1 NAT 4574 Jawbone Ridge drop changes correction 

01S45Y GR 0.04 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge add mixed use sign correction 

01S73Y GR 2.12 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge add mixed use sign correction 

02S07 GR 2.88 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge add mixed use sign correction 

02S20C GR 0.37 GIS ML1 NAT 4381 El Portal drop changes CR 

02S41 GR 1.60 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge add mixed use sign correction 

02S68 GR 1.81 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL 4563 Ascension Mt add mixed use sign correction 

03N11D MW 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4754 Columbia SE drop changes no access 

03N26YB MW 0.14 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek add mixed use sign correction 

03N26YB MW 0.15 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL t-ATV 4744 Hull Creek add mixed use sign correction 

03N34Y MW 3.21 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N drop mixed use sign correction 

03N59A MW 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4741 Strawberry delete DEC 

04N05B MW 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4751 Stanislaus drop changes no access 

04N33 MW 0.42 GIS HLO ALL NAT ALL 4744 Hull Creek drop mixed use sign correction 

04N91 SU 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry change from 0.50 to 0.59 

mi 

correction 

05N01 SU 2.30 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4904 Dardanelle change from 2.54 to 2.30 

mi 

correction 

05N14 CAL 0.02 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill add mixed use sign correction 

05N14 CAL 0.34 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill add mixed use sign correction 

05N14 CAL 0.53 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing add mixed use sign correction 

05N14 CAL 0.55 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing add mixed use sign correction 

05N14 CAL 0.71 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill add mixed use sign correction 

05N14 CAL 1.12 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill add mixed use sign correction 

05N14 CAL 3.25 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing add mixed use sign correction 

06N44 CAL 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4923 Fort Mt drop changes no access 

06N82Y SU 0.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle change alt 1 from t-4WD 

to HLO 

correction 

07N02Y CAL 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT 4922 Devils Nose drop changes no access 

07N05 CAL 0.53 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome change from combined 

use to mixed use sign 

correction 

07N17 CAL 2.79 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack drop from WOS routes correction 

08N02 CAL 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT 5063 Pacific Valley drop from WOS routes correction 

08N02 CAL 1.54 GIS ALL ALL NAT 5063 Pacific Valley drop from WOS routes correction 

08N12 CAL 0.56 GIS HLO HLO IMP 5063 Pacific Valley drop from WOS routes correction 

61931B04 SU 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake change alts 1 and 5 from 

t-4WD to HLO 

correction 

62127C SU 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass change from 0.14 to 0.06 

mi; add rock barriers 30' 

MP 0.06 

REC 

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; AGG=Aggregate; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; CAL=Calaveras; DEC=Decommissioned; GIS=Geographic 

Information System; GR=Groveland; HLO=Highway Legal Only; IMP=Improved; MI=Miles; ML1=Maintenance Level 1; MW=Mi-Wok; NAT=Native; 

RD=Ranger District; REC=Recreation; SOIL=Soil Resource; SS=Site Specific Review (1-4); SRC=Source; SU=Summit; SUR=Surface; 

SYS=System; t-ALL=NFTS road converted to All Vehicles trail; t-4WD=NFTS road converted to 4WD trail; UNR=Unauthorized Road; 

UNT=Unauthorized Trail; WAT=Water Resources; WOS=Wheeled Over Snow 

17 
 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

2.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
 

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5) and the no action alternative (Alternative 2) are 

considered in detail. The no action alternative represents the continuation of cross-country travel 

including continued use of all unauthorized routes by motor vehicles. Alternative 2, required by the 

implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), serves as a baseline for 

comparison among the alternatives (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). 

The following sections describe each of the alternatives considered in detail (see Map Package and 

project record for detailed maps of each alternative). 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (72 Federal Register 222, November 

19, 2007; p. 64988-64991), with corrections based on updated data and map information and 

refinements responding to the administration, motorized recreation, private property, recreation and 

resource issues raised during scoping (Chapter 1). These corrections and refinements provide 

additional motorized recreation opportunities, reduce conflicts and provide additional resource 

protection. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is the Forest Service preferred alternative. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is the Forest Service preferred alternative. 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length9 

off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: 151.64 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails (see Table 2.05-2). Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, 

season of use and mitigations. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: Vehicle class changes would occur on 616.80 miles of NFTS 

roads. Season of use on all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface 

routes replaces existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). Appendix I (Route 

Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use and mitigations. 

Vehicle Class 

Table 2.02-1 shows vehicle class changes would occur on 616.80 miles of NFTS roads including: 

opening 67.37 miles of closed roads; closing to public use 45.98 miles of open roads; converting 

93.36 miles of roads from highway legal only to all vehicles; and, converting 400.56 miles of 

roads from all vehicles to highway legal only. This alternative also converts 62.17 miles of the 

616.80 miles of NFTS roads to motorized trails (the mileage overlaps with the other changes 

described above and shown in Table 2.02-1 and Table 2.05-5). 

Table 2.02-1 Vehicle Class Changes: Alternative 1 

↓ From ↓ ← Vehicle Class Changes To →

Class miles ADM ALL ML1 HLO t-ALL t-ATV t-MC t-4WD 

ALL 453.42 27.37 0.00 15.94 400.56 0.30 0.00 1.98 7.26 

ML1 67.37 0.00 12.57 0.00 2.17 26.06 1.94 1.58 23.05 

HLO 96.02 2.66 93.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 616.80 30.03 105.92 15.94 402.73 26.36 1.94 3.56 30.31 

ADM=Administrative; ALL=All Vehicles; ML1=Maintenance Level 1; HLO=Highway Legal 

Only; t-ALL=All Vehicles trail; t-ATV=All Terrain Vehicle trail; t-MC=Motorcycle trail; 

t-4WD=4 Wheel Drive trail; ADM and ML1 are closed to public motorized use 

9 Vehicle Length equals the length of the vehicle along with the trailer it tows. 

18 
 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Season of Use 

Except as allowed by permit or other authorization (i.e. wheeled over snow routes), NFTS 

motorized routes are open to motorized use during the season of use shown below, unless 

specifically prohibited (see Figure 2.05-1). Roads open year round are not maintained for winter 

travel; however, they are available for over snow travel consistent with the vehicle class 

designation. 

1. Lower Elevations Open year round 

2. Middle Elevations Open April 1 – November 30 

3. Upper Elevations Open May 15 – November 30 

Wet Weather Closures: During the season of use, native surface routes are subject to wet 

weather closure when 1 inch of rainfall occurs in a 24 hour period and allowing for 72 hours of 

drying. 

Table 2.02-2 Wheeled Over Snow Routes 

Route District Miles1 

03N01 Mi-Wok 24.99 

03N01 Groveland 20.60 

04N12 Summit 19.37 

04N34Y Summit 0.02 

05N17 Summit 1.01 

05N40Y Summit 3.87 

07N05 Calaveras 4.62 

07N09 Calaveras 25.05 

07N23 Calaveras 5.98 

18EV306 Summit 0.41

 total 105.92 1 National Forest System lands. Note: other roads open year 

round are available for over snow travel by 4WD and other 

vehicles consistent with the vehicle class designation.
 

Wheeled Over Snow (WOS) Routes: wheeled over snow use is prohibited, except by ATVs 

when 12 inches or more of snow is present, on the routes listed in Table 2.02-2 (see Figure 2.05­

1). These routes are dual designated as Snow Trails. 

4. Forest Plan Amendments: includes the amendments shown in Tables 2.02-3, 2.02-4, and 2.02­

5. 

Table 2.02-3 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 1 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment 

Forestwide S&Gs 

Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Management [10-G-2, C1i2] 

(USDA 2005a, p. 55-56) 

Permit motor vehicle travel up to 100 feet 

from roads, routes and established travel 

ways for direct access to campsites, 

parking, woodcutting, or gathering forest 

products provided that: 

a. no resource damage occurs; and, 

b. such access is not otherwise 

prohibited. 

Prohibit public motor vehicle travel off NFTS 

routes except as allowed by permit or other 

authorization. Allow parking within one vehicle 

length (vehicle and trailer) off of NFTS routes 

unless otherwise prohibited. 

19 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest 

Table 2.02-4 Western Pond Turtle Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 1 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment Route Miles 

Forestwide S&Gs 

Restricted Motor Vehicle In areas adjacent to waters with In areas adjacent to waters with 17EV192 0.63 

Management [10-G-2, B3a4c1] known populations of western known populations of western 17EV192A 0.06 

(USDA 2005a, p. 52) pond turtle: Construct new roads pond turtle: Construct new roads 17EV192B 0.15 

or trails or use existing off-road or trails or use existing off-road 17EV194 0.39 

routes for motorized vehicles only routes for motorized vehicles only 17EV195 0.50 

if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied 17EV196 0.19 

habitat or where approved by a habitat or where approved by a 17EV197 0.35 

Wildlife Biologist. Wildlife Biologist except for the 17EV197 0.46 

routes identified in this table. 17EV197A 0.05 

17EV901 0.37 

1S1727 0.87 

1S17E35B 0.34 

1S17M 1.13 

1S1902 0.24 

1S1929 0.15 

1S1929C 0.19 

FR8516 0.05 

FR8601 0.47 

FR10178 0.64 

FR98482 0.06 

FR98486 0.21 

FR98504 0.07 

FR98508 0.06 

FR98509 0.03 

FR98510 0.04 

FR98511 0.15 

FR98513 0.03 

FR98514 0.04 

FR98515 0.09 

FR98520 0.03 

FR98537 0.09 

FR98539 0.10 

FR98541 0.07 

FR98548 0.04 

FR98554 0.04 

FR98560 0.06 

FR98566 0.05 

FR98575 0.13 

FR98599 0.04 

total 8.66 

Table 2.02-5 Non-Motorized Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 1 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment Route Miles 

Forestwide S&Gs 

ROS Semi-primitive Non- Motorized use is normally Motorized use is normally 4N80Y 0.20 

motorized [10-B-2] (USDA 2005a, prohibited. prohibited, except for the routes 5N02R 1.50 

p. 51) 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management [10-G-1a] (USDA 

2005a, p. 51) 

Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Management [10-G-2, C1a] 

(USDA 2005a, p. 55) 

Wild and Scenic River 

ROS Semi-primitive Nonmotorized [10-B-2] (USDA 2005a, 

p. 105) 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management [10-G-1] (USDA 

2005a, p. 105) 

Closed to motorized use. 

Prohibit motorized use and close 

motorized routes in nonmotorized areas. 

Manage to the ROS Class of 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management. 

identified in this table. 

Closed to motorized use except 

for the routes identified in this 

table. 

Prohibit motorized use and close 

motorized routes in nonmotorized areas, except for the 

routes identified in this table. 

Manage to the ROS Class of 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized, 

except for the routes identified in 

this table. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management, except for the 

routes identified in this table. 

total 1.70 

20 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under the No 

Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project 

area. This alternative would not change the use of any NFTS roads and would not add any miles of 

NFTS motorized trails. Under this alternative the agency would take no affirmative action (no change 

from current management or direction) and cross country travel with continued use of unauthorized 

routes would occur. It would include only existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02­

7) and would not include any restrictions on motorized dispersed recreation access. No changes 

would be made to the current NFTS and no cross country travel prohibition would be put into place. 

The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no MVUM would be produced. Motor 

vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to NFTS routes. Unauthorized routes would 

continue to have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities. 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would continue 

except where prohibited by existing Forest Orders. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: No changes are made to the NFTS (see Table 2.02-6) or existing 

seasonal closures and restrictions based on current Forest Orders (see Table 2.02-7). 

4.	 Forest Plan Amendments: none. 

Table 2.02-6 Existing Public Motorized Opportunities 

Motorized Opportunity1 

Miles Type Vehicle Class 

NFTS Road All Vehicles (ALL) 1,744.29 

NFTS Road Highway Legal Only (HLO) 449.14 

NFTS Trail All Vehicles (ALL) 56.32 

NFTS Trail All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 19.18 

NFTS Trail Motorcycle (MC) 9.45 

NFTS Trail 4 Wheel Drive (4WD) 0.56 

subtotal 2,278.94 

Unauthorized Unauthorized Road/Trail 246.12 

total 2,525.06 1

 Baseline 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Alternative 3 responds to the administration and resource issues by prohibiting cross country travel 

without adding any new facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a baseline for 

comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS in the form of new 

facilities (roads and motorized trails). None of the currently unauthorized routes would be added to 

the NFTS under this alternative. Alternative 3 would not change the use of the NFTS and would not 

add any miles to the NFTS. Under this alternative the agency will prohibit cross country travel 

eliminating continued use of unauthorized routes. It would include seasonal closures on NFTS routes 

with existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7) and prohibit motorized access 

beyond existing NFTS routes. 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length10 

off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: No changes are made to the NFTS (see Table 2.02-6) or existing 

seasonal closures and restrictions based on current Forest Orders (see Table 2.02-7). 

4.	 Forest Plan Amendments: none. 

10 Vehicle Length equals the length of the vehicle along with the trailer it tows. 

21 
 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

Table 2.02-7 Existing NFTS Seasonal Closures and Restrictions 

Route RD MI Order Closure Closure/Restriction 

1N14 GR 5.50 82-22 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

1N14A GR 1.50 82-22 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

1N45Y GR 2.50 82-22 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

1N97 GR 4.00 82-22 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

1S16A GR 0.20 82-13 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

2N24 GR 0.10 82-08 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

2S13 GR 0.10 82-08 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

2S32 GR 3.00 82-08 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

3N08 MW 4.00 80-07 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

3N09 MW 0.05 80-07 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

3N56Y MW 0.75 80-07 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

3N86 MW 0.50 80-07 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

4N12M SU 0.20 81-17 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

4N50Y MW 3.00 80-07 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

4N70 SU 1.00 84-14 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

4N85 SU 3.00 84-14 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

4N88 SU 3.50 84-14 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N01Y SU 8.80 77-05 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N01YA SU 0.50 77-05 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N02Y SU 5.00 77-05 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N03Y SU 2.40 77-05 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N03YA SU 0.70 77-05 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N06 SU 2.80 80-10 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N06Y SU 0.50 81-17 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N10Y SU 0.20 81-17 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N59Y SU 0.50 81-17 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

5N92C SU 1.25 82-30 Year round Use by any motorized vehicle or other mechanical transport 

Cedar Ridge MW NA 92-08 NA OHVs must stay on designated OHV routes 

GR=Groveland; MI=Miles; MW=Mi-Wok; OHV=Off-Highway Vehicle; RD=Ranger District; SU=Summit 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Alternative 4 responds to the motorized recreation opportunities issue by providing additional routes 

and reducing restrictions. This alternative would maximize motorized recreation opportunities 

(including those accessing dispersed recreation activities thereby partially replacing the need for 

travel corridors). 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length11 

off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: 175.97 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails (see Table 2.05-2). Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, 

season of use and mitigations. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: Vehicle class changes would occur on 367.94 miles of NFTS 

roads. Season of use on native surface routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on 

native surface routes replace existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). All 

surfaced routes, except wheeled over snow routes (see Table 2.02-2), are open year round. 

Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use and mitigations. 

11 Vehicle Length equals the length of the vehicle along with the trailer it tows. 

22 
 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Vehicle Class 

Table 2.02-8 shows vehicle class changes would occur on 367.94 miles of NFTS roads including: 

opening 101.24 miles of closed roads; closing to public use 10.66 miles of open roads; converting 

99.52 miles of roads from highway legal only to all vehicles; and, converting 145.69 miles of 

roads from all vehicles to highway legal only. This alternative also converts 99.28 miles of the 

367.94 miles of NFTS roads to motorized trails (the mileage overlaps with the other changes 

described above and shown in Table 2.02-8 and Table 2.05-5). 

Table 2.02-8 Vehicle Class Changes: Alternative 4 

↓ From ↓ ← Vehicle Class Changes To →

Class miles ADM ALL ML1 HLO t-ALL t-ATV t-MC t-4WD 

ALL 164.52 5.18 0.00 2.81 145.69 2.21 0.00 1.98 6.65 

ML1 101.24 0.00 12.08 0.00 0.73 74.01 2.09 2.34 10.00 

HLO 102.19 2.66 99.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 367.94 7.85 111.60 2.81 146.41 76.22 2.09 4.32 16.65 

ADM=Administrative; ALL=All Vehicles; ML1=Maintenance Level 1; HLO=Highway Legal 

Only; t-ALL=All Vehicles trail; t-ATV=All Terrain Vehicle trail; t-MC=Motorcycle trail; 

t-4WD=4 Wheel Drive trail; ADM and ML1 are closed to public motorized use 

Season of Use 

Except as allowed by permit or other authorization (i.e. wheeled over snow routes), NFTS 

motorized routes are open to motorized use during the season of use shown below, unless 

specifically prohibited (see Figure 2.05-1). Roads open year round are not maintained for winter 

travel; however, they are available for over snow travel consistent with the vehicle class 

designation. 

1. Lower Elevations Open year round 

2. Middle Elevations Open April 1 – December 31 

3. Upper Elevations Open April 1 – December 31 

Wet Weather Closures: During the season of use, native surface routes are subject to wet 

weather closure when 1 inch of rainfall occurs in a 24 hour period and allowing for 72 hours of 

drying. 

Wheeled Over Snow (WOS) Routes: wheeled over snow use is prohibited, except by ATVs 

when 12 inches or more of snow is present, on the routes listed in Table 2.02-2 (see Figure 2.05­

1). These routes are dual designated as Snow Trails. 

4. Forest Plan Amendments: includes the amendments shown in Tables 2.02-9, 2.02-10 and 2.02­

11. 

Table 2.02-9 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 4 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment 

Forestwide S&Gs 

Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Management [10-G-2, C1i2] 

(USDA 2005a, p. 55-56) 

Permit motor vehicle travel up to 100 feet 

from roads, routes and established travel 

ways for direct access to campsites, 

parking, woodcutting, or gathering forest 

products provided that: 

a. no resource damage occurs; and, 

b. such access is not otherwise 

prohibited. 

Prohibit public motor vehicle travel off NFTS 

routes except as allowed by permit or other 

authorization. Allow parking within one vehicle 

length (vehicle and trailer) off of NFTS routes 

unless otherwise prohibited. 

23 
 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest 

Table 2.02-10 Western Pond Turtle Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 4 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment Route Miles 

Forestwide S&Gs 

Restricted Motor Vehicle In areas adjacent to waters with In areas adjacent to waters with 17EV192 0.63 

Management [10-G-2, B3a4c1] known populations of western known populations of western 17EV192A 0.06 

(USDA 2005a, p. 52) pond turtle: Construct new roads pond turtle: Construct new roads 17EV192B 0.15 

or trails or use existing off-road or trails or use existing off-road 17EV194 0.39 

routes for motorized vehicles only routes for motorized vehicles only 17EV195 0.50 

if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied 17EV196 0.19 

habitat or where approved by a 

Wildlife Biologist. 

habitat or where approved by a 

Wildlife Biologist except for the 

routes identified in this table. 

17EV197 

17EV197 

17EV197A 

0.35 

0.46 

0.05 

17EV901 0.37 

1S1727 0.87 

1S17E35B 0.34 

1S17M 1.13 

1S1902 0.24 

1S1907A 0.39 

1S1929 0.15 

1S1929C 0.19 

FR8516 0.05 

FR8601 0.47 

FR10178 0.64 

FR98482 0.06 

FR98486 0.21 

FR98504 0.07 

FR98508 0.06 

FR98509 0.03 

FR98510 0.04 

FR98511 0.15 

FR98513 0.03 

FR98514 0.04 

FR98515 0.09 

FR98520 0.03 

FR98537 0.09 

FR98539 0.10 

FR98541 0.07 

FR98548 0.04 

FR98554 0.04 

FR98560 0.06 

FR98566 0.05 

FR98575 0.13 

FR98599 0.04 

total 9.05 

24 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Table 2.02-11 Non-Motorized Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 4 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment Route Miles 

Forestwide S&G 

ROS Semi-primitive Non- Motorized use is normally Motorized use is normally 4N80Y 0.20 

motorized [10-B-2] (USDA 2005a, prohibited. prohibited, except for the routes 5N02R 1.50 

p. 51) identified in this table. 1N09 3.50 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management [10-G-1a] (USDA 

2005a, p. 51) 

Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Management [10-G-2, C1a] 

(USDA 2005a, p. 55) 

Wild and Scenic River 

ROS Semi-primitive Nonmotorized [10-B-2] (USDA 2005a, 

p. 105) 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management [10-G-1] (USDA 

2005a, p. 105) 

Near Natural 

ROS Semi-primitive Nonmotorized [10-B-2] (USDA 2005a, 

p. 110) 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management [10-G-1] (USDA 

2005a, p. 110) 

Closed to motorized use. 

Prohibit motorized use and close 

motorized routes in nonmotorized areas. 

Manage to the ROS Class of 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management. 

Manage to ROS Class of SPNM. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management. 

Closed to motorized use except 

for the routes identified in this 

table. 

Prohibit motorized use and close 

motorized routes in nonmotorized areas, except for the 

routes identified in this table. 

Manage to the ROS Class of 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized, 

except for the routes identified in 

this table. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management, except for the 

routes identified in this table. 

Manage to ROS Class of SPNM, 

except for the routes identified in 

this table. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for 

Closed Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management, except for the 

routes identified in this table. 

total 5.20 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Alternative 5 responds to the administration, private property, recreation and resource issues by 

limiting additions to the NFTS and increasing restrictions that would reduce conflicts and provide 

additional resource protection. This alternative would limit motorized recreation opportunities 

(including those accessing dispersed recreation activities) by providing greater protection for forest 

resources. 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off NFTS roads and NFTS motorized trails by the 

public would be prohibited except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed 

within one vehicle length12 off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: 28.37 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails (see Table 2.05-2). Appendix I (Route Data) shows the specified vehicle class, 

season of use and mitigations. 

3.	 Changes to the existing NFTS: Vehicle class changes would occur on 525.73 miles of NFTS 

roads. Season of use on all routes based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surface 

routes replace existing seasonal closures and restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). Appendix I (Route 

Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use and mitigations. 

Vehicle Class 

Table 2.02-12 shows vehicle class changes would occur on 525.73 miles of NFTS roads 

including: opening 11.66 miles of closed roads; closing to public use 59.03 miles of open roads; 

and, converting 440.93 miles of roads from all vehicles to highway legal only. This alternative 

also converts 21.45 miles of the 525.73 miles of NFTS roads to motorized trails (the mileage 

overlaps with the other changes described above and shown in Table 2.02-12 and Table 2.05-5). 

12 Vehicle Length equals the length of the vehicle along with the trailer it tows. 

25 
 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest 

Table 2.02-12 Vehicle Class Changes: Alternative 5 

↓ From ↓ ← Vehicle Class Changes To →

Class miles ADM ALL ML1 HLO t-ALL t-ATV t-MC t-4WD 

ALL 511.40 27.37 0.00 28.99 440.93 5.77 0.00 1.69 6.65 

ML1 11.66 0.00 2.88 0.00 1.44 5.52 1.82 0.00 0.00 

HLO 2.66 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 525.73 30.03 2.88 28.99 442.38 11.29 1.82 1.69 6.65 

ADM=Administrative; ALL=All Vehicles; ML1=Maintenance Level 1; HLO=Highway Legal 

Only; t-ALL=All Vehicles trail; t-ATV=All Terrain Vehicle trail; t-MC=Motorcycle trail; 

t-4WD=4 Wheel Drive trail; ADM and ML1 are closed to public motorized use 

Season of Use 

Except as allowed by permit or other authorization, NFTS motorized routes are open to motorized 

use during the season of use shown below, unless specifically prohibited (see Figure 2.05-1). 

Roads open year round are not maintained for winter travel; however, they are available for over 

snow travel consistent with the vehicle class designation. 

1. Lower Elevations Open year round 

2. Middle Elevations Open April 15 – November 15 

3. Upper Elevations Open May 15 – November 15 

Wet Weather Closures: During the season of use, native surface routes are subject to wet 

weather closure when 1 inch of rainfall occurs in a 24 hour period and allowing for 72 hours of 

drying. 

Wheeled Over Snow (WOS) Routes: none. 

4. Forest Plan Amendments: includes the amendment shown in Table 2.02-13. 

Table 2.02-13 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: Alternative 5 

Practice Existing S&G Amendment 

Forestwide S&Gs 

Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Management [10-G-2, C1i2] 

(USDA 2005a, p. 55-56) 

Permit motor vehicle travel up to 100 feet 

from roads, routes and established travel 

ways for direct access to campsites, 

parking, woodcutting, or gathering forest 

products provided that: 

a. no resource damage occurs; and, 

b. such access is not otherwise 

prohibited. 

Prohibit public motor vehicle travel off NFTS 

routes except as allowed by permit or other 

authorization. Allow parking within one vehicle 

length (vehicle and trailer) off of NFTS routes 

unless otherwise prohibited. 

2.03 MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS COMMON TO ALL 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Based on their site specific review of each proposed addition to the NFTS, resource specialists 

identified mitigation measures and other requirements to reduce some of the potential impacts caused 

by the various alternatives (Resource Analysis Database Summary Report, project record). Appendix 

I (Route Data) lists routes with mitigations and other requirements by alternative, while the specific 

mitigations and requirements are further defined in Appendix F (Maintenance and Mitigation 

Definitions). Specific mitigations (see Table 2.05-7) must be completed prior to designation of the 

route for public motorized use. 

26 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation activities may use one or more of the following hand tools or mechanized equipment 

depending on route location and accessibility: 

- Mechanized equipment: ATV, auger, chainsaw, compactor, pole saw, rock rake, tractor, 

trailer, etc. 

- Hand tools: hand saw, McLeod, pick, posthole digger, pruning shear, rake, shovel, etc. 

The following mitigation measures apply to certain routes within the action alternatives (see 

Appendix I, Route Data): 

1.	 Annual Maintenance13: maintenance and repair of a route annually due to less favorable soil 

type, steeper tread gradient, and/or higher trail use. 

2.	 Boardwalk: trail tread reinforcement structure resembling a low bridge and constructed over wet 

or otherwise unstable soil. 

3.	 Cattleguard: motorcycle/ATV cattleguard (width 60 inches or less) installed along existing 

fence line, causing minimal ground disturbance as structure requires leveling of surface only. 

4.	 Combined Use Signing: prepare plan and implement signing for identified portions of high 

standard (passenger car) roads for Combined Use by highway legal and non-highway legal 

vehicles. 

5.	 Drain Dips: Constructed erosion control technique which reverses the grade of a trail for a 

distance of 15-20 feet before returning to the prevailing grade. The change in grade forces water 

to run off the trail surface rather than gaining additional velocity and volume. Hardened drain 

dips include additional tread hardening (see Tread Harden). 

6.	 Fence Barrier: wood fence constructed using 4 to 6 inch vertical posts with horizontal rails 

bolted through posts, 30 inches above ground surface. Requires digging up to 8 inch wide by 24 

inch deep hole for installation of post. 

7.	 Full Bench: trail resting entirely on an excavation into a steep side slope, no fill is used to 

support the trail. 

8.	 Gate: standard heavy duty road closure gate constructed from welded metal pipes. Requires 

digging up to 8 inch wide by 24 inch deep hole for installation of posts. 

9.	 Log Barrier: logs placed in a shallow trench along a travel way restricting vehicle traffic to 

desired locations. 

10. Low Impact Barrier: low resource impact, vehicle barrier constructed by placing full-length 

railroad ties on top of 24 inch ties, held in place by driving rebar through ties into ground 

approximately 24 inches. Requires no digging of holes, but sometimes leveling of ground is 

required for placement. 

11. Mixed Use Signing: prepare plan and implement signing for identified portions of certain (high 

clearance) roads available for use by both highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles. 

12. No Vehicles Sign: small standard traffic signs posted alongside routes to control and direct 

traffic. 

13. Padding: fabric placed on native surface and covered with a layer of soil to protect sensitive 

resources. 

14. Rock Barrier: large rock boulders, usually 36 to 48 inch diameter, placed in shallow holes along 

a travel way to restrict vehicle traffic to desired locations. 

15. Tread Harden: tread or stream crossing treatment using concrete blocks, geosynthetics, logs, 

mechanical compaction, rock ballast, soil cement or timbers to protect the trail surface. 

16. Waterbars: constructed log, rock or soil berm that diverts water from the trail tread. 

13 “Annual Maintenance” is considered a mitigation measure in contrast to “Routine Maintenance” where maintenance and repair activities 

occur once every 3 to 5 years. 

27 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

Other Requirements 

The following requirements apply to certain routes within the action alternatives (see Appendix I, 

Route Data): 

1.	 RLF Surveys: conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of the California red-legged frog 

using the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol (must be completed prior to 

designation of the route for public motorized use). 

2.	 RLF USFWS Consultation: further Forest Service consultation with the USFWS to comply 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (must be completed prior to a decision including 

the idendified routes). 

3.	 SHPO Consultation: Forest Service consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (must be 

completed prior to a decision including the idendified routes). 

2.04 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

NEPA requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in 

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments and internal scoping suggested the alternatives briefly 

described below along with a brief response discussing the reasons for eliminating them from detailed 

study. 

a. Prohibit OHV (non-highway legal) use 

This alternative would prohibit all non-highway legal use and allow only highway legal vehicles 

on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Response: Prohibiting all non-highway legal vehicles does not meet the purpose and need for 

this project to provide a diversity of motorized recreation. Also, it is not consistent with 

California Vehicle Code or Forest Service policy. 

b. Add all unauthorized routes to the system 

This alternative would add all existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS. It would also include 

contingent motorized access based on acquiring right-of-way. 

Response: Adding all unauthorized routes to the system does not meet the purpose and need for 

this project to make limited changes to the existing NFTS and identify existing routes for addition 

to the NFTS. Also, it is not consistent with the Forest Plan direction for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management (USDA 2005a, p. 51-56). Not all unauthorized routes are properly located to 

sustain motorized use and protect resources. The Forest Service does not have the authority to add 

routes to the system without a public right of way and current policy does not provide for adding 

routes contingent on future right-of-way acquisition. 

c. Authorize open (cross-country travel allowed) OHV play areas 

This alternative (developed through internal scoping based on public comments) would include 

several motor vehicle open play areas. A mapping exercise identified the following 12 quarries as 

potential open play areas: 

- Mi-Wok Ranger District: Bourland, Clavey and Coffin quarries 

- Calaveras Ranger District: Candy Rock , Flat, Ganns and Shovel Grave quarries 

- Summit Ranger District: Donnell Quarry 

- Groveland Ranger District: Cherry Borrow; Grizzly, Jawbone and Sawmill quarries 

28 
Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Response: Open cross-country travel play areas are outside the scope of the purpose and need for 

this project to make limited changes to the existing NFTS and identifying existing routes for 

addition to the NFTS. Also, it is not consistent with Forest Plan direction prohibiting crosscountry overland OHV travel (USDA 2005a, p. 55). 

d. Trigger seasonal closure on and off throughout the wet season 

This alternative would close native surface roads when 1 inch of rain or more fell within a 24 

hour time period. The roads would remain closed for 48 hours and then re-open. This closure 

would only occur during the wet season, generally November through mid May on the Stanislaus 

National Forest. 

Response: Seasonal closures are used to reduce wildlife disturbance; reduce soil displacement 

and erosion during wet weather; and, provide for public safety by closing routes during wet 

winter weather conditions when general motorized travel is considered unsafe. This type of 

triggered closure does not address rain events outside of the wet season. It does not respond to 

wildlife or soil resource protection issues, and it does not provide for public safety. Alternatives 

1, 4 and 5 incorporate this concept to deal with rain events during the proposed season of use. 

e. No Seasonal Closures 

This alternative (developed through internal scoping based on public comments) would remove 

all existing closures and would not replace them. 

Response: Seasonal closures are used to reduce wildlife disturbance; reduce soil displacement 

and erosion during wet weather; and, provide for public safety by closing routes during wet 

winter weather conditions when general motorized travel is considered unsafe. Removal of all 

seasonal closures does not respond to those resource protection issues and safety concerns. 

f. New Route Construction 

This alternative (developed through internal scoping based on public comments) would identify 

and include new route construction to complete loops, connect trails and bypass private property 

where no public right of way exists. 

Response: New route construction is outside the scope of the purpose and need for this project to 

make limited changes to the existing NFTS and identifying existing routes for addition to the 

NFTS. New motorized trail construction is identified as a potential future project and discussed in 

the cumulative effects analysis in Alternatives 1 and 4. 

g. Non-Motorized 

This alternative would prohibit motorized use on the National Forest. 

Response: The prohibition of motorized use across the entire National Forest is outside the scope 

of the purpose and need for this project to provide a diversity of motorized recreation and make 

limited changes to the existing NFTS. Also, it is not consistent with Forest Service policy (FSM 

7702) which states in part: “The objectives of managing the forest transportation system and 

motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands are: 1. To provide 

sustainable access in a fiscally responsible manner to NFS lands for administration, protection, 

utilization, and enjoyment of NFS lands and resources consistent with the applicable land 

management plan. 2. To manage the forest transportation system and motorized and nonmotorized uses on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands within the environmental 

capabilities of the land.” 

29 
 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

h. Grandfather User-created Routes into the NFTS and Conditionally Add Routes Pending 

Further Analysis and Mitigation 

Suggested by the Blue Ribbon Coalition and other advocates of motorized recreation, this 

alternative would consider that many so-called “user-created” routes are actually Forest Service 

“facilities” since the agency expended appropriated funds to place them on previous or current 

maps or are/were maintained by federal agents. Hence, these facilities are by definition actually 

system routes and should not be analyzed as unauthorized or “user-created” routes. This 

alternative would also convert “roads-to-single track trails” or “roads-to-motorized trails less than 

50 inches in width” and “roads managed as motorized trails greater than 50 inches in width” to 

help achieve FS budget objectives while still providing a substantive recreational route network. 

It would also include a second tier group of routes that are “conditionally approved/designated” 

once certain issues are addressed. 

Response: Creating a second tier group of routes that are conditionally approved is outside the 

purpose and need for this project to make limited changes to the existing NFTS and identifying 

existing routes for addition to the NFTS. Also, it is against Forest Service policy to add routes to 

its transportation system that do not have legal access. Adding all unauthorized routes to the 

system is not feasible as many do not currently meet Forest Plan direction. Routes are considered 

in two categories: either they were authorized through an environmental evaluation process and 

added to the transportation system or they were created by recreational use. This latter group of 

routes is considered unauthorized. Even though many of these routes have been in existence for a 

number of years, they were not evaluated for suitability as motorized trails and were not added to 

the system. They cannot be “grandfathered” into the system. Alternative 4 incorporates many of 

the proposed additions and other components of this alternative. 

i. Add All Routes Receiving OHV Use 

Suggested by the Blue Ribbon Coalition and other advocates of motorized recreation, this 

alternative would designate, at a minimum, all of the system or facility roads and trails receiving 

current OHV use unless the individual route is causing a “considerable adverse affect.” It would 

designate the maximum number of important and historic user-created routes as identified by the 

public and re-open old existing trails that connect to worthwhile destinations. If a considerable 

adverse effect is found, review for mitigation (re-route, maintenance, closure, etc.). 

Response: In addition to the Response to alternative “h” (above), adding all routes receiving 

current OHV use is not consistent with the Forest Plan direction for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management (USDA 2005a, p. 51-56). Some roads were identified in the 2006 OHV 

inventory as having OHV use. These roads previously closed under other NEPA decisions will 

not be re-opened. Alternative 4 incorporates some components of this alternative. 

j. Protect Yosemite National Park 

Suggested by Yosemite National Park, this alternative would exclude OHV use on existing NFTS 

roads, close some roads and not add any trails adjacent to Yosemite National Park to reduce OHV 

incursions into the Park. 

Response: Portions of this alternative are outside the scope of the purpose and need for this 

project to make limited changes to the existing NFTS. Alternative 5 includes some components of 

this alternative. The Forest Service already evaluated and implemented some of the 

recommendations in other previous NEPA decisions. 

k. Close and Decommission NFTS Roads and Trails to Reduce Resource Impacts 

Suggested by the Wilderness Society and others, this alternative would close and decommission a 

number of roads and trails to reduce road density and disturbance to wildlife; prevent incursions 

30 
Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

into Wild and Scenic River corridors through road closures; reduce access adjacent to Wilderness 

through road closures; not add trails that are in Roadless Areas; implement a seasonal closure for 

the protection of wildlife; and, allow some number of motorized trails to be added to the NFTS. 

Response: Decommissioning roads is typically an ecological resoration activity identified and 

scheduled when weighed against a variety of other resource and restoration needs such as fuel 

treatment, fire control and timber management. This project is narrowly focused on the need to 

regulate unmanaged motorized recreation while maintaining a reasonable level of motorized 

recreation opportunity and access. Restoration activities, such as road decommissioning are 

outside the scope of this effort. While none of the alternatives decommission roads, they do close 

up to 59 miles of NFTS roads to public use while keeping them available for future use or limited 

administrative access. 

l. Maximum Resource Protection 

Suggested by the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC), this alternative would 

close and decommission a number of roads and trails to reduce road density and disturbance to 

wildlife; implement a seasonal closure for the protection of wildlife; and, allow some number of 

trails to be added to the system. 

Response: Closing and decommissioning existing NFTS roads is outside the scope of the 

purpose and need for this project to make limited changes to the existing NFTS (see reponse to 

item k above). Alternative 5 includes other components of this alternative. 

m. Maximum Recreation 

Suggested by the Merced Dirt Riders, Stewards of the Sequoia and Stewards of the Sierra, this 

alternative would add a number of the existing unauthorized trails identified in the OHV 

inventory, conducted and finalized in June, 2006 as well as adding trails that have been 

established in the past and were not inventoried. In addition, several trails would be added to the 

NFTS as “permit only” trails. A wet weather seasonal closure, triggered by a certain amount of 

rainfall in a 24 hour time period, would be implemented. 

Response: The Forest Service evaluated the motorized trails recommended for addition and 

incorporated some into Alternative 4. Other motorized trails did not meet the Forest Plan 

direction for inclusion into the NFTS. The wet weather closure does not address rain events 

outside of the wet season and it does not respond to wildlife or soil resource protection issues and 

it does not provide for public safety. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 incorporate this concept to deal with 

rain events during the proposed season of use. Alternative 4 includes some other components of 

this alternative. 

n. Prohibit unlicensed OHV use 

This alternative would require that all drivers are State licensed. 

Response: Prohibiting unlicensed drivers on all NFTS routes does not meet the purpose and need 

for this project to provide a variety of managed motorized recreation opportunities. It is not 

consistent with the California Vehicle Code and Forest Service policy. Requiring that all drivers 

are state licensed is under the purview of the State of California, California Highway Patrol and 

the legislature to regulate the licensing of drivers. 

o. Limit OHV use to several OHV parks run by concessionaires 

This alternative would identify areas where limited OHV activities could occur. These “park 

areas” would charge fees and be managed by a concessionaire under contract with the Forest 

Service. OHV recreation would be confined to these park areas and not allowed on any other 

31 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

trails on the Forest. OHV travel would be allowed on NFTS roads and other previously
 

authorized trails. 

Response: Analyzing for new concessionaire recreational opportunities is outside the scope of 

the purpose and need for this project to provide a diversity of motorized recreation and make 

limited changes to the existing NFTS. Limiting OHV recreation to “park areas” suggests only one 

kind of recreational riding exists. The Forest Service provides a range of OHV riding 

opportunities and challenges, including roads and motorized trails. 

p. Travel Corridors 

This alternative (developed through internal scoping based on public comments and developed as 

part of the proposed action described in the NOI) would prohibit cross-country motor vehicle 

travel off NFTS roads and NFTS trails by the public except to allow vehicle access and parking 

up to 100’ off NFTS routes for motorized dispersed camping. 

Response: Allowing travel corridors on all routes as an exception to prohibition of cross-country 

motor vehicle travel was proposed in the NOI as a way to possibly implement Forest Plan 

direction. Further review of this concept and public comments revealed a necessity to complete a 

more detailed and time consuming site-specific analysis covering thousands of acres where motor 

vehicles would be allowed to travel off NFTS roads. Potential impacts to cultural resources, 

threatened and endangered species, wildlife and other resources would need to be analyzed. 

Based on recent evaluations of the timeline, budget and organizational capacity constraints, it is 

not feasible for the Forest to complete the required site-specific analysis needed to implement a 

travel corridor concept at this time. In its place, the Forest developed a strategy to provide access 

by proposing as many unauthorized recreational access spur routes as possible within the limited 

timeframe to complete this analysis. A limited number of routes were inventoried, evaluated and 

incorporated into Alternatives 1 and 4. Further inventory of recreational access routes is ongoing 

and is not precluded from future consideration in a subsequent NEPA analysis. 

2.05 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Chapter 3 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives. This section compares the 

alternatives by summarizing key differences between them and provides a summary of the effects 

analysis. While Table 2.02-6 previously showed the existing condition (Baseline), Table 2.05-2 

compares the alternatives in terms of additions to the NFTS (Additions); Table 2.05-3 compares the 

alternatives in terms of changes to existing NFTS (Changes); and, Table 2.05-1 shows how the 

alternatives were developed. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Table 2.05-1 Comparison of Alternatives: How the Alternatives Were Developed 

Component Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Travel and 

Parking 

implement 36 CFR 212 

limiting motorized use to the 

NFTS system; protect 

resources by preventing route 

proliferation; provide parking 

for dispersed recreation 

cross country 

travel not 

prohibited 

same as 

Alternative 1 

same as Alternative 1 same as Alternative 1 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Add existing 

unauthorized 

routes to the 

NFTS 

provide a variety of motorized 

trail opportunities; enhance 

loop opportunities; access 

destinations; reduce conflicts 

between different uses; 

include most past adopted or 

managed motorized trails 

none none similar to Alternative 1 

with changes to add: 

motorized trails based on 

comments; past adopted 

or managed motorized 

trails 

similar to Alternative 1 

with changes to reduce: 

motorized trails based on 

comments; motorized 

trail density in sensitive 

wildlife areas; resource 

impacts 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Convert NFTS 

roads to NFTS 

motorized 

trails 

road not maintained; don’t 

need as a road; road never 

physically closed to public 

motorized use; access to 

popular destinations 

none none similar to Alternative 1 

with changes to convert 

more roads 

none 

Change NFTS 

roads from 

Closed to 

Open 

existing NFTS roads; access 

destinations or private 

property; enhance loop 

opportunities by connecting 

motorized trails 

none none similar to Alternative 1 

with changes to open 

more ML1 roads 

none 

Change NFTS 

Roads from 

Open to 

Closed 

protect facilities; not needed 

for recreation; reduce 

conflicts between different 

uses 

none none close roads only for 

public safety, homeland 

security, and private land 

similar to Alternative 1 

Change NFTS 

roads from 

HLO to ALL 

provide a variety of motorized 

mixed use opportunities; 

enhance loop opportunities 

by connecting motorized 

trails; reduce maintenance 

needs 

none none similar to Alternative 1 

with changes to open 

most ML2 roads to all 

vehicles 

none 

Change NFTS 

roads from 

ALL to HLO 

county roads; private 

property; short roads; no 

connection to non-highway 

legal opportunities; reduce 

incursions into adjacent nonmotorized areas; reduce 

conflicts between different 

uses 

none none none similar to Alternative 1 

with changes to reduce 

conflicts 

Season of Use protect resources including 

road and trail surfaces during 

the normal winter season 

existing closures 

and restrictions 

with forest orders 

same as 

Alternative 2 

same as Alternative 1 same as Alternative 1 

Wet Weather 

Closures 

protect resources including 

road and trail surfaces in 

storm events during the 

normal season of use 

none none same as Alternative 1 same as Alternative 1 

Wheeled Over 

Snow Routes 

provide a variety of motorized 

winter opportunities; reduce 

conflicts with other uses 

none none same as Alternative 1 none 

4. Forest Plan Amendments 

Forest Plan 

Amendments 

allow continued existing 

motorized use on routes 

where it is not compatible 

with current Forest Plan 

direction; update cross 

country travel prohibition 

none none same as Alternative 1 update cross country 

travel prohibition 

33 
 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest 

Table 2.05-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Additions to the NFTS 

Vehicle Class1 Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

All Vehicles (ALL) 43.25 0.00 0.00 53.61 7.24 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 39.42 0.00 0.00 51.16 7.35 

Motorcycle (MC) 54.81 0.00 0.00 57.29 11.89 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) 14.16 0.00 0.00 13.91 1.89 

total 151.64 0.00 0.00 175.97 28.37 1

 Additions 

Table 2.05-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Changes to Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class2 Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Administrative (ADM) 30.03 0.00 0.00 7.85 30.03 

All Vehicles (ALL) 105.92 0.00 0.00 111.60 2.88 

Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) 15.94 0.00 0.00 2.81 28.99 

Highway Legal Only (HLO) 402.74 0.00 0.00 146.41 442.38 

Trail - All Vehicles (t-ALL) 26.36 0.00 0.00 76.22 11.29 

Trail - All Terrain Vehicle (t-ATV) 1.94 0.00 0.00 2.09 1.82 

Trail - Motorcycle (t-MC) 3.56 0.00 0.00 4.32 1.69 

Trail – 4 Wheel Drive (t-4WD) 30.31 0.00 0.00 16.65 6.65 

total 616.80 0.00 0.00 367.94 525.73 2

 Changes 

Table 2.05-4 compares the alternatives in terms of Forestwide issues and indicators (Baseline with 

Changes and Additions); Table 2.05-5 compares the alternatives in terms of the actions resulting from 

the changes to the existing NFTS; and, Table 2.05-6 compares the components and outputs. 

Table 2.05-4 Comparison of Alternatives: Forestwide Issues and Indicators 

Issue Indicator3 

(miles unless specified otherwise) 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Motorized 

Opportunities 

All Vehicles (ALL) Road 1,396.80 1,744.29 1,744.29 1,691.37 1,235.77 

Highway Legal Only (HLO) Road 755.85 449.14 449.14 493.36 888.85 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail 130.96 56.32 56.32 191.18 79.88 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Trail 62.36 19.18 19.18 74.25 30.17 

Motorcycle (MC) Trail 71.31 9.45 9.45 74.55 26.52 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail 44.47 0.56 0.56 30.56 8.53 

Unauthorized Routes (open to motorized use) 0.00 246.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 

total 2,461.75 2,525.06 2,278.94 2,555.27 2,269.72 

Distance off of NFTS for parking (vehicle length) 1 NA 1 1 1 

Administration Combined Use Roads (CU) 12.05 0.00 0.00 13.99 0.00 

Mixed Use Roads (MU) 81.57 0.00 0.00 85.39 2.88 

total 93.62 0.00 0.00 99.28 2.88 

Private Property ALL within 1⁄4 mile of residential 63.18 185.22 156.85 129.58 52.93 

ATV and MC within 1⁄4 mile of residential 4.06 1.86 1.86 6.99 2.51 

total 67.24 187.07 158.70 136.56 55.43 

Recreation NFTS roads changed from closed to open 67.37 0.00 0.00 101.24 11.66 

NFTS roads changed from open to closed 45.98 0.00 0.00 10.66 59.03 3

 Baseline with Changes and Additions 

Table 2.05-5 Comparison of Alternatives: Actions Resulting from Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Action Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Convert Road to Trail1

 62.17 0.00 0.00 99.28 21.45 

Closed to Open 67.37 0.00 0.00 101.24 11.66 

Open to Closed 45.98 0.00 0.00 10.66 59.03 

Highway Legal Only to All Vehicles 93.36 0.00 0.00 99.52 0.00 

All Vehicles to Highway Legal Only 400.56 0.00 0.00 145.69 440.93 

All Vehicles Road to Trail 9.54 0.00 0.00 10.84 14.11 

total 616.80 0.00 0.00 367.94 525.73 1

 mileage overlaps with other actions shown below 

34 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Table 2.05-6 Comparison of Alternatives: Alternative Components and Outputs 

Component Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Cross Country Travel prohibited not prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited 

Parking allowed off NFTS one vehicle length no restriction one vehicle length one vehicle length one vehicle length 

Add existing unauthorized 

routes to the NFTS (miles) 

151.64 0.00 0.00 175.97 28.37 

Convert NFTS roads to NFTS 

motorized trails (miles) 

62.17 0.00 0.00 99.28 21.45 

Change NFTS roads from 

Closed to Open (miles) 

67.37 0.00 0.00 101.24 11.66 

Change NFTS Roads from 

Open to Closed (miles) 

45.98 0.00 0.00 10.66 59.03 

Change NFTS roads from 

HLO to ALL (miles) 

93.36 0.00 0.00 99.52 0.00 

Change NFTS roads from 

ALL to HLO (miles) 

400.56 0.00 0.00 145.69 440.93 

Existing Closures and 

Restrictions 

replaced remain remain replaced replaced 

Season of Use 

Elevation 1 year round none none year round year round 

Elevation 2 4/1-11/30 none none 4/1-12/311

 4/15-11/15 

Elevation 3 5/15-11/30 none none 4/1-12/311

 5/15-11/15 

Wet Weather Closures 

(native surface routes) 

close during the 

season of use when 

1” rain occurs in a 24 

hr period and allow 

72 hrs drying 

none none same as 

Alternative 1 

same as 

Alternative 1 

Wheeled Over Snow Routes 

(miles) 

105.92 none none 105.92 none 

Forest Plan amendments 

(miles) 

10.36 0.00 0.00 13.80 0.00 

1 Native surface routes only 

Table 2.05-7 compares the alternatives in terms of the required mitigation measures for additions to 

the NFTS. The mitigation mileage represents the individual work items that often overlap on the same 

piece of ground. The routes with mitigation mileage represent route segments with specific 

mitigations that must be completed prior to designation of the route for public motorized use. 

Table 2.05-7 Comparison of Alternatives: Mitigation Measures (Additions to the NFTS) 

Mitigation Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Annual Maintenance1

 8,322 0 0 8,322 1,340 

Bench Tread 0 0 0 600 0 

Bridge 10 0 0 10 0 

Cattleguard 10 0 0 10 0 

Tread Harden 9,500 0 0 11,085 1,385 

Hardened Drain Dip 8,400 0 0 10,200 2,200 

Hardened Drain Dip/Tread Harden 21,825 0 0 26,550 5,150 

Drain Dip 196,598 0 0 237,918 47,199 

Fill over Culvert 10 0 0 10 0 

Low Impact Barrier 11,950 0 0 12,350 0 

No Vehicle Sign 1,500 0 0 1,500 0 

Padding 660 0 0 660 0 

Rock Barrier 742 0 0 1,482 370 

Rock, Log or Fence Barrier 3,675 0 0 3,715 0 

Waterbar 3,200 0 0 5,200 3,200 

total mitigation (feet) 266,403 0 0 319,612 60,844 

total mitigation (miles) 50.46 0.00 0.00 60.53 11.52 

Estimated Cost ($) 772,724 0.00 0.00 920,144 156,329 

Routes with Mitigation (miles) 73.63 0.000 0.000 87.25 12.44 1 “Annual Maintenance” is considered a mitigation measure in contrast to “Routine Maintenance” where 

maintenance and repair activities occur once every 3 to 5 years 

35 
 

 

Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest
 

Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Effects 

Table 2.05-8 compares the alternatives by summarizing their environmental effects. 

Table 2.05-8 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Botanical 

mileage and number of 

routes increases effects 

to sensitive plants and 

suitable habitat; third 

greatest risk to 

sensitive plants 

affected by routes 

within 200 feet of areas 

greatest effects to 

sensitive plants and 

suitable habitats along 

existing routes and to 

lava cap and moist 

habitat types 

reduction in routes and 

mileage concentrates 

use, increasing effects 

to roadside 

occurrences; least 

overall impacts to 

sensitive plants 

mileage and number of 

routes increases effects 

to sensitive plants and 

suitable habitat; highest 

impacts to known 

sensitive plants; 

greatest risk to 

sensitive plants 

reduction in routes and 

mileage concentrates 

use increasing effects 

to roadside 

occurrences; second 

least impacts to unique 

habitats such as lava 

caps and meadows 

infested with noxious 

and invasive plants 

affected by routes 

within 200 feet of areas 

infested with noxious 

and invasive plants 

Cultural 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads could adversely 

affect cultural resources 

cross country travel 

with continued route 

proliferation adversely 

affects cultural 

resources 

none same as Alternative 1 none 

Recreation 

third highest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; reduces impacts to 

non-motorized 

activities; reduces 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

sites 

highest mileage 

available to motorized 

use with fewest 

limitations; greatest 

conflicts with adjacent 

landowners; alters 

recreation settings; 

highest impacts on nonmotorized or quiet 

lowest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; least conflicts with 

adjacent landowners; 

recreation setting 

changes from 

predominately 

motorized to 

predominately nonsecond highest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; conflicts with 

adjacent landowners 

may occur; second 

greatest impacts to 

non-motorized 

activities; reduces 

motorized access to 

second lowest mileage 

available to motorized 

use; few loops and very 

limited riding 

opportunities; reduces 

conflicts with adjacent 

landowners; reduces 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

recreation activities; 

continues motorized 

access to all dispersed 

recreation sites 

motorized; highest 

reduction of motorized 

access to dispersed 

recreation sites 

dispersed recreation 

sites 

sites 

Roadless and Special Areas 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads reduce 

opportunities for 

solitude in the CarsonIceberg, Mt. Reba, 

North Mountain, 

Raymond Peak and 

Tuolumne River 

roadless areas 

noise and more 

evidence of human 

activity due to cross 

country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation reduce 

roadless character in all 

roadless areas; cross 

country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation could 

reduce values in all 

Special Areas 

(Proposed Wilderness, 

SIAs, RNAs, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and 

Scenic Rivers) outside 

of Wilderness 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads reduce 

opportunities for 

solitude in the CarsonIceberg, Mt. Reba, 

North Mountain, 

Raymond Peak and 

Tuolumne River 

roadless areas 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

reduce opportunities for 

solitude in the CarsonIceberg and Raymond 

Peak roadless areas 

Transportationgreatest risks to public 

safety with the most 

miles where motorized 

mixed use occurs on 

roads; reduces road 

maintenance costs 

none none same as Alternative 1 least risk to public 

safety with the lowest 

miles where motorized 

mixed use occurs on 

roads; results in the 

least reduction in road 

maintenance costs 

36 
Motorized Travel Management Chapter 2 

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Society, Culture and 

Economy does not meet demand 

for motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

sites; proliferation of 

new sites impacts land 

and driving experiences 

cross country travel and 

route proliferation 

degrade the quality of 

the recreation setting 

does not meet demand 

for motorized routes 

displacing use to other 

locations; does not 

meet demand for 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

sites; proliferation of 

new sites impacts land 

and driving experiences 

same as Alternative 1 same as Alternative 3

Soil 

128 miles of additions 

to the NFTS occur on 

high MEHR soils; 55 

miles of additions to the 

NFTS occur on soils 

with HFC concerns; 

opens 29 miles of 

204 miles of 

unauthorized routes 

occur on high MEHR 

soils with route 

proliferation adding 

another 22 miles over 

10 years representing a 

vegetation growth on 

most unauthorized 

routes stabilizes them 

to background erosion 

rates 

151 miles of additions 

to the NFTS occur on 

high MEHR soils; 68 

miles of additions to the 

NFTS occur on soils 

with HFC concerns; 

opens 45 miles of 

24 miles of additions to 

the NFTS occur on high 

MEHR soils; 8.6 miles 

of additions to the 

NFTS occur on soils 

with HFC concerns; 

opens 2.9 miles of 

closed roads prone to 

loss of hydrologic 

function and water 

control 

loss of soil productivity 

on 158 acres 

closed roads prone to 

loss of hydrologic 

function and water 

control 

closed roads prone to 

loss of hydrologic 

function and water 

control 

Visual 

high positive effect on 

the overall scenery by 

prohibiting cross 

country travel; parking 

and camping along 

NFTS roads makes 

roads appear less 

natural and more 

negative effect on the 

overall scenery by 

continued cross country 

travel and route 

proliferation resulting in 

loss of natural 

character and a 

inconsistency with 

same as Alternative 1 

except: highest 

positive effect on the 

overall scenery; 

reduced motorized 

touring and enjoyment 

of the scenery at many 

locations; increased 

same as Alternative 1 

except: lower positive 

effect on the overall 

scenery; maximizes 

motorized viewing 

opportunities at the 

expense of some nonmotorized 

same as Alternative 1 

except: higher positive 

effect on the overall 

scenery although less 

access to early spring 

(wildflowers) and fall 

(peak fall color) scenery 

at some locations 

congested VQOs; parking and 

camping remain hidden 

from view in most 

locations 

parking along NFTS 

roads makes roads 

appear least natural 

and most congested 

Watershed 

reduces direct, indirect 

and cumulative 

watershed effects by 

prohibiting cross 

country travel; water 

quality is good to 

excellent; meets 

beneficial uses of 

water; sediment, water 

cross country travel and 

route proliferation 

slightly increase 

sedimentation but do 

not adversely affect 

beneficial uses 

same as Alternative 1 

except: most reduction 

in direct, indirect and 

cumulative watershed 

effects 

same as Alternative 1 

except: less reduction 

in direct, indirect and 

cumulative watershed 

effects 

same as Alternative 1 

except: more reduction 

in direct, indirect and 

cumulative watershed 

effects 

temperature and oil and 

grease are consistent 

with water quality 

objectives 

Wildlife 

reduces direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects 

to wildlife species by 

prohibiting cross 

country travel and by 

closing some routes; 

some negative effects 

to species from 

resulting system 

cross-country travel 

negatively impacts 

individuals of numerous 

wildlife species; 

continued route 

proliferation 

exacerbates long-term 

impacts 

same as Alternative 1 

except: more reduction 

in impacts on species 

because fewer 

additions to the NFTS, 

fewer closed roads 

opened, and more 

routes closed 

same as Alternative 1 

except: less reduction 

in impacts on species 

because more additions 

to the NFTS, more 

closed roads opened, 

and fewer routes closed 

same as Alternative 1 

except: more reduction 

in impacts on species 

because fewer 

additions to the NFTS, 

fewer closed roads 

opened, and more 

routes closed 

37 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus 

The Alternatives National Forest 

Figure 2.05-1 Season of Use/Wheeled Over Snow Route Map 

38 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

3.01 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are affected 

by the proposed action and alternatives and the effects on that environment that would result from 

implementation of any of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis 

for comparison of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

The “Affected Environment” section under each resource topic describes the existing condition 

against which environmental effects were evaluated and from which progress toward the desired 

condition can be measured. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives, including the proposed action, through compliance with standards set 

forth in the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest 

Plan). The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect and cumulative effects, 

along with applicable mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial or adverse. The 

“Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources” section is located at the end of this 

chapter. These terms are defined as follows: 

 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action. 

 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. 

 Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Analysis Process 

The environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3 address the impacts of the actions proposed 

under each alternative. This effects analysis was done at the forest scale (the scale of the proposed 

action as discussed in Chapter 1). However, the effects findings in this chapter are based on sitespecific analyses of each route proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System 

(NFTS) and any changes in vehicle class and/or season of use for existing NFTS roads and motorized 

trails. 

Resource specialists reviewed each affected route proposed in the alternatives. Readers seeking 

information concerning the environmental effects associated with a specific route are directed to the 

Resource Analysis Database, which documents details concerning mitigation measures and other 

findings. This report is part of the project record on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Sonora, 

California and copies are available by request. 

For ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described separately 

for three discreet actions and then combined to provide the total direct and indirect effects of each 

alternative (see below). The combination of these discreet actions is then added to the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable actions in the cumulative effects analysis. The three discreet actions 

common to all action alternatives are: 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: The direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country travel 

are described generally in each alternative, considering both current conditions and projected 

trends. Both short (1 year) and long-term (approximately 20 years) effects are presented. 

39 
 

 

Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus 

Introduction National Forest
 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: Impacts of adding existing routes to the NFTS as motorized trails are 

addressed in this chapter. For most resources, one or more resource indicators are used to 

measure the direct and indirect effects of each alternative. Both short (1 year) and long-term 

(approximately 20 years) impacts are presented. 

3.	 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Impacts caused by changes to vehicle class and season of use 

on the existing NFTS are described generally by alternative; some impacts (for example public 

safety) are also addressed by route. Where impacts associated with individual routes are 

warranted, the reader is directed to appendices or project files where this data is located. 

Forest Plan Amendments 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 (see Chapter 2.02) include a fourth action item for up to three types of Forest 

Plan Amendments: 

a.	 Forestwide Forest Plan Amendment: prohibits public motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization and allows parking within one vehicle 

length (vehicle and trailer) off of NFTS routes unless otherwise prohibited. The analysis 

discloses the effects of this amendment under action item 1 cross country travel, above. 

b.	 Western Pond Turtle Forest Plan Amendment: allows motor vehicle use as an exception, 

on certain listed additions to the NFTS where such use is not consistent with the existing 

Forest Plan direction. The analysis discloses the effects of this amendment, which are limited 

in scope to only the listed routes, under action item 2 additions to the NFTS, above. 

c.	 Non-Motorized Forest Plan Amendment: allows motor vehicle use as an exception, on 

certain listed existing NFTS roads where such use is not consistent with the existing Forest 

Plan direction. The analysis discloses the effects of this amendment, which are limited in 

scope to only the listed routes, under action item 3 changes to the existing NFTS, above. 

Incomplete or Unavailable Information 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), describe how Federal agencies must handle instances where 

information relevant to evaluating “reasonably foreseeable”14 adverse impacts of the alternatives is 

incomplete or unavailable. According to 40 CFR 1502.22: 

When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human 

environment in an EIS and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall 

always make clear that such information is lacking. 

a.	 If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts 

is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are 

not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the EIS. 

b.	 If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be 

obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are 

not known, the agency shall include within the EIS: 

1.	 a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; 

2.	 a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; 

3.	 a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; and, 

14 For the purposes of this section, ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ includes impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if their 

probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure 

conjecture, and is within the rule of reason (40 CFR 1502.22). 

40 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

4.	 the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research 

methods generally accepted in the scientific community. 

Chapter 3, within sections titled Effects Analysis Methodology, identifies incomplete or unavailable 

information so the reader understands how they are addressed. The EIS summarizes existing credible 

scientific evidence relative to environmental effects and makes estimates of effects on theoretical 

approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. 

Cumulative Effects 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The cumulative effects analysis area is described under each resource, but in most cases includes the 

entire Stanislaus National Forest including private and other public lands that lie within the Forest 

boundary. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the 

“Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under 

each resource. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural 

events that affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative 

effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior 

actions on an action-by-action basis for three reasons: 

1.	 First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly 

to obtain. Innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond) impacted current conditions and 

trying to isolate the individual actions with residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

2.	 Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict 

the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual 

actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because information on the 

environmental impacts of individual past actions is limited, and one can not reasonably identify 

each and every action over the last century that contributed to current conditions. Additionally, 

focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignores the important residual effects of past 

natural events which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By 

looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions 

and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

3.	 Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive memorandum on 

June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without 

delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (CEQ 2005). 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084­

43099), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions 

to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present 

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the 

effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate 

those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of 

the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus 

Introduction National Forest
 

the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and 

subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding 

past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging 

past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and 

implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the 

proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively 

list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions 

may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and 

necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)” 

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions. Appendix B (Cumulative Effects Analysis) lists present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects. 

Affected Environment Overview 

All resources share many aspects of the affected environment. In order to avoid repeating these 

shared elements of the affected environment in each resource section, the following general elements 

of the affected environment are provided. 

Located on the western slope of the Central Sierra Nevada, the Stanislaus National Forest contains 

about 1.1 million acres within its boundary, of which 898,000 acres is National Forest System (NFS) 

lands. The Forest's topography is characterized by a series of broad sloping benches separated by 

river canyons and numerous tributary drainages. The dominant aspect is west towards the Central 

Valley and Pacific Ocean. Elevation varies from 1,100 feet in the Tuolumne River canyon to 11,575 

feet at Leavitt Peak along the Sierra crest. Four major rivers (Merced, Mokelumne, Stanislaus and 

Tuolumne) occupy deep canyons that drain west into the Central Valley. A fifth river, the Clavey, 

flows southward into the Tuolumne. Elevational differences in these canyons can range from 1,000 to 

2,000 feet within a half-mile or less. Slopes along the river canyons are steep with gradients of 60-100 

percent. 

The Forest contains a number of small to medium-sized lakes, mostly man-made. Cherry Lake (1,800 

acres) is the largest while Pinecrest Lake (300 acres) and Lake Alpine (180 acres) are the most 

popular for recreation use. The only naturally occurring lakes are at the higher elevations. Granite, the 

most common rock type on the Forest, is especially evident at the higher elevations. Volcanic rocks 

once covered much of the Forest, but eroded away in many areas. The Dardanelles and nearby Table 

Mountain are remnants of these volcanic rocks. 

Forest climate is directly related to elevation. Below 4,000 feet, mild rainy winters and hot dry 

summers prevail, with an average 30-35 inches annual precipitation. Above 4,000 feet summers are 

cooler, winters are cold and snowy, and annual precipitation is 40 to 65 inches. Snow accumulates on 

protected exposures, and surface runoff from snowmelt, which feeds the rivers and higher elevation 

creeks, normally occurs from March through July. 

The Stanislaus National Forest contains a mosaic of vegetation distributed and controlled primarily by 

climate and soils. The dominant vegetation types occur as broad bands oriented northwest-southeast 

across the Forest and occupy general elevation zones. The annual grass-oak woodland-digger pine 

vegetation type is found up to about 3,000 feet along the steep sides of the major river canyons where 

it is confined primarily to the south-facing slopes. The chaparral vegetation type occurs higher, from 

about 1,500 to 3,500 feet elevation. Most of the forested land occurs between 3,500 to 7,500 feet, 

with some as high as 8,500 feet. Evergreen and deciduous hardwoods are scattered throughout all 

elevation zones. The sub-alpine zone with a mixture of conifers and low growing shrubs exists above 

7,500-8,500 feet. 

Unmanaged OHV use resulted in unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat 

degradation and impacts to cultural resources. On some portions of the Stanislaus National Forest 

42 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

long managed as open to cross-country motor vehicle travel, repeated use resulted in unplanned, 

unauthorized roads and motorized trails. These routes generally developed without environmental 

analysis or public involvement and do not possess the same status as NFTS roads and trails (see 1.02, 

Background). 

Assumptions and Limitations 

The following assumptions and limitations apply to the effects analysis in each section: 

1.	 No NEPA decision is necessary to continue use of the NFTS (i.e. OHV and transportation) as 

currently managed under the No Action alternative. These decisions were made previously. 

2.	 User-created roads, trails and areas are not NFTS facilities. They are unauthorized. Proposals to 

add these to the NFTS require a NEPA decision. 

3.	 Temporary roads, trails and areas built to support emergency operations or temporarily authorized 

in association with contracts, permits or leases are not intended for public use. They are not NFTS 

facilities (e.g. they are unauthorized for public use). Any proposal to add these temporary roads to 

the NFTS will require a NEPA decision. 

4.	 Any unauthorized routes not included in the Proposed Action are not precluded from 

consideration for addition to the NFTS in future travel management actions. 

5.	 The Agency will continue to make changes to the NFTS on an ‘as needed basis’. It will also 

continue to make decisions about temporary roads or trails on an ‘as needed’ basis associated 

with contract, permit, lease or other written authorization. 

6.	 Any activity associated with contract, permit, lease or other written authorization is exempt from 

designation under the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.51 (a) (8) and should not be part of 

the proposal (i.e. fuelwood permits, motorized SUP permits, mining activity etc.). Such actions 

are subject to separate NEPA analysis. 

7.	 “Designation’ is an administrative act which does not trigger NEPA. Designation technically 

occurs with printing of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). NEPA is not required for printing 

a map. 

8.	 For travel management, the federal action triggering NEPA is any change to current restrictions 

or prohibitions regarding motorized travel by the public (for example: prohibiting cross-country 

travel, changing management - changing vehicle class or season of use, and any additions or 

deletions of facilities (roads and trails) to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS). 

9.	 Previous decisions on the NFTS do not need to be revisited to implement the Travel Management 

Rule or the MVUM. That is, the NFTS contains existing facilities (roads and trails) that either 

underwent NEPA or pre-date NEPA. Allowing continued motorized use of the facilities in the 

NFTS in accordance with existing laws and regulations does not require NEPA. 

10. Dispersed recreation activities (i.e. activities which occur after the motor vehicle stops such as: 

camping, hunting, fishing, hiking etc.) are not part of the scope of the proposed action. The action 

and the analysis focus on motor vehicle use. 

11. Travel analysis is a pre-NEPA planning exercise for transportation planning which informs travel 

management. This EIS was started under the old directives and is exempt from the new 

directives. (Until new directives are published, the agency continues to follow existing policy 

related to transportation planning and analysis. For example, some Roads Analysis Process 

requirements in FSM 7700 and 7710 are still applicable. 

12. Setting road maintenance levels and changing maintenance levels are administrative and not 

subject to NEPA. However, changes in allowed vehicle class, season of use, access, and 

proposals to reconstruct facilities are subject to NEPA. 

13. The system will be maintained to standard and all additions or changes to the NFTS will meet 

standards prior to availability for public use. 

43 
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus 

Introduction National Forest
 

Resource Analysis 

Each resource specialist assessed every unauthorized route proposed as an addition to the NFTS in 

any alternative at a level sufficient to support their effects analysis and identify any necessary sitespecific mitigation. Appendix H (Resource Analysis Summary) presents a summary of this resource 

analysis with each specialist indicating one of the four options listed below for every route. The 

Resource Analysis Database (project record) contains additional details. 

1.	 The route was considered; a field visit was not necessary; the effects of adding the route to the 

NFTS are acceptable (meet law, regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is assumed). 

2.	 The route was considered, a field visit was made and the effects are acceptable (meet law, 

regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is assumed). 

3.	 The route was considered, a field visit was made and site-specific mitigation is prescribed to 

reduce the effects to acceptable (meet law, regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is 

assumed). 

4.	 The route was considered, a field visit was made and a determination was made that the effects 

could not be mitigated. The route is not recommended by the specialist for inclusion. 

Resource Reports 

Most resource sections in this chapter provide a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, 

and other documents prepared by Forest Service specialists. These reports are part of the project 

record on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Sonora, California and they are available by 

request. The following reports, assessments and other documents are incorporated by reference: 

Air: Air Resources Report 

Botany: Botanical Resources Report; Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants and Other Botanical 

Resources; Weed Risk Assessment 

Geology: Geologic Assessment for Asbestos Occurrence; Abandoned Mine Lands Report 

Cultural: Cultural Resources Report; Cultural Resource Management Report (05-16-1305) 

Recreation: Recreation Resources Report 

Roadless and Special Areas: Roadless and Special Areas Report 

Social: Society, Culture and Economy Report 

Soil: Soil Resource Report 

Transportation: Transportation Facilities Report; Mixed Use Analysis 

Visual: Visual Resources Report 

Water: Water Resources Report; Cumulative Watershed Effects; Riparian Conservation Objectives 

Analysis 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota Report; Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation 

(BA/BE) for Fish and Wildlife; Management Indicator Species Report 

Route Data 

During the planning stages of the travel management project for the Stanislaus National Forest, the 

public recommended additions and changes to the existing NFTS with a focus on adding 

unauthorized routes. Comments regarding specific routes were also received during the public 

scoping period for the Notice of Intent (72 Federal Register 222, November 19, 2007; p. 64988- 

64991) and during the public comment period on the DEIS (March 6-May 20, 2009). The disposition 

of these routes fell into two categories: routes brought forward for detailed study in the alternative 

44 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

and routes eliminated from detailed study. The responsible official made these decisions based upon 

the purpose and need, the scope of the EIS and issues. 

The action alternatives consider a number of additions to the NFTS and changes to the existing 

NFTS. The Forest developed a route data listing of all additions and changes considered in an 

alternative, shown in Appendix I (Route Data). The route data identifies: 

 the alternative(s) under which the additions to the NFTS or changes to the existing NFTS is 

proposed; 

 the type of vehicles allowed; 

 season when the route would be open; and, 

 mitigation measures that would be implemented on the route prior to publication on a MVUM 

and allowing public use (see Appendix F, Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions). 

Regular operation and maintenance activities (e.g. brushing, signing, cleaning and maintaining 

existing drainage structures patrolling routes, etc.) are a part of regular maintenance and management 

strategies for the NFTS and covered under separate NEPA. 

Law Enforcement 

Appendix E (Law Enforcement) details the law enforcement authority and jurisdiction, cooperation, 

implementation and tracking, implementation strategy, assumptions and measures of success. 

ENFORCEMENT ASSUMPTIONS 

Enforcement of the laws and regulations related to 36 CFR 212 will be enforced equally in authority 

and weight as with all other Federal laws and regulations. As with any change in a regulation on NFS 

lands, a transitional period is usually allowed for the public to understand the changes. A higher 

number of violations to CFR 212.51 are anticipated the first few years and the number of violations 

will decline as the users understand and comply with the rules. This analysis assumes: 

 Users in communities adjacent to the Forest will comply within 1-2 years. 

 Frequent users but further in distant from the Forest will comply within 2-3 years. 

 Infrequent users regardless of distance may take up to 5 years to comply. 

 Law enforcement officer and agency personnel’s presence and enforcement actions will 

positively affect OHV users’ behaviors and attitudes. 

 The MVUM clearly defines the designated routes; therefore, making violations to CFR 212 

unequivocal. 

 Once the MVUM is published, the implementation of the established dedicated network of roads 

and motorized trails with signs, and user education programs, will reduce the number of 

violations. 

 Forest Protection Officers will spend a large percentage of their time on Travel Management 

issues, and depending on the Forest the estimate ranges from 30 to 50 percent. Law Enforcement 

Officers will spend approximately 10-20% of their time on enforcement of off-highway vehicle 

issues. 

 The proposal to provide additional facilities to the NFTS through some action alternatives is 

anticipated to assist enforcing the shift from an “open to cross country motor vehicle travel’ 

management situation to one where such use is prohibited. These actions provide opportunities 

and access where such use was occurring in key popular dispersed locations based upon 

recreation analysis and public input. Providing opportunities in popular, key areas will help 

relieve pressure to travel off of designated routes. 

45 
 

Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus 

Introduction National Forest
 

Information on Other Resource Issues 

The alternatives considered in detail do not affect these resource issues or localized effects are 

disclosed under other resource sections. A brief summary on why they are not further discussed in 

Chapter 3 is provided based upon input received during scoping and public comment. 

Air Quality 

Actions proposed are in compliance with state air quality regulations and the Forest Plan. Air 

emissions are generally managed and analyzed spatially by air basins 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/basin/basin.swf) where topographic features delineate common air 

quality characteristics. Air quality conditions are highly controlled by short and long term 

meteorological and climate conditions. Most of the land in the Stanislaus National Forest is located in 

the Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). A smaller portion of the Forest is 

located in Calaveras and Mariposa County Air Pollution Control Districts. These APCDs are part of 

the Mountain Counties Air Basin. 

Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides and natural occurring asbestos may pose a threat to human 

health and forest ecosystems in the Stanislaus National Forest and Sierra Nevada. Some of the 

pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the California Ambient 

Air Standards are created by motorized vehicles and can cause detrimental effects to public health and 

ecosystems. The air pollutants of concern in this area include particulate matter (PM2.5 and 

PM10/fugitive dust), ozone, and natural occurring asbestos. 

Both the No Action and the Action alternatives will release PM2.5 and PM10 into the environment 

from motor vehicle travel on forest roads and trails, and from road and trail system maintenance 

projects. Tailpipe emissions from motorized equipment will produce criteria pollutants such as carbon 

monoxide, as well as the precursor gases for ozone and PM2.5. 

The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) annually by forest users is not expected to change in 

any of the alternatives through the prohibition of cross country travel and the redirection of motor 

vehicle use onto a designated system of roads and motorized trails. As a result, effects that would 

cause or significantly contribute to air quality impairment beyond the existing conditions are not 

anticipated for any of the alternatives. However, net miles added or subtracted from the system may 

affect local air quality by either concentrating or dispersing the sources of the emissions. Net miles of 

routes gained in the system will tend to disperse use and result in less potential exposure of emissions. 

Net miles of routes lost in the system will result in more concentrated use and potentially higher risk 

of exposure to emissions. The significance to any of these changes, however, is small due to the 

relatively small amount of change between alternatives over the study area of 683,137 acres outside 

designated Wilderness. No new visits per year are projected under each of the action alternatives. 

Thus it will not affect the number of vehicle miles traveled annually within the study area. Criteria 

pollutant emissions from recreational vehicle use (which includes both engine exhaust and fugitive 

dust) are expected to stay the same for all action alternatives (see Air Resources Report, project 

record). 

Calaveras Big Trees State Park 

The Stanislaus National Forest shares a common boundary with the Calaveras Big Trees State Park. 

California State Park regulations prohibit any disturbance or destruction of natural resources. The 

alternatives considered in detail do not affect this resource where motorized travel is confined to 

designated roadways. The Forest Service will regulate motorized travel adjacent to Calaveras Big 

Trees according to the decision implementing this project. 

46 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Climate Change 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a “State of Knowledge” paper that outlines 

what is known and what is uncertain about global climate change (EPA 2007). The following 

elements of climate change are known with near certainty: 

1.	 Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of 

greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, are 

well-documented and understood. 

2.	 The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human 

activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 

3.	 An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0° to 1.7° F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming 

occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and over the oceans (IPCC 2007). 

4.	 The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods 

ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations 

of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 

5.	 Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. 

According to EPA (2007), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that 

warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including 

precipitation patterns. 

Given what is known and what is not known about global climate change, the following discussion 

outlines the cumulative effects of this project on greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate 

change on forest resources. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N20) emissions generated by public 

motorized vehicle travel on NFTS facilities are expected to contribute to the global concentration of 

greenhouse gases that affect climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air 

temperature increases, sea level rise, changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, 

and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The 

intensity and severity of these effects are expected to vary regionally and even locally, making any 

discussion of potential site-specific effects of global climate change on forest resources speculative. 

Because greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse 

gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other 

greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a 

practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in climate 

change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects on global 

climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative impact on 

global climate from emissions associated with this project. In summary, the potential for cumulative 

effects is considered negligible for all alternatives because none of the alternatives would result in 

measurable direct and indirect effects on air quality or global climatic patterns. 

Fire 

The lower elevations of the Stanislaus National Forest support a combination of weather, fuel types, 

topography and fire occurrences that create a significant fire environment. Arson, campfire escapes, 

debris burning, and smoking continue as the leading causes of human-caused fire on the Forest. 

Lightning is common during summer months and in most cases precipitation accompanies the 

thunderstorms. Dry thunderstorms occur frequently, but not usually of the magnitude or under the 

conditions that existed during the drought of 1987 resulting in the massive Stanislaus Complex Fire, 

which burned approximately 145,500 acres. 

47 
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus 

Introduction National Forest
 

From 1970 through 2007, lightning was the number one cause of wildland fire starts with 2,259 fires 

followed by escaped campfires with 628 fires. During that time, mechanical (motor vehicles, 

chainsaws, hot saws, heavy equipment, etc) causes accounted for 165 fire starts with 5,293 acres 

burned, representing less than 4% of the total fire starts and less than 2% of the acres burned on the 

Forest (B. Shindelar, personal communication, November 14, 2008). 

Fire and fuels planning is an integral part of the overall resource management on the Forest. Fire 

suppression, fire prevention and fuels management programs provide the balanced program needed to 

keep wildfire acreages below maximum fire size objectives. Multi-funded resource enhancement 

projects provide many opportunities to avoid fire problems by manipulating fuel beds to lower hazard 

levels. Fuel breaks, fuel modification zones, water source development, large-scale mosaic prescribed 

burn activities and activity fuel treatments lessen the chance for large and damaging wildfires. 

Data is not readily available which specifically identifies fires caused by motor vehicle use. It is 

assumed that visitors who use motor vehicles on the Forest will: 

 comply with such laws as using approved and operating spark arrestors; 

 obtain campfire permits for camping outside of developed sites; 

 stay on authorized routes during appropriate season of use; and, 

 adhere to any fire restrictions in effect. 

The alternatives considered in detail do not change the number of human-caused fires or affect 

emergency access. Continued Forest Service access is available on administrative use only and 

special use permit roads. In emergency situations, the Forest Service can access federal land where no 

public right of way exists. 

Geology 

Granite, the most common rock type on the Stanislaus National Forest, is especially evident at the 

higher elevations. Volcanic rocks once covered much of the Forest, but eroded away in many areas. 

The Dardanelles and nearby Table Mountain are remnants of these volcanic rocks. The alternatives 

considered in detail do not affect geology. The Geologic Assessment for Asbestos Occurrence 

(project record) shows that none of the proposed routes pass through serpentine soils (see Air 

Quality). The Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Report (project record) shows that 6 routes (1.03 

miles), proposed as additions to the NFTS in Alternatives 1 and 4, intersect or are within 200’ of 

AML sites. The AML report recommends that these routes not be available to the public until the 

Forest AML program develops site specific mitigations. The Resource Analysis Database Summary 

Report (project record) contains additional details. 

Noxious Weeds 

The Stanislaus National Forest maintains a list of noxious weeds and non-native, invasive pest plants 

of concern that currently infest 2,623 acres and 30 miles of motorized routes within the analysis area. 

Chapter 3.02 (Botanical Resources) and the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (project record) disclose 

the effects of noxious weeds on specific resources. 

Private Property 

About 200,000 acres of private property exists within the boundary of the Stanislaus National Forest. 

California regulates timber harvest on private land under the Forest Practice Rules. County plans 

address other private land uses including management of private roads available for use by the public 

consistent with the California Vehicle Code. Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), owners of the largest 

portion of private land, opposes public motorized travel on their lands. For the purpose of estimating 

environmental effects, this analysis assumes that private roads will not be available for public 

motorized use. The alternatives considered in detail do not affect private roads or use on private 

property. The recreation and society, culture and economy sections disclose any localized effects on 

48 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

private property. The Forest will continue to work with private landowners to assure access to their 

properties year round. 

Range 

The Stanislaus National Forest contains 356,200 acres of land suitable for grazing. The alternatives 

considered in detail do not affect grazing permittees since the proposed prohibitions and restrictions 

include exceptions as allowed by permit or other authorization. The botany, soils, visual, water and 

wildlife sections disclose any localized effects on specific vegetation components of the range 

resource. 

Special Events 

During scoping and public comment, some comments suggested that route designations may not 

provide adequate opportunities for motorized special use events. Actions proposed comply with the 

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) and do not authorize any future permits for special events. 

The alternatives considered in detail do not affect special events because permit issuance is subject to 

additional site-specific NEPA that could consider and authorize temporary special event use on routes 

other than those designated through this analysis. 

Vegetation 

The Stanislaus National Forest contains a mosaic of vegetation distributed and controlled primarily by 

climate and soils. The dominant vegetation types occur as broad bands oriented northwest-southeast 

across the Forest occupying general elevation zones. The alternatives considered in detail do not 

affect the distribution of vegetation across the Forest for these reasons: motorized trail use occurs 

over only 274 acres or less than 0.04% of the project area; no new construction is proposed; 

disturbance already occurred since the alternatives consider only existing routes. The botany, soils, 

visual, water and wildlife sections disclose any localized effects on specific vegetation resources. 

Wilderness 

The Stanislaus National Forest manages all or portions of the Carson-Iceberg, Emigrant and 

Mokelumne Wildernesses. Actions proposed comply with Wilderness designations and the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. The alternatives considered in detail do not affect this resource where 

motorized activity is prohibited under all the alternatives per the Wilderness Act. 

Yosemite National Park 

The Stanislaus National Forest shares a common boundary, much of which is Wilderness, with 

Yosemite National Park to the east. The National Park Service manages park resources and values to 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The alternatives considered in detail 

do not affect this resource where motorized travel is confined to designated roadways. The Forest 

Service will regulate motorized travel adjacent to Yosemite according to the decision implementing 

this project. 

Analysis Framework 

This section provides the statutes, regulations, Forest Plan and other direction that apply to this 

analysis. NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 

draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” Each resource section lists the applicable laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses and findings required by 

those laws are addressed in the resource reports in the project record. 

49 
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus 

Introduction National Forest
 

National Forest Management Act 

Specifically for off-highway vehicle management, NFMA requires that this use be planned and 

implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public safety and minimize conflicts with 

other uses of the NFS lands. 

2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212 

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 212 (36 CFR 212) is the implementing regulation for the 

Travel Management Rule (70 Federal Register 216, November 9, 2005; p. 68264-68291). Subpart B 

provides criteria for designation of roads and motorized trails. The alternatives are designed 

specifically to implement the requirements of the travel management rule. In particular, it addresses 

the requirements of 36 CFR 212 Designation of roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas which 

states in part “Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, 

and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, 

by time of year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National 

Forest System.” 

Forest Plan Direction 

The Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, 

directs the management of the Stanislaus National Forest. Table 3.01-1 shows the Forest Plan 

management area allocations to Motor Vehicle Travel Management (MVTM) and Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the primary Forest Plan direction for managing motorized use on the 

Stanislaus National Forest (USDA 2005a). Appendix C (Forest Plan Direction) lists the Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that specifically apply to Motorized Travel Management. 

Table 3.01-1 MTVM and ROS Allocations 

# Management Area MVTM ROS 

1 Wilderness and Proposed 

Wilderness 

Closed Primitive 

2 Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Closed (Wild) Primitive (within Wilderness) 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

Restricted (Scenic and Recreational) Roaded Natural 

3 Near Natural Closed Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

4 Wildlife Restricted Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Roaded Natural 

5 Special Interest Areas Closed (within Wilderness) Primitive (within Wilderness) 

Restricted Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Roaded Natural 

6 Research Natural Areas Closed Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

7 Experimental Forest Restricted Roaded Natural 

8 Scenic Corridor Restricted Roaded Natural 

9 General Forest Restricted Roaded Natural 

10 Developed Recreation Sites Restricted Roaded Natural 

Rural 

11 Winter Sports Sites Restricted Roaded Natural 

Rural 

12 Developed Non-Recreation Restricted Rural 

50 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.02 BOTANICAL RESOURCES
 

Of the Forest Service Regions, the Pacific Southwest Region contains the largest assemblage of 

sensitive plant species in comparison to its land base. Of the more than 8,000 vascular plant species 

occurring in California, well over half occur on NFS lands. This is due to topography, geography, 

geology and soils, climate and vegetation. These same factors account for the exceptionally high 

endemic flora of the State. Over 100 plant species are found only on Forest Service lands and found 

no where else in the world (CNPS 2001). 

Management of plant species and habitat and maintenance of a diversity of plant communities is an 

important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National Forest 

Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands must be 

planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive 

species. In addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for rare 

plants and natural communities to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established in 

each Forest Plan. Key parts of these activities include: developing and implementing management 

practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of FS actions; 

maintaining viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in 

habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on NFS lands; and developing and 

implementing management objectives for populations and/or habitats of rare species. The Pacific 

Southwest Region has over 425 rare plant species on National Forest lands. 

Management decisions related to motorized travel can affect plant species, their habitats, and natural 

communities. Effects include, but are not limited to: death or injury to plants, habitat modification, 

habitat fragmentation, and degraded habitat quality caused by increased risk of weed introduction and 

spread, change in hydrology, increased erosion, compaction, and sedimentation, risk to pollinators, 

loss of vegetation, over collection, or other factors reducing or eliminating plant growth and 

reproduction (Trombulek and Frissell 2000). The Forest Service provides a process and standard 

through which rare plants receive full consideration throughout the planning process, reducing 

negative impacts on species, and enhancing opportunities for mitigation by developing and 

implementing management objectives for populations and/or habitats of sensitive species. It is Forest 

Service policy to minimize damage to soils and vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid 

significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM 

2353.03(2)). Management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to 

plant species and their habitats. 

Vehicle travel is also a major factor/vector in the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. This 

project affects the population and distribution of these species. Additionally, the Chief of the Forest 

Service has determined that invasive species are one of four significant threats to forests and 

rangelands. The presence of these invaders affects many other resources, such as soil, wildlife habitat, 

and sensitive plants, so it is important to analyze and understand the effects of the project on noxious 

weed populations 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it pertains to botanical resources includes: 

Forest Plan - General direction for management of Sensitive Plants under the Forest Plan is to 

"provide for and manage plant habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to 

achieve recovery objectives so that special protection measures provided under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) are no longer necessary” (FSM 2670.21). Section 7 of the ESA directs Federal 

51 
 

Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. The Standards and Guidelines outlined in 

the General Direction of the Sensitive Plants Interim and Recovery Management (USDA 2005a) 

includes: 1) Protect sensitive plants from activities which might cause them to become Federally 

listed as Threatened or Endangered; 2) Identify populations of sensitive plants which occur in areas 

planned for timber sales or “other” projects; 3) Modify planned projects to avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts to sensitive plants; 4)Where projects may jeopardize a sensitive plant species, perform a 

Biological Evaluation, botanical investigation and develop management guidelines, as necessary for 

the species involved; and 5) Conduct surveys and monitoring necessary to detect potentially 

damaging disturbances, changes in known populations and locations of new populations. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) - The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their 

jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management 

activities are not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. 

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999) – The purpose of this Executive Order 

is to prevent and control the introduction and spread of invasive species. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) - Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are 

plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The 

Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals 

do not become threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on National Forests. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not 

create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in 

a Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter. 

Forest Service Manual 2670, (Interim Management Guide for Erythronium tuolumnense) FSM 

2670 outlines the direction to prepare species management guides for sensitive plant species 

occurring on National Forests in Region 5. Because more information is needed in order to prepare a 

final species management guide for Erythronium tuolumnense, an interim management guide was 

selected as the best method of compiling existing species information and outlining future research 

and inventory needs. Included in this interim management guide is: available information and 

knowledge concerning the description of the plant; current and historic trends in habitat disturbance; 

coordinating requirements; interim management prescriptions; and an outline for a complete 

biological investigation and monitoring plan. As information is gathered from biological investigation 

and monitoring, this interim guide will be updated and modified, with the objective of preparing "a 

final species management plan. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) - The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following direction applicable to motorized 

travel management and botanical resources (USDA 2004c): 

 Noxious weeds management (Management S&Gs 36-49). 

 Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Management S&G 70): See Chapter 3.10 (Water Resources). 

 Riparian Habitat (Management S&G 92): See Chapter 3.10 (Water Resources). 

 Bog and Fen Habitat (ROD page 65, S&G #118): Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing 

activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or 

52 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on 

these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs 

and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled 

vehicles. 

Sensitive Plant Surveys (Corrected Errata, April 19, 2005): Conduct field surveys for TEPS plant 

species early enough in project planning process that the project can be designed to conserve or 

enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. Conduct surveys according to procedures outline in the Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH 2609.25.11). If additional field surveys are to be conducted as part of project 

implementation, survey results must be documented in the project file (Management S&G 125). The 

standards and guidelines provide direction for conducting field surveys, minimizing or eliminating 

direct and indirect impacts from management activities, and adherence to the Regional Native Plant 

Policy. 

Direction relevant to the proposed action that is relevant to the management and prevention of 

noxious weeds includes: 

FSM 2081.03 requires that a weed risk assessment be conducted when any ground disturbing activity 

is proposed and determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the 

proposed action. Projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds 

must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation. 

Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control such species, not authorize, fund, or carry 

out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species unless the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such 

actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and 

prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Sensitive Plants 

Existing survey data and Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis of the data was used to 

determine the effects of adding unauthorized routes open for public motorized vehicle use, including 

the parking of a vehicle within one vehicle length off of the travel way. A 200 foot distance from 

routes associated with sensitive plant occurrences was used to measure direct and indirect effects as 

an indicator because vehicle and human use on and immediately adjacent to travel routes affect or 

may affect rare plant populations, either directly by damage or death to individual plants (crushing, 

stem breaking, etc.) or indirectly by altering the habitat through soil disturbance, changes in 

hydrologic functioning, or by the introduction of non-native, invasive plants. 

The rationale for a 200-foot analysis area from the route is related to the potential extent of damage to 

individual plants or habitat from vehicles and human use. Even though most motorized users do not 

leave their vehicles and walk more than 200 feet from the travel route, exceptions occur at vistas, 

points of interest (for example fishing sites), and dispersed campsites. At these locations, foot traffic 

may affect plants and their habitat more than 200 feet from the motorized travel route. Little 

information is available to definitively quantify the distance from route edge in which direct and 

indirect effects occur within different habitats. The establishment of a 200-foot analysis area 

represents a method to allow comparison between alternatives. 

The effects analysis was derived from the summation of the Biological Evaluation and Noxious Weed 

Risk assessment, and summarized below. Both the Biological Evaluation and Noxious Weed 

Assessment use presence of sensitive species and noxious weeds detected during on-the-ground 

surveys, and the use of existing data for unsurveyed potential habitat to make final determinations of 

53 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

effects to sensitive plants (project record). Since surveys of unauthorized motorized trails for plants 

and noxious weeds are not complete, this analysis assumes that the species is present within identified 

potential habitat. Even with this assumption, sensitive species may or may not be in potential habitat. 

In addition, it is possible for certain sensitive species to go undetected in any given area because the 

species did not produce aboveground structures that were visible at the time of the survey. For 

example, Lewisia kelloggii var. kellogii is only visible for a few weeks after the snow melts. In many 

instances, the access to those potential habitats is not open because the snow has not melted in the 

more shaded areas of the road or trail that provides access. If the timing of the survey is not right, the 

sensitive plant could go undetected. All of the known occurrences of Lewisia kelloggii are located in 

season of use Zone 3 in the Hull/Trout creek area. Zone 3 opens May 15, at the most vulnerable time 

for this species when it is just about time to bloom. 

The timing of the plant’s life cycle is important for sensitive plants. They are very vulnerable when 

they first emerge, and before they have reproduced and stored energy for the next season. The entire 

known range of Erythronium tuolumnense and most of the range of Allium tribracteatum fall in Zone 

2. The growing season and identification period for both of these species occur after the routes are 

opened, and often the impacts to the plants occur during blooming time. The timing of the seasonal 

openings would focus potential impacts at the most critical time. 

For routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, existing information from the Stanislaus National 

Forest rare plant and fen files, and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records were 

used to analyze the effects to known occurrences. Due to the limited data and unsurveyed routes, 

effects to potential habitat were calculated by using existing district records, CNDDB records, the 

Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, and the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993). Wet 

meadows without specific surveys are presumed to support fens and associated plant species. 

Therefore, any routes identified within wet meadow suitable habitat for sensitive plants have potential 

occupancy of rare plants (project record). 

Direct effects consist of documented disturbances from motor vehicles that resulted in damage to 

sensitive plants by either driving off-road, or parking. Under these conditions, 30 feet from routes 

edge was judged a likely distance for limits of direct effects, such as trampling and crushing to 

sensitive plants. Plant sites and occurrences within 30 feet on either side of the route’s edge are 

assumed to be affected. 

Lava caps are unique habitats and a watchlist plant community for the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Open areas, such as lava caps or granitics and volcanic balds do not provide natural barriers to motor 

vehicle use. Lava caps are relatively level, open habitats comprised of low herbaceous vegetation and 

scattered low shrubs. In addition, these habitats tend to be highly roaded. Two sensitive plant taxa 

(i.e., three-bracted onion and Stebbin’s lomatium) occur in open habitat on rocky ridges and outcrops 

They grow on very thin soils and in open habitat that is quite vulnerable to OHV activity (M. Willits, 

personal communication, January 16, 2009). In addition, the volcanic soils are particularly subject to 

compaction when wet. Damage to lava caps and to sensitive plant occurrences on lava caps are 

documented. The number of native surface routes within lava caps is a useful means of comparing 

effects to sensitive plant habitat between the alternatives. 

Data for meadows, fens, and riparian areas was collected from individual district records for project 

specific activities, and surveys in these areas are incomplete. Meadows, fens, and riparian areas 

provide habitat for seventeen sensitive species, including six mosses, one lichen, five moonworts, and 

subalpine fireweed, Pilot Ridge fawn lily, Tuolumne fawn lily, Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower and 

pansy monkeyflower; all of which may be directly/or indirectly affected by routes open for public 

motorized vehicle use through wet areas. Habitat is susceptible to changes in hydrology, 

sedimentation, compaction, rutting, and exposure of bare soil. Damage to meadow habitat and to 

sensitive plant sites within meadow habitats is documented. For instance, on the Calaveras Ranger 

54 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

District, 2 areas within fen features were found heavily impacted by OHV use, creating tracks and 

rutted scars with in the middle of the wettest habitats (C. Meyers, personal communication August 13, 

2008). The miles of native surface routes within these habitats provide a means of comparing effects 

to sensitive plant habitat between alternatives. 

Noxious Weeds 

Data for noxious weeds was collected from district surveys and GIS records. Routes infested with 

invasive plant species (noxious weeds) have the potential for direct and indirect effects to sensitive 

plant habitat. The rationale for a 200-foot distance for the limit of indirect effects included a judgment 

that effects from compaction, changes to drainage patterns, and spread of invasive species from motor 

vehicles that compete with sensitive plants were most likely to occur within 200 feet. Invasive plant 

species also may have dramatic direct effects on sensitive plant habitats as well as to species biodiversity across the analysis area. Noxious weeds and other invasive plant species may also cause 

indirect effects to sensitive plants through competition. 

Assumptions Specific to Botanical Resources 

1.	 Motor vehicle use on and off established routes affected or potentially affects sensitive plant 

populations, either directly by damage or death to individual plants from wheel-traffic (stem 

breaking, crushing, etc.), or indirectly by altering the habitat through soil disturbance, changes in 

hydrologic functioning, or by the introduction of non-native, invasive plant species that can outcompete sensitive species for water, sunlight, and nutrients. 

2.	 Motor vehicle use is unlikely to impact sensitive plant occurrences and habitats on steep or 

extremely rocky terrain. Motor vehicle use is more likely to impact rare plant occurrences and 

suitable habitat areas, such as meadows and lava caps, with gentle slopes and/or flat terrain with 

little or no vegetation or natural barriers to motor vehicles. 

3.	 Without specific prevention and control measures, invasive non-native plants (weeds) will 

continue to spread along surfaced and native surfaced motor vehicle roads and trails, and into 

adjacent areas. 

4.	 Motor vehicle use of native surface routes increases sediment production and erosion, thereby 

potentially adversely affecting sensitive plant habitat (for more detail, see soils or water resources 

sections). 

5.	 When vehicle class is changed, impacts to native vegetation including sensitive/watchlist species 

do not vary significantly by alternative. Effects from all types of motor vehicles are assumed 

equal. 

6.	 Based on the assumption that route proliferation will occur only in Alternative 2, future route 

proliferation is projected to be about 2 miles per year (project record). 

7.	 The effects to plant communities of implementing seasonal or wet weather closures were not 

compared between alternatives because they cannot be quantified. 

Assumptions Specific to Noxious Weeds 

1.	 Unless indicated in the data, each “point” of weed infestation along a route was assumed to be 

within 200 feet of the route. This assumption is based on: 1) the fact that more than half of the 

weed data are five years or older; and 2) application of a conservative rate of average weed 

spread along a disturbed road-side, including occasional road maintenance. 

2.	 Assume that the project is a ground-disturbing activity requiring a weed risk assessment. Assume 

infestations will continue. Assume a high risk of spread where no information on weed 

populations exists. 

3.	 Existing weed infestations will likely spread. Rate of spread will be increased by vehicular 

activity. Infestations located along routes where vehicles drive will spread further along the route. 

Motorized vehicles will bring weed seeds and propogative parts from home areas and other areas 

where they traveled. 

55 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

4.	 Consider the risk of spread to be medium if known populations of noxious weeds do not occur 

directly along travel routes, or occur on routes where travel is prohibited. Also, if the species that 

occur are in the B or C category or considered to be less invasive and already fairly welldistributed, consider the risk to be medium. Risk of introduction or spread should be considered 

low if existing inventories show that noxious weed populations are not present on the routes in 

question. 

Data Sources 

1.	 Route-specific botanical data with a focus on proposed additions to the NFTS (e.g., TE - species, 

meadows, lava cap features, habitats, etc.), including results of route-specific surveys of rare 

species. 

2.	 Route specific inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management and associated tabular data 

sets. 

3.	 GIS layers of the following data: routes, habitats, vegetative plant communities, soils, geology, 

and meadows. Information recorded in the GIS shapefiles was provided by the individual district 

botanist. Approximately 43% of the information was collected and recorded between 5- 10 years 

prior to this analysis. The remainder of the records is estimated to be between 3-5 years old. 

4.	 Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from general literature 

reviews, Forest Service documents and maps, California Department of Fish and Game, CNDDB 

(CDFG 2008), Nature Serve (CDFG 2007), various field books, floras, and personal 

communications. The site surveys in conjunction with literature and input from the Forest 

botanists were used to determine the potential occurrence of each species and/or its habitat. 

Botanical Resources Indicators 

1.	 Number of sensitive plant sites/occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle routes 

2.	 Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on either side of route’s 

edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes 

3.	 Miles of motorized routes passing through lava 

4.	 Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows and riparian habitat 

Noxious Weed Indicators 

1.	 Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet of sensitive plant 

occurrences and habitat 

Botanical Resources Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest 

Indicators: 

 Number of sensitive plant sites/occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle routes 

 Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on either side of 

route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through lava. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows and riparian habitat. 

 Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet of sensitive 

plant occurrences and habitat. 

56 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes in relation to sensitive plant sites and 

their habitat. Site-specific analysis is documented for surveyed and unsurveyed routes and is 

identified within each alternative, and described in detail of how they will be implemented. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicators: 

 Number of sensitive plant sites/occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

 Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on either side of 

route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through lava. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows and riparian habitat. 

 Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet of sensitive 

plant occurrences and habitat. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes in relation to sensitive plant sites and 

habitat. Site-specific analysis is documented for surveyed and unsurveyed routes, and is identified 

within each alternative, and described in detail of how they will be implemented. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicators: 

 Number of sensitive plant sites/occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

 Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on either side of 

route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through lava. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows and riparian habitat. 

 Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet of sensitive 

plant occurrences and habitat. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes in relation to sensitive plant sites and 

habitat. 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicators: 

 Number of sensitive plant sites/occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

57 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

 Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on either side of 

route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through lava. 

 Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows and riparian habitat. 

 Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet of sensitive 

plant occurrences and habitat. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of all routes and sensitive plant sites and habitat. 

Affected Environment 

Within the analysis area, the dominant vegetation types, starting from lower elevations of Forest and 

moving upward, begin with a narrow band of Foothill-Woodland vegetation (blue oak, interior live 

oak, black oak, gray pine, and grasslands) and a mosaic of Chaparral (whiteleaf manzanita, 

buckbrush, and chamise); the Sierran Yellow Pine forests (ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, black oak, 

and incense cedar); Sierran Montane forests which includes the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer type 

(ponderosa pine, sugar pine, Jeffrey pine, Douglas fir, white fir and black oak); the Upper Montane 

(red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, and western white pine); and the Subalpine forests (mountain 

hemlock, western juniper, and whitebark pine) (Barbour 1977, Potter 1998). 

The upper montane and subalpine areas include broad expanses of chaparral consisting of huckleberry 

oak, greenleaf, and pinemat manzanita, interspersed with extensive areas of rock outcrop as well as 

numerous wet meadows and springs. Within these larger communities exists a diversity of specialized 

ecosystems, including slate outcrops, lava caps, riparian drainages, subalpine lakes, montane 

meadows, and fens. These ecosystems provide habitat for Stanislaus National Forest sensitive plant 

species. 

The difference between the current distribution and abundance of rare plant (threatened, endangered, 

proposed, sensitive, and/or watchlist) populations and historic levels is largely unknown (USDA 

2004c). Plant species may be rare due to evolutionary history, basic population ecology, or effects by 

human activities. This situation is most likely a combination of these factors. Human activities may or 

may not be responsible for the current distribution and abundance of these rare species. 

Since the late 1980s, sensitive plant monitoring has documented approximately 1,580 plant 

occurrences and the impacts to these species and their habitats. Within these occurrences are sites that 

may contain a number of plants. Impacts include damage from driving off-road through sensitive 

plant occurrences. These off-road effects are especially notable in areas of gentle to moderately 

sloped terrain with low-growing vegetation, such as lava caps, granitic and volcanic balds, and 

meadows, which are suitable habitats for many Stanislaus National Forest sensitive plant species. 

Sensitive plant sites located on damp or wet cliff crevices, such as the brook pocket moss, are much 

less vulnerable to off-road vehicle travel. 

The typical vegetation associated with habitat for a majority of the documented Stanislaus National 

Forest sensitive plant occurrences consists of low growing shrubs and/or herbaceous plants in areas of 

sparse or widely spaced trees. Meadow and riparian areas also provide habitat for documented 

sensitive plant occurrences. The types of associated vegetation and their distribution are important 

characteristics for this analysis because of the role that vegetation plays in: stabilizing the soil and its 

capability to deter expansion of off road vehicular use. Vehicles can easily gain access into areas with 

low plant cover (i.e., lava caps, low chaparral, granitic and volcanic “balds”, and meadows). Larger 

sized four-wheel vehicles have broken “trail” through natural shrub barriers as tall as 8 feet to gain 

access to selected local areas (USDA 2006). Areas with larger or denser vegetation are also accessed 

along little-used or abandoned roads, utility corridors, skid trails and temporary logging roads, which 

typically are not open for public motor vehicle travel. 

58 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Within the known range of the sensitive plant species known to or suspected to occur within the 

Stanislaus National Forest, the number of occurrences and amount of suitable habitat that were 

adversely affected by previous management activities and programs on private and federal lands are 

not fully tabulated, but are of consequence. For instance, in the past decade alone, 52% of 

approximately 120,548 acres of completed and pending project has undergone timber/fuels reduction 

and other vegetation projects (see Appendix B, Cumulative Effects Analysis). Tables 3.02-1 and 3.02­

2 summarize the Sensitive Plant and Moss Species and Habitat descriptions for Sensitive Plant Taxa 

known or with potential to occur on the Stanislaus National Forest (CNPS 2001; CNPS 2006). No 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed plant species occur on the Stanislaus National Forest; therefore 

no consultation with the agency is required. 

Table 3.02-1 Sensitive Plant Species and Habitat Description 

Botanical Name Common Name/Listings Presence2 Occurrence3 Habitat Description/Landscape Group 

Allium jepsonii1 Jepson’s onion ALJE 

CNPS 1B.2 P No Upland and Mid Slopes 

Allium tribracteatum Three-bracted onion 

ALTR CNPS 1B.2 K Yes Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slope 

Allium yosemitense Yosemite onion ALYO 

CNPS 1B.3 K No Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slope 

Arctostaphylos 

nissenana1 

Nissenan’s longate 

ARNICNPS 1B.2 P No Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands 

Balsamorhiza 

macrolepis var. 

macrolepis 

Big-scale balsamroot 

BAMAM CNPS 1B.2 K Yes 

Lower Montane, Chaparral and 

Woodlands 

Botrychium 

ascendens1 

Upswept moonwort 

BOAS2 CNPS 2.3 P No Lower Montane, Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Botrychium 

crenulatum1 

Scalloped moonwort 

BOCR CNPS 2.2 P No Lower Montane, Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Botrychium lunaria1 Common moonwort 

BOLU CNPS 2.3 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas, Upland Slopes 

Botrychium 

minganense1 

Mingan’s moonwort 

BOMI CNPS 2.2 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas, Upland Slopes 

Botrychium 

montanum1 

Western goblin BOMO 

CNPS 2.1 P No 

Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian 

Areas, Upland Mid Slopes, Lower 

Montane 

Calochortus clavatus 

var. avius1 

Pleasant Valley Mariposa 

lily CACLA CNPS 1B.2 P No Lower Montane, Upper Slopes 

Clarkia australis Small’s southern clarkia 

CLAU2 CNPS 1B.2 K Yes Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands 

Clarkia biloba ssp. 

Australis 

Mariposa clarkia CLBIA 

1B.2 K Yes Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands 

Clarkia lingulata1 Merced clarkia CLLI 

CNPS 1B.1 P No Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands 

Cypripedium 

montanum 

Mountain lady’s slipper 

CYMO2 CNPS 4.2 K Yes Upland and Mid Slopes 

Draba asterophora 

var. asterophora1 

Tahoe draba DRASA2 

CNPS 1B.2 P No Upland Slopes 

Epilobium howellii Subalpine fireweed 

EPHO3 CNPS 1B.3 K No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Eriophyllum congdonii Congdon’s woolly 

Sunflower ERCO16 

CNPS 1B.2 

K No 

Lower Montane, Chaparral and 

Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Eriophyllum 

nubigenum 

Yosemite woolly 

sunflower ERNU6 CNPS 

1B.3 

K No 

Lower Montane, Chaparral and 

Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Erythronium taylori Taylor’s fawn lily ERTA 

CNPS 1B.2 K No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian 

Areas, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Erythronium 

tuolumnense 

Tuolumne fawn lily ERTU 

CNPS 1B.2 K Yes Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian 

Areas, Lower Montane 

Horkelia parryi Parry’s horkelia HOPA 

CNPS 1B.2 K Yes Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands 

Hulsea brevifolia1 Short-leaved hulsea 

HUBR CNPS 1B.2 P No Lower Montane, Upland and Mid Slopes 

59 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

Botanical Name Common Name/Listings Presence2 Occurrence3 Habitat Description/Landscape Group 

Iris hartwegii ssp. 

Columbiana 

Tuolumne iris IRHAC 

CNPS 1B.2 K No Lower Montane, Chaparral and 

Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Lewisia congdonii Congdon’s bitterroot 

LECO4 CNPS 1B.3 K No Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Lewisia disepala1 Yosemite lewisia LEDI3 

CNPS 1B.2 P No Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. 

Kelloggii 

Kellogg’s lewisia LEKEK 

GLOBAL.2 K Yes Upland and Mid Slopes 

Lomatium stebbinsii Stebbin’s lomatium LOST 

CNPS 1B.1 K Yes Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodlands, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Lupinus gracilentus Slender lupine LUGR 

CNPS 1B.3 K No Upland and Mid Slopes 

Mimulus filicaulis Hetch-Hetchy 

monkeyflower MIFI 

CNPS 1B.2 

K Yes 

Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian 

Areas 

Mimulus gracilipes1 Slender stalked 

monkeyflower MIGR 

CNPS 1B.2 

P No 

Lower Montane, Chaparral and 

Woodlands 

Mimulus pulchellus Pansy monkeyflower 

MIPU CNPS 1B K Yes Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

1 These Regional Forest’s Sensitive Plant Species are not yet known to occur on the Stanislaus National Forest. However, either they are suspected to 

occur within the boundaries of the forest, or the Forest is within the range of the species, or occurrences are near enough to the boundaries to warrant 

including them on this list. 

2 Presence on the Stanislaus National Forest; known occurrences (K); potential to occur (P). (USDA 2006, Sensitive Plant Species) 3 Occurrence within or adjacent to proposed addition to the NFTS 

Table 3.02-2 Sensitive Moss and Lichen Species and Habitat Description 

Botanical Name Common Name/Listings Presence2 Occurrence3 Habitat Description/Landscape Group 

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander’s bruchia’ BRBO 

CNPS 2.2 K Yes Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Fissidens 

aphelotaxifolius1 

Brook pocket moss FIAP 

CNPS 2.2 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas, Upland and Mid Slopes 

Helodium blandowii1 Blandow’s bog moss 

HEBL CNPS 2.3 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Meesia triquetra Three ranked Hump-moss 

METR CNPS 4.2 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Meesia uliginosa1 Broad nerved Hump-moss 

MEUL CNPS 2.2 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Mielichhoferia 

longate1 

Elongate Copper-moss 

CNPS 2.2 P No Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian Areas 

Hydrothyria venosa Veiny aquatic lichen HYVE K Yes Moist Habitats-Meadows and Riparian 

Areas 1 These Regional Forest’s Sensitive Plant Species are not yet known to occur on the Stanislaus National Forest. However, either they are suspected to 

occur within the boundaries of the forest, or the Forest is within the range of the species, or occurrences are near enough to the boundaries to warrant 

including them on this list. 

2 Presence on the Stanislaus National Forest; known occurrences (K); potential to occur (P). (USDA 2006, Sensitive Plant Species) 3 Occurrence within or adjacent to an addition to the NFTS 

WATCHLIST PLANT SPECIES 

Watchlist plant species are those species that are: locally rare; are of public concern; occur as disjunct 

populations; are newly described taxa; or lack sufficient information on population size, threats, trend 

or distribution to be included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. These plant species 

make an important contribution to forest biodiversity. The Stanislaus National Forest developed a 

watchlist of species (Table 3.02-3 and Table 3.02-4). These watchlists are dynamic and updated as the 

need arises to reflect changing conditions and new information. The creation of the lists of watchlist 

plant species is a key step in meeting our commitment, as an agency, to maintaining biologically 

diverse and healthy ecosystems. 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.02-3 Stanislaus National Forest Watchlist Species 

Botanical Name Common Name 

Acrostics humilis mountain bent grass 

Astragalus kentrophyta var. 

danaus 

Sweetwater Mtns. milk-vetch 

Bolandra californica Sierra bolandra 

Carex tompkinsii Tompkin's sedge 

Cryptantha crymophila subalpine cryptantha 

Delphinium hansenii ssp. 

ewanianum 

Ewan's larkspur 

Didymodon norrisii Norris’ beard-moss 

Drosera rotundifolia round-leaved sundew 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. 

eximium 

brown-margined buckwheat 

Eryngium pinnatisectum Tuolumne button celery 

Eryngium sp. nov. button celery, coyote thistle 

Helianthemum suffrutescens Bisbee Peak rush-rose 

Botanical Name Common Name 

Lilium humboltii ssp. 

humboltii 

Humboldt lily 

Madia yosemitana Yosemite madia 

Meesia longiseta long-stalked hump moss 

Mielichhoferia elongata elongate copper-moss 

Mimulus grayi Gray's monkeyflower 

Mimulus inconspicuos small-flowered monkeyflower 

Mimulus whipplei (extinct?) Whipple's monkeyflower 

Orthotrichum spjutii Spjut’s bristlemoss 

Perideridia bacigalupii Bacigalupi's yampah 

Rhyncospora capitellata beaked sedge 

Silene invisa short-petaled campion 

Trichostema rubisepalum Hernandez bluecurls 

Table 3.02-4 Sensitive Taxa and Watchlist Species Occurrences 

Common Name Sensitive/Watchlist Total 

Big-scale balsamroot Sensitive 6 

Bolander’s bruchia Sensitive 1 

Congdon’s bitterroot Sensitive 3 

Congdon’s woolly sunflower Sensitive 24 

Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower Sensitive 204 

Kellogg’s lewisia Sensitive 10 

Mariposa clarkia Sensitive 152 

Mountain lady’s slipper Sensitive 35 

Parry’s horkelia Sensitive 129 

Small’s southern clarkia Sensitive 484 

Stebbin’s lomatium Sensitive 328 

Taylor’s fawn lily Sensitive 1 

Three-bracted onion Sensitive 47 

Tuolumne fawn lily Sensitive 42 

Tuolumne iris Sensitive 2 

Veiny aquatic lichen Sensitive 8 

Yosemite onion Sensitive 4 

Yosemite woolly sunflower Sensitive 3 

Pansy monkeyflower Sensitive 76 

Beaked sedge Watchlist 1 

Button celery Watchlist 2 

Norris’ beard moss Watchlist 1 

Total 1,584 

PLANT COMMUNITY GROUPS 

The following discussion groups Stanislaus National Forest Sensitive Plants by the general types of 

habitats where they occur and/or places them into a non-specific plant community group. The plant 

community/ habitat grouping approach are not all inclusive. Important habitat elements necessary to 

the viability of a particular species may be missed. However, this grouping provides an 

approximation of the type of habitat each species needs and allows an evaluation of how the potential 

habitat is affected by motor vehicle use. Unauthorized motorized trails and NFTS roads and trails 

may or may not have sensitive and/or watchlist species growing within or adjacent to them. Several 

sensitive and watchlist plant and plant community occurrences occur within and/or near NFTS roads 

and trails. 

Habitat for the 39 Sensitive taxa in the analysis is unevenly distributed across the analysis area. 

Habitat is grouped into three broad landscape types: 1) Upland and midslope habitats supporting 

sensitive species consist of dry rocky sites, forest openings in mixed conifer forests where edaphic 

(soil or substrate) limitations affect plant growth and species composition (e.g. gravelly lahar, hard 

61 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

slate, granitic and volcanic balds, and serpentine soils); 2) Moist habitats and meadow and riparian 

areas including streamside zones, meadows, fens, seeps, and springs. Taxa included in this habitat 

type tend to be affected by changes in hydrology trends; and, 3) lower montane, chaparral and 

woodland habitats where the soils are derived from metasedimentary parent materials and support 

chaparral and oak woodland vegetation. 

Upland and Mid Slope Habitat Descriptions for Sensitive Species 

Twelve sensitive plant taxa are known or suspected to occur adjacent to proposed additions to the 

NFTS on upland and mid slope landscapes (Tables 3.02-1 and 3.02-2). Upland and midslope habitats 

include volcanic ridges and openings. Volcanic openings are often referred to as lava caps (or lahars). 

These openings are suitable habitat for twelve sensitive plant species, including Allium jepsonii, 

Allium tribracteatum, Allium yosemitense, Calochortus clavatus var. avius, Lomatium stebbinsii, and 

Mimulus pulchellus. Lewisia congdonii and Eriophyllum nubigenum are found on metamorphic or 

granitic rock outcrops, while Lewisia disepala can be found in pans of granitic and sandy soils, 

adjacent to granite outcrops. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii can occur on ridge tops with sandy soils 

or on volcanic lava caps. Draba asterophora var. asterophora (not on forest), and Eriophyllum 

nubigenum both can occur on granitic rock outcrops or metamorphic rock substrate. 

In forested habitat, Clarkia australis inhabits openings in westside ponderosa pine forests and Sierran 

mixed-conifer forests. Cypripedium montanum is associated with deeper soils and mature dense forest 

stands on north-facing slopes, sometimes in cutslopes of roads. Hulsea brevifolia occurs in sandy or 

gravelly soils of the red fir forest, and Lupinus gracilentus occurs in subalpine, lodgepole pine forests. 

Allium jepsonii (Jepson’s onion) has no known occurrences of this plant species. Jepson’s onion 

grows on basalt, volcanic and serpentine outcrops, at elevations ranging from 900 to 6,000 feet 

elevation. Jepson’s onion occurs in habitat similar to that of Stebbin’s lomatium, and was surveyed 

for, along with other lava cap species. Although suitable habitat for this species may be affected by 

motorized routes, no known occurrences exist within 200 feet of the proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Allium tribracteatum (three-bracted onion) is found in Tuolumne County and one occurrence is 

confirmed in Calaveras County on private land. 47 known plant sites occur primarily located in 

suitable habitats along the ridges near Crandall Peak and along Highway 108. Most of the sites occur 

on the Forest. All but one occurrence are found on thin volcanic soils, typically on lava caps. Allium 

tribracteatum grows in openings of chaparral and lower and upper montane coniferous forests on lava 

caps. Elevations range from 4,500 to 6,000’. Many of the proposed additions to the NFTS pass 

through or are within 200 feet of plant sites and suitable habitat areas. 

Allium yosemitense (Yosemite onion) occurs on lava caps and metamorphic rock ridges south of the 

Tuolumne River at elevations ranging from 1,500 to 7,000 feet. Four known occurrences of this plant 

species exist within the analysis area. Yosemite onion grows in chaparral, lower and upper montane 

coniferous forests on gravelly lahar. Lava caps are extremely fragile and subject to erosion and 

compaction when disturbed. Although suitable habitat areas for this species may be affected by 

motorized use, no known occurrences exist within 200 feet of the proposed additions to the system. 

Cypripedium montanum (mountain lady's slipper) is an uncommon orchid in California. Within 

California it occurs in 15 counties, reaching as far south as Santa Cruz County along the coast and 

down into Madera County in the Sierra Nevada, although it is not continuous within this range. 

Cypripedium montanum has adapted to multiple habitats, growing in both moist and dry conditions at 

elevations between 600 and 4,800 feet. It is found in mesic sites on deep loamy soils within montane 

coniferous forest and also in relatively dry conditions on hillsides with northerly aspects in mixed 

conifer forests. About 48 occurrences exist between the Eldorado, Plumas, Stanislaus and Sierra 

National Forests and Yosemite National Park. The Stanislaus National Forest has 35 documented 

occurrences of this orchid species, each having fewer than ten plants each (Haas 2008). All 

occurrences are growing on slopes with north aspects, with less than 5 to over 45 degrees, in mixed 

62 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

conifer forest under 50-90 percent canopy. The occurrence areas are described as moist, at least in the 

early summer months, with deep, loamy soils derived from granite. Motorized routes affect suitable 

habitat areas for this species, and three known sites are within 200 feet of the existing unauthorized 

routes. 

Draba asterophora var. asterophora (Tahoe draba) is an alpine perennial forming large mats through 

vegetation reproduction. These plants grow in rock crevices and granite talus slopes at high elevations 

between 8,000 and 10,200 feet. Slopes are typically north facing and frequently hold patches of snow 

throughout the summer months. The most frequently cited locations for Tahoe (star) draba are 

characterized by extensive scree slopes of granitic material ranging in size from sand to small 

boulders. Seven distinct populations occur within a discontinuous distribution between Washoe 

County, Nevada and to Mt. Gibbs near Tioga Pass in Yosemite, CA; Mt. Rose Ski Area/ Slide 

Mountain; Mt. Rose; Rose Knob; Heavenly Valley (Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit); Job’s Peak 

(Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit); Yosemite; and Echo Lake (El Dorado National Forest). No 

known occurrences of this plant species exist. Due to the lack of known occurrences, and the high 

elevation and inaccessible suitable habitat for this species, it will not be considered for further 

analysis. 

Eriophyllum nubigenum (Yosemite woolly sunflower) has all known occurrences within the Merced 

River watershed, except three occurrences located in the Tuolumne River watershed. The Yosemite 

National Park occurrences are all south of the main fork Merced River and Yosemite Valley. A total 

of three occurrences of Yosemite wooly sunflower are known from the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Eriophyllum nubigenum tends to be limited to open, rocky, and shallow soils, on a metasedimentary 

substrate and on granitic substrates in Yosemite National Park. It is found in plant communities 

comprised of montane manzanita chaparral and upper montane coniferous forest at elevations ranging 

from 5,000 to 7,800 feet. Although numerous suitable habitat areas for this species may be affected 

by motorized routes, no known occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Hulsea brevifolia (short-leaved hulsea) is known to occur in Yosemite National Park. It grows in 

partial shade in red fir and upper montane coniferous forests, on sandy or gravelly soils. It ranges in 

elevation from 4,900 to 8,500 feet. It is found in Yosemite National Park along roadsides, on 

shoulders, road cuts, and fill slopes. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified 

through GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist 

within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Lewisia congdonii (Congdon’s lewisia) has 8 known occurrences within its geographic range. 

Congdon’s lewisia has a disjunct distribution between the Kings River Canyon and the Merced River 

Canyon 50 miles to the north. All but one population are in the Merced River drainage. Elevation 

ranges from 2,000 to 7,000 feet. Plants are found on rock faces, cracks and ledges in rocky areas, on 

talus and screen, and on spoil piles of the abandoned barium mine. The Kings River population grows 

on granitics, while the other populations are found on metamorphics. It is found in plant communities 

ranging from chaparral to coniferous forest. On the Stanislaus National Forest, the only known 

occurrence is within the Trumbull Peak SIA. Population estimates range from less than 100 plants to 

over 10,000. The area can only be accessed by foot. No potential for impacts caused by motor vehicle 

access exists to the known occurrence and suitable habitat for this plant species. 

Lewisia disepala (Yosemite lewisia) is not known on the Stanislaus National Forest. The nearest 

known occurrences are in Yosemite National Park. It is found in pans and shelves of granitic and 

sandy soils adjacent to granite outcrop in upper and lower montane mixed coniferous forest and 

pinyon and juniper woodlands. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified 

through GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist 

within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

63 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggi (Kellogg’s lewisia) is found on ridge tops or open flats with sandy 

granitic soils or on volcanic lava caps. Kellogg’s lewisia has documented occurrences but has a larger 

range in California. This subspecies has at least 43 known occurrences, ranging from Madera County 

(Sierra National Forest) to Plumas County (Plumas National Forest), including 10 occurrences in 

Yosemite National Park (project record). Ten known occurrences of this plant species exist within the 

analysis area. Many of the proposed additions to the NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet of 

plant sites and suitable habitat areas. 

Lomatium stebbinsii (Stebbin’s lomatium) grows on lava caps between the Mokelumne and 

Tuolumne Rivers at elevation ranges from 3,000 to 7,000 feet. Approximately 328 known sites of 

Lomatium stebbinsii are located. Stebbin’s lomatium grows in openings of chaparral and lower and 

upper montane coniferous forests on gravelly lahar (volcanic mud flow soils, often referred to as 

"lava caps"). Elevations range from 4,500 to 6,000 feet. This plant species is endemic to Tuolumne 

and Calaveras counties. Known populations of this lomatium range from the Mokelumne River to the 

Clavey River. The most extensive occurrences are found in the watersheds of the South Fork 

Stanislaus and North Fork Tuolumne Rivers. Many of the proposed additions to the NFTS pass 

through or are within 200 feet of plant sites/occurrences and suitable habitat areas. 

Lupinus gracilentus (slender lupine) grows in openings of subalpine coniferous forests and on 

seasonally moist slopes of lodgepole pine forest at elevations ranging from 7,500 to 11,000 feet. It is 

known to occur primarily at high elevations in Yosemite National Park, Mariposa, Tuolumne and 

Inyo Counties. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through GIS analysis 

and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 feet of the 

additions to the NFTS. 

Moist Habitats – Meadows, Bogs and Riparian Areas 

Fens are areas where at least 40 cm of organic soils exist in the upper 80 cm of the soil profile (USDA 

2007d). This organic soil is commonly referred to as peat. The vegetation of fens varies widely and 

appears to be controlled by the hydrologic regime (water depth, water flow rates). The integrity of 

peatland systems is inherently tied to hydrologic conditions. For example, roads placed above fens 

may divert runoff away from the fen and the result is a de-watering of the fen. Once the water table is 

lowered, peat oxidization and subsequent decomposition occurs quickly thereby reducing the peat 

depth, altering hydrologic patterns, and resulting in a change in plant species composition (Cooper 

1996). In addition, roads can act as sources of sediment input into fens. As areas dry out, plant species 

often change to non peat-forming species such as forbs. Since this system is reliant on groundwater, 

any disturbances that impact water quality or quantity are a threat. 

Forest Service Botany/Range Survey Crews conducted fen and meadow surveys seasonally within the 

last 10 years (Project record). Fens provide unique habitats for rare plant species. As compared to 

other habitats, a disproportionately large number of rare species are of vascular and nonvascular 

plants associated with peatlands in the Sierra Nevada. This fact underscores the importance of these 

habitats contributing to the biological diversity of the region. Unauthorized OHV use can negatively 

affect fens by exposing soil and bare peat; create channels which act as a water diversions, and 

compact soil. Water diversions, ditches, and roads can have a substantial effect on the hydrological 

function and biotic integrity of fens, (Cooper 1996). 

Invasion by exotic species (non-native plant species) is apparent in some peatlands in the Sierra 

Nevada. Such species include timothy (Phleum pratense) as well as exotic species common to other 

wetland types such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and dandelion (Taraxacum officionale). 

Native increasers (plants that increase after disturbance) such as Phalacroseris bolanderi, Mimulus 

primuloides, and Hypericum anagalloides often invade a fen that is overgrazed or artificially drained. 

Although these species are native and commonly found in low abundance in undisturbed fens, they 

64 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

can be indicative of disturbance if they dominate areas previously occupied by sedges (Rocchio 

2006). 

Roads in Wet Areas 

Meadows on the forest are the principal wetlands that are affected by roads. Forest roads can bisect 

meadows, separating the meadow into an upper and lower section via a large fill and culvert. This 

culvert can trap sediment above the crossing, aggrading the channel in the upper meadow and 

minimizing sediment deposition in the lower meadow where degradation of the channel occurred. 

The road has altered the flow and sediment regime in the meadow. Several sensitive species are found 

in these habitats that may be affected by sediment deposition. 

The road system directly affects riparian communities where it impinges on riparian areas. Roads can 

indirectly affect riparian communities by intercepting surface and subsurface flows and routing these 

flows so that riparian areas dry up and the riparian vegetation is replaced with upland vegetation. 

Seventeen taxa are listed as sensitive within the Stanislaus National Forest in moist habitats such as 

meadows, fens, seeps, springs, and streamside zones. One known occurrence of a rare lichen 

Hydrothryria venosa, is known to occur within 30 feet of the road edge of the Stanislaus National 

Forest road system. Lichens occur in all types of habitats, and frequently show specific substrate 

preferences. They are important in soil formation. As information regarding lichen distributions in the 

Sierra Nevada and is incomplete, a great need exists for further study of lichen ecology and 

distribution. Motor vehicle use affects lichens and the habitat through damage to organisms 

themselves, and these threats include damage to the habitat component of clear water from 

introduction of sediment and possible petroleum products. 

One moss, Bruchia bolanderi, is known to occur within 30 feet of the road edge of the Stanislaus 

National Forest road system. Mosses, liverworts, and hornworts (non-vascular green plants) play a 

crucial role in the hydrologic cycle and in the ecology of meadows and riparian areas. It is possible 

that unlocated mosses do occur in fens and meadows. Motor vehicles impact moss species in several 

ways. Sensitive plants can occur on cut and fill slopes and sometimes grow on the road surface on 

maintenance level 1 and 2 roads. Roads can affect the hydrology of an area, drying out some areas, 

concentrating runoff, and causing erosion in others. In addition, sedimentation from roads and soil 

compaction from road-related activities affects Sensitive plant habitat in some areas. 

Sensitive Plant Species Known or Suspected to Occur in Moist Habitat 

Seventeen taxa are listed as sensitive within the Stanislaus National Forest in moist habitats such as 

meadows, fens, seeps, springs and streamside zones (Tables 3.02-1 and 3.02-2). Only seven of these 

seventeen species occur, including one moss: Bruchia bolanderi, one lichen: Hydrothyria venosa, 

and 5 plants: Epilobium howellii, Erythronium tuolumnense, Erythronium taylori, Mimulus filicaulis, 

and Mimulus pulchellus. 

Hydrothryria venosa is a rare lichen which is a combination of two different types of organisms 

(fungi and algae) growing together in a symbiotic relationship. It is known to occur on the Stanislaus 

National Forest system lands. Lichens occur in all types of habitats and frequently show specific 

substrate preferences. They play an important role in soil formation. As information regarding lichen 

distributions in the Sierra Nevada and on the Stanislaus National Forest is incomplete, a great need 

exists for further study of lichen ecology and distribution. Motor vehicle use affects lichens and the 

habitat through damage to the organisms themselves. They are also affected by the introduction of 

sediment and possible petroleum products into their habitat component of clear water. 

Bryophytes are mosses, liverworts, and hornworts (non-vascular green plants) and they play a crucial 

role in the hydrologic cycle and in the ecology of meadows and riparian areas. Bruchia bolanderi is 

the only moss to occur. It is possible that the mosses occur in fens and meadows on some unsurveyed 

areas. Motor vehicle uses impact moss species in two ways. When mosses are crushed by vehicles, 

65 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

they do not have an underground root system to help them recover as do vascular plants. In addition, 

water temperature is important to the photosynthetic ability of mosses. As described in SNFPA, 

mosses can photosynthesize effectively at temperatures as low as 33 degrees (F), compared to a lower 

limit of about 50 degrees for vascular plants (USDA 2004c). Mosses stop photosynthesizing 

effectively at an upper limit of about 77 degrees, in contrast to vascular plants which some can 

photosynthesize at temperatures of up to 100 degrees. When moss layers are disturbed by vehicle use, 

it is possible that water temperatures can go up due to hydrologic disruption (USDA 2004c). 

Ten species are thought to occur within suitable habitat areas, but were not located. They include the 

five species of the moonwort complex that are widely distributed in North America. In California, 

they occur infrequently in a variety of moist habitats throughout the Sierra Nevada and other portions 

of the state. Moonwort species are difficult to distinguish from each other and all have similar habitat 

preferences (wet or moist soils such as in meadows and fens or along the edges of lakes and streams). 

The moonworts include Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, 

Botrychium minganense, and Botrychium montanum. The remaining five taxa not located include 

Fissidens aphelotaxipholius, Helodium blandowii, Meesia triquetra, Meesia ulignosa, and 

Mielichhoferia elongata. 

Moist Habitat Descriptions for Sensitive Species 

Botrychium ascendens (upswept moonwort) is found in lower montane coniferous forest, meadows 

and seeps from approximately 4,900 to over 7,500 feet in elevation. Upswept moonwort is not 

identified on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Botrychium crenulatum (scalloped moonwort) is found in fens, lower montane coniferous forest, 

meadows, seeps, and freshwater marches from approximately 4,900 to over 10,500 feet in elevation. 

Scalloped moonwort is not identified on the Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous suitable habitat 

areas for this species were identified through GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized 

routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Botrychium lunaria (common moonwort) is found in meadows, seeps, and in subalpine and upper 

montane coniferous forest from approximately 7,450 to over 11,000 feet in elevation. Common 

moonwort is not found on the Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this 

species were identified through GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No 

known occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort) is found in fens and in lower and upper montane 

coniferous forest from approximately 4,900 to over 6,750 feet in elevation. Mingan moonwort is not 

identified within the Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were 

identified through GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known 

occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Botrychium montanum (mountain moonwort) is found in lower and upper montane coniferous 

forest, meadows, and seeps from approximately 4,900 to 7,000 feet. No occurrences exist on the 

Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through 

GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 

feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander’s bruchia) is a moss known from 21 occurrences documented in 

California since 1980 with the majority in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Bruchia bolanderi 

previously thought to be endemic to California and Oregon was recently found in Nevada and Utah. 

California populations are known from Fresno, Tulare, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Nevada, 

Tuolumne, Tehama and Plumas counties. This moss is documented within the Plumas, Stanislaus, 

Sierra, and Eldorado National Forests. Habitat for Bolander’s bruchia includes meadows, fens, 

springs, seeps, and damp soil in montane and subalpine coniferous forests from about 5,500 to 9,250 

66 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

feet. It grows in ephemeral habitats such as erosion ditches or small streamlets through wet meadows 

and at the edges of fens, and seems capable of reestablishing itself in recently disturbed soils. One 

known occurrence and numerous suitable habitat areas exist on Stanislaus National Forest. Existing 

routes pass through or are within 200 feet of suitable habitat and one plant occurrence of this plant 

species may be affected by motor vehicle use. 

Epilobium howellii (subalpine fireweed) occurs in wet meadows, streamside and mossy seeps in 

upper montane and subalpine coniferous forest, consistent with silty sites under part or near-full 

shade, with little competition. The meadows and seeps where this species occurs can easily be entered 

with late seasonal OHV use. Known occurrences exist, however, none are within 200 feet of proposed 

additions to the NFTS and existing NFTS. 

Erythronium taylori (Pilot Ridge fawn lily) is known from only one occurrence discovered on unique 

cliff formations in the Groveland Ranger District. The occurrence is restricted to isolated cliff-like 

rock outcrops in a north-facing, cool, damp, shaded microclimate, within the mixed conifer forest at 

approximately 4,200 feet. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through 

GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 

feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Erythronium tuolumnense (Tuolumne fawn lily) grows on a variety of substrates and under a variety 

of canopies. It is found primarily on north facing slopes with rocky soils. It also grows in ephemeral 

drainages on very steep slopes and it is associated with intermittent or perennial streams on less steep 

slopes. It is found at elevations ranging from about 1,600 to 4,880 feet. Currently it is known from 

Deer Creek, the North Fork Tuolumne River and the South Fork Stanislaus River. Three occurrences 

are known on private lands. Approximately 42 known occurrences exist ranging in size from several 

individuals to more than 10,000 individuals. Many of the proposed additions to the NFTS pass 

through or are within 200 feet of plant sites/occurrences and suitable habitat areas. 

In accordance with the Stanislaus National Forest 1990, Interim Management Guide for Erythronium 

tuolumnense, “soil compaction and soil movement appear to be the greatest threats, by reducing the 

vigor of the individuals and reducing the numbers of individuals within the population. This could 

lead to a conflict with such activities as timber harvesting, reforestation, mining, grazing, recreation, 

road building and improvements, and fuelwood gathering. Plant collecting and hydroelectric 

development also impacts the species.” 

Fissidens aphelotaxipholius (brook pocket moss) is known to occur in wet soil, humus and rocks 

along narrow streams in the vicinity of small waterfalls; damp or wet crevices or cliffs; upper 

montane coniferous forest from about 6,000 to 7,200 feet. Although numerous suitable habitat areas 

for this species may be affected by the location of motorized routes, no known occurrences exist 

within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Helodium blandowii (Blandow’s bog moss) is known to occur near the forest boundaries of Kennedy 

Meadows, fens and seeps in subalpine conifer forest and alpine lakes at 6,000 to 9,000 feet. 

Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through GIS analysis and may be 

affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed 

additions to the NFTS. 

Hydrothyria venosa (veined water lichen) is known to occur on the western slope of the Sierra 

Nevada, the north coast range, northwestern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia 

and in several eastern states. In the Sierra Nevada, it is known from the Stanislaus, Plumas, and 

Sequoia National Forests and Calaveras Big Trees State Park. Other California occurrences include 

Shasta-Trinity and Mendocino National Forests. Within the Sierra Nevada, Veined water lichen is 

found in cold, unpolluted streams in mixed conifer forests. The water is very clear and peak flows are 

not of the intensity that would lead to scouring. The streamlets have a rich aquatic bryophyte flora 

67 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

and rarely are more than 8 inches in depth. It occurs at elevations ranging from 3,000 to 9,000 feet. 

Known occurrences exist. Although numerous suitable habitat areas for this species may be affected 

by the location of motorized routes, 3 known occurrences are within 200 feet of proposed additions to 

the NFTS. 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) is usually associated with Sphagnum and cold springs or 

seeps, between 4,000 and 9,000 feet. No known occurrences exist on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through GIS analysis and may be 

affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed 

additions to the NFTS. 

Meesia ulignosa (broad-nerved hump-moss) occurs in meadows and fens on dead/decomposing 

wood, usually in the subalpine zone, between 4,000 and 9,500. No known occurrences of this moss 

exist on the Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were 

identified through GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known 

occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Mielichoferia elongata (elongate copper-moss) occurs in all types of seasonally or perennially moist 

rock outcrops, often with high copper or heavy metal content, at lower elevations of foothill 

woodland, and occasionally coniferous forest. No known occurrences of this moss exist on the 

Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through 

GIS analysis and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 

feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Mimulus filicaulis (Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower) occurs in meadows, seeps, and seasonally wet road 

cuts between the elevations of 2,000 and 5,500 feet. Although a moist germinating species, it also 

occurs on sites that dry out substantially in the summer, often within mixed-conifer stands. It 

germinates in early spring and dies soon after blooming, setting seed in late spring. In very dry years, 

Mimulus filicaulis occurrences might not bloom at all. The known range for this species is the Main 

Fork Tuolumne River south to Mariposa District of the Sierra National Forest and east into Yosemite 

National Park. Approximately 204 known sites exist within the Stanislaus National Forest. All of the 

documented occurrences are on the Groveland Ranger District. Many of the proposed additions to the 

NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet of plant sites/occurrences and suitable habitat areas. 

Mimulus pulchellus (pansy monkeyflower) grows in vernally wet to moist sites, which are usually 

flat, or with a slight slope, often on volcanic lava caps and granitic substrates. The elevational range is 

2,000 to 6,500 feet. The times for germination and identification are in early spring from late April 

through June, depending on elevation and weather conditions. It occurs in Calaveras, Mariposa and 

Tuolumne Counties in the Stanislaus National forest, Yosemite National Park and near the town of 

Mariposa. It occurs in the Chowchilla River watershed (near Mariposa) and the Merced, Stanislaus 

and Tuolumne River watersheds. Approximately 76 known sites of this species exist on the Stanislaus 

National Forest. It is observed in roads and routes driven in early spring. Many of the proposed 

additions to the NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet of plant occurrences and suitable habitat 

areas. 

Lower Montane, Chaparral and Woodland Habitats 

Six Sensitive Plant Species occur in the lower montane chaparral, and woodland habitats (Table 3.02­

1): Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis, Clarkia biloba ssp. australis, Clarkia lingulata, 

Eriophyllum congdonii, Horkelia parryi, and Iris hartwegii ssp. columbiana. One additional species, 

Arctostaphylos nissenana, occurs in lower montane, chaparral and woodland habitats, but has no 

known occurrences within the analysis area. 

68 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Lower Montane, Chaparral, and Woodland Habitat Descriptions for Sensitive Species 

Arctostaphylos nissenana (Nissenan manzanita) is found in the lower Sierra Nevada foothills of the 

knobcone pine and chaparral habitats. It is typically found in areas with slate or shale rock types and 

associated soils. It ranges in elevation from 1,450 to 3,650 feet. Although it is known from the 

Eldorado National Forest, it is not found on the Stanislaus National Forest in suitable habitat areas. 

Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through GIS analysis and may be 

affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 feet of proposed 

additions to the NFTS. 

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis (big-scale balsamroot) is found in the Sierra Nevada 

Foothills from Tehama County south to Mariposa County and the interior Coast Range from Tehama 

County (Mendocino National Forest) south to Santa Clara County. It inhabits a variety of soil and 

plant community habitats, including ponderosa pine forests, chaparral, vernally moist meadows and 

grasslands, and grasslands within oak woodland. Substrates are usually sandstone, serpentine, or 

basalt outcrop. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) occurrence in Mariposa County occurs on 

rocky clays of metasedimentary origin. It is usually found in openings or under an open brush cover. 

The elevation range is listed as below 4,600 feet. One known occurrence of Balsamorhiza macrolepis 

var. macrolepis on the Stanislaus National Forest is located in the Middle Fork Fuel Reduction and 

Forest Health Project analysis area. No occurrences of this plant species are within 200 feet of 

proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Clarkia australis (Small's southern clarkia) is typically found on slopes with a south, southwest, or 

southeast aspect. It grows in openings in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer stands often in association 

with bear clover. Clarkia australis tends to prefer "disturbed" sites – e.g. sites with little or no 

competition from more aggressive weedy species. In the natural setting, fire is the typical disturbance 

agent. It grows in open areas (sun or lightly filtered sun) within manzanita stands. When not 

associated with bear clover, the species is usually observed growing in bare mineral soil or with a 

very light layer of leaf litter at elevations between 2,500 and 6,000 feet. All but three known 

occurrences of Clarkia australis occur on the Groveland Ranger District (Haas 2008). One 

occurrence is known from private property within the boundaries of the Forest. Two other 

occurrences are known in Yosemite National Park, near the boundary with the Stanislaus National 

Forest. Approximately 484 known sites of this species exist on the forest. Many of the proposed 

additions to the NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet of plant occurrences and suitable habitat 

areas. 

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis (Mariposa clarkia) is most often found on north, northeast or northwestfacing slopes, usually under light shade. It is occasionally found on southwest or southeast-facing 

slopes, sometimes in direct sunlight. Clarkia biloba ssp. australis tends to prefer "disturbed" sites, e.g. 

sites with little or no competition from more aggressive weedy species. In the natural settings, fire is 

the common disturbance agent. The elevational range is approximately 1,500 to 4,600 feet. 

Approximately 152 known sites of Clarkia biloba ssp. australis exist on the Stanislaus National 

Forest. Many of the proposed additions to the NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet of plant 

occurrences and suitable habitat areas. 

Clarkia lingulata (Merced clarkia) is known from only two populations, both found on the Merced 

River in Mariposa County at around 1,500 feet elevation on the south side of the Merced River. The 

two occurrences are approximately two miles apart in the Merced River Canyon near the confluence 

with South Fork Merced River. It grows in the mixed chaparral/woodland habitat in the Merced River 

drainage. It does not appear to be limited by soils, geology, or other biotic or abiotic habitat 

components. Numerous suitable habitat areas for this species were identified through GIS analysis 

and may be affected by use on motorized routes. No known occurrences exist within 200 feet of 

proposed additions to the NFTS. 

69 
 

Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

Eriophyllum congdonii (Condon’s woolly sunflower) is found in chaparral, woodland, and lower 

montane coniferous forest on metamorphic rock ridges and outcrops. It is also found in valley and 

foothill grasslands, south of the Tuolumne River and east of Pilot ridge at 1,600 to 6,235 feet in 

elevation. 24 known sites of this plant species exist on the Stanislaus National Forest. Many of the 

proposed additions to the NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet of suitable habitat areas. 

Horkelia parryi (Parry’s horkelia) is known to inhabit Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, and Mariposa 

counties. It grows on stony, disturbed, slightly acidic soils under open canopies in chaparral and 

cismontane woodland below 3,400 feet. It is documented on the Eldorado National Forest to cohabitate with Nissenan manzanita. It is often found on Ione formation soils. It colonizes disturbed 

sites such as abandoned roads where the canopy is open. The Eldorado National Forest has four 

known occurrences. Many of the proposed additions to the NFTS pass through or are within 200 feet 

of plant occurrences and suitable habitat areas. 

Iris hartwegii ssp. columbiana (Tuolumne iris) has three occurrences on Stanislaus National Forest, 

one occurrence on BLM lands, and two occurrences on private lands in Tuolumne and Calaveras 

Counties. Two of these occurrences are in the watershed of the South Fork of the Stanislaus River. It 

grows on dry, open or partially shaded slopes in foothill woodlands and yellow pine forests. It occurs 

at elevations ranging from, 350 to 5,000 feet. Proposed additions to the NFTS pass through or are 

within 200 feet of suitable habitat areas. Two occurrences of the Tuolumne iris are within 200 feet of 

proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Existing road densities may contribute significantly to fragmentation and erosion damage of special 

habitats such as aspen, meadows, oak woodlands, lavacaps, and Sensitive plant occurrences. Based on 

the analysis, unauthorized roads account for a disproportionate amount of adverse effects to Sensitive 

plants. A portion of the roadside management zone has known Sensitive plant occurrences that may 

be intolerant to ground-disturbing activities. A review of sensitive plant occurrences suggests that for 

some species, up to 81% of all known occurrences intersect roads (USDA 2003b). The proposed 

additions to the NFTS have direct impacts on approximately 9% of the sensitive plant species 

occurring in the analysis area. These plant species are analyzed in the effects section of each 

alternative. 

Plant communities may continue to be negatively impacted by motorized routes not added to the 

NFTS for a period of time after the motorized use is stopped if erosion from the motorized trail is not 

reduced and/or eliminated. Use of unauthorized routes by nonmotorized uses such as hiking, 

mountain biking, and horseback riding traffic may prevent vegetative recovery. Native vegetative 

cover protects against erosion and maintains infiltration capacity of the soil (Switalski 2004). Surveys 

of unauthorized routes (and those NFTS roads and trails used to access them) showed some level of 

erosion. Therefore, it is important to estimate how long it might take unauthorized routes not added to 

the NFTS might need to recover once use has stopped. The rate of passive recovery of any 

unauthorized route will vary from site to site based on the soil type, amount and type of vegetative 

cover at the site, topography of the area disturbed, and intensity of the motor vehicle use. 

NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED SPECIES 

Invasive grasses, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and forbs, such as knapweeds (Centaurea 

species), have invaded over 50 million hectares of the region (western U.S.), reducing biodiversity by 

displacing native plants and animals (Mack 1989; Zouhar 2003). Noxious weeds are defined in as 

“those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the 

responsible State official (FSM 2080.5). Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the 

following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or 

host of serious insects or disease, and being nonnative or new to or not common to the United States 

or parts thereof.” 

70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.02-5 Noxious Weeds and Non-native Invasive Plants 

Common Name Botanical Name Annual/Perennial CA Weed 

Status1 

CA Invasive Plant 

Council2 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Perennial BW Moderate 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Annual grass BW --

Barbed goatgrass Aegilops triuncialis Annual grass BW High 

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima Deciduous tree Non-native Moderate 

Giant reed Arundo donax Perennial grass Non-native High 

Black mustard Brassica nigra Perennial Non-native Moderate 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Annual grass Non-native High 

Hoary cress Cardaria draba Perennial BW Moderate 

Whitetop Cardaria pubescens Perennial BW Limited 

Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Annual CW Moderate 

Slenderflower thistle Carduus tenuiflorus Annual CW Limited 

Smooth distaff thistle Carthamnus baeticus Annual BW --

Woolly distaff thistle Carthamnus lanatus Annual BW Moderate 

Purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa Annual to Perennial BW Moderate 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Annual to Perennial AW Moderate 

Iberian starthistle Centaurea iberica Annual to Biennial AW --

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Perennial AW High 

Tocalote/ Malta starthistle Centauria melitensis Annual Non-native Moderate 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis Annual CW High 

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata ssp. 

squarrosa 

Perennial AW Moderate 

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Perennial AW Moderate 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Perennial BW Moderate 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Biennial Non-native Moderate 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Perennial Vine CW --

Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon Perennial CW Moderate 

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius Deciduous Shrub Non-native Moderate 

Quackgrass Elytrigia repens Perennial Grass BW --

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esulus Perennial AW High 

Oblong spurge Euphorbia oblongata Perennial BW High 

Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Perennial Non-native High 

French broom Genista monspessulana Deciduous Shrub CW High 

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata Aquatic herb AW High 

Klamath weed Hypericum perforatum Perennial CW Moderate 

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria Perennial BW Moderate 

Tall whitetop/ perennial 

pepperweed 

Lepidium latifolium Perennial BW High 

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Perennial Non-native Moderate 

Dalmation toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. 

dalmatica 

Perennial AW Moderate 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Perennial BW High 

Parrot feather watermilfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum Aquatic Herb Non-native High 

Eurasian milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Aquatic Herb CW High 

Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Deciduous Tree Non-native 

Himalaya blackberry Rubus discolor Perennial Vine Non-native High 

Cut-leaved blackberry Rubus laciniatus Perennial Vine Non-native High 

Bouncing bet Saponaria officionalis Perennial Non-native --

Russian thistle Salsola tragus Annual Non-native Limited 

White horsenettle Solanum elaeagnifolium Perennial BW --

Johnson grass Sorghum halepense Perennial Grass CW --

Spanish broom Spartinum junceum Deciduous Shrub Non-native High 

Milk thistle Silybum marianum Annual or Biennial Non-native --

Medusahead grass Taeniatherum caputmedusae Annual Grass CW High 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Annual Herb Non-native --

Gorse Ulex europaeus Thorny Shrub BW High 

Woolly mullein Verbascum thapsus Perennial Non-native Limited 

1 Code Weed Status 1 Code Weed Status 1 Code Weed Status 

AW A list (noxious weeds) NAW Noxious aquatic weed QW Q list (temporary "A" list 

BW B list (noxious weeds) PN Public nuisance noxious weed, pending final 

CW C list (noxious weeds) Q Quarantine determination). 2 Calweeds Database, California Invasive Plant Council website- Accessed September 2008. California weeds list status for noxious weeds, and a rating for the 

ecological impact of each species cal-1ps/ip/inventory/weedlist. 

The Stanislaus National Forest maintains a list of noxious weeds and non-native, invasive pest plants 

of concern (Table 3.02-5). Inventories for weeds are conducted using this list as a guide. The list was 

generated from several sources including the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2001, p. 

71 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

310-311), the list of State-rated noxious weeds (CDFG 2007), new weed discoveries in the Forest, 

occurrence records (CalFlora 2008), published technical references (Bossard, et.al., 2000, Hickman, 

1993), and personal observations. The project record contains a detailed Noxious Weed Risk 

Assessment. 

Noxious Weed Management 

The Forest has inventoried and monitored noxious weed locations and planned or implemented a 

number of noxious weed treatment projects as reported in 2004 and 2005 accomplishment reports. 

Noxious weed infestations and invasive plant species occupy 2,622.96 acres and 29.52 miles of 

motorized routes. Surveys for noxious weeds are not completed for this analysis, and future 

monitoring and resurveying of the routes are recommended. Until surveys are performed throughout 

the analysis area, these numbers are considered estimates. A complete list of the proposed routes that 

are infested with noxious weed occurrences can be located in the Project record. In addition, a 

complete list of noxious weed infestations within the forest is located in the Project record. 

Habitat Vulnerability and Vector Methods 

Data regarding weed and non-native plant infested routes within the Stanislaus National Forest is 

limited. The data consists of approximately 650 routes with invasive weed infestations. This data 

includes data points and polygons mapped along roadsides, primarily recorded by ground-based 

methods. The information associated with each infested route, such as size of infestation or distance 

along a route, is often unknown. All data on known weed and non-native plant locations were 

collected by botanists during the last 10 years, documenting approximately 86 miles of weed infested 

NFTS roads. Although many of the existing roads within the analysis area were surveyed for weeds, 

not all of the proposed additions to the NFTS were surveyed. The GIS query of the existing data 

includes routes within 200 feet of infested areas, and weeds infestation on existing roads and 

proposed additions to the NFTS within 200 feet of sensitive plant occurrences/suitable habitats. Table 

3.02-6 shows acres of weed species infestations on the forest. 

Weeds were introduced and spread primarily through transport on vehicles, in straw and hay, on 

earthmoving and mowing/weed-eating equipment, and in animal manure. Weed seeds also spread 

quickly down stream and upwind along lakes and reservoirs. 

Yellow starthistle, Tocalote or Malta starthistle and Medusahead grass are by far the most common 

species found along existing NFTS routes and proposed additions to the NFTS (project record). To a 

lesser extent, several other invasive weed species occur, primarily along roads. Yellow Starthistle 

(Centaurea solstitialis) was introduced in North America probably sometime after 1849 as a seed 

contaminant in Chilean-grown alfalfa seed, also known as Chilean clover. Historic records indicate 

that alfalfa was first introduced to Chile from Spain and from Spain to California before 1903. Yellow 

starthistle in California was mainly transported to other areas by the use of tractors and equipment. It 

began invading the foothill grasslands around the 1940’s and has become a part of the grazing/weed 

system (Di Tomaso 2001) Human activities are the primary mechanism for long distance movement 

of yellow starthistle seed. It is transported in large amounts by road maintenance equipment and on 

the undercarriage of vehicles. It can reduce land value and reduce access to recreational areas (Di 

Tomaso 2007). In addition, starthistle infestations can reduce wildlife habitat and forage, displace 

native plants, and decrease native plant and animal diversity (Sheley and Larson 1995). Dense 

infestations not only displace native plants and animals, but also threaten natural ecosystems and 

nature reserves by fragmenting sensitive plant and animal habitat (Scott and Pratini 1995). 

Most weeds will persist in permanent natural openings such as in meadows, on lava caps, and along 

roads. With the possible exception of blackberries, most weeds tend to be shaded out in forested areas 

as trees grow. Weeds are of particular concern where they alter habitats; compete with sensitive 

plants and other rare species, or occur near vectors (streamside, areas of high human use, fire staging 

and action areas, birds, etc.) that could carry them quickly to other areas. 

72 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Motor vehicle use is known to contribute to weed introduction in a number of ways (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000) including moving weed seed and plant parts from place-to-place in the mud/soil on 

tires, and/or on the vehicle body. Motor vehicle use disturbs native plant communities and makes the 

habitat more suitable for weed growth by reducing native plant cover. The disturbed areas within and 

adjacent to major highways, general forest roads, two-tracked non-maintained roads, and OHV trails 

provide habitat for any weed seed deposited. Weeds spread by motor vehicle use regardless of the 

season of use. Native vegetation is also known to be physically damaged by motor vehicle use 

regardless of the season of use. Season of use may or may not affect the rate of spread of weeds, 

and/or the creation of bare soil. When weeds become established in these edge areas, they provide the 

weed seed source for new occurrences of weed in the areas adjacent. 

When native plants are replaced by weeds, the entire ecosystem can be altered. For example, when 

motor vehicle use introduces weeds into new areas and the weeds become established, the vegetative 

pattern is changed, providing more flammable fuels into the system. As the weeds spread and increase 

in volume, an increase in fuels occurs. Weeds such as Scotch and Spanish brooms, cheatgrass, and 

others, change the arrangement of vegetation, the amount of soil moisture at specific times of the 

year, the amount of fuel available to burn, and how fire behaves. It is a primary concern on lava caps 

where dryer areas provide competition with sensitive plants. If a wildfire occurs in a weed infested 

area, many weeds such as cheatgrass and French/Spanish broom have the competitive edge over 

native plants when the burned area begins to revegetate. 

Edges are recognized as starting points for invasions of weeds into the less disturbed areas of the rest 

of the plant community such as forested areas (Pauchard and Alaback 2005). Less disturbed areas 

such as the interior of a forest are usually considered less susceptible to weed invasion because of a 

combination of factors such as competition from native species, fewer sites for seed germination, less 

solar radiation, and less seed dispersal. However, weed establishment is not based on disturbance 

alone. When a weed seed source is sufficiently close to a plant community, that plant 

community/habitat is at increased risk of weed introduction and spread. 

The rate that weeds are introduced to the creation of unauthorized routes is unknown. In one study, 

Rooney (2003) collected mud from the undercarriage of 14 motor vehicles. He found that seeds 

germinated from the mud collected from 4 of those vehicles. In the same study, he reported that each 

vehicle carried an average of 3.6 seeds. When he multiplied this number by the number of motor 

vehicles traveling each day, he estimated that about 6 million seeds were transported per vehicle per 

year in Wisconsin. Rooney predicted that over the long term, with motor vehicles as seed dispersers, 

the fraction of roads/trails colonized by weeds would increase until all motorized roads and trails 

reached a weed saturation level. This prediction was based on the lack of constant, extensive, 

effective monitoring of motor vehicle routes. He also reported that weeds are generally better adapted 

to vehicular dispersal than native plant species due to their small seed size, high seed production, and 

persistent seed banks. In this analysis, 200 feet was chosen to define the distance that weed seed 

would be dispersed and established from travel on tires. 

Disturbance by motor vehicles can have long-term effects to soils and favor weed establishment. 

Motor vehicles compact soils reducing water infiltration and accelerating erosion. They also displace 

soils and sheer off vegetative roots. If these effects are severe, a loss of soil productivity may occur. 

Numerous passes by vehicles over vegetation causes the plants to die, exposing the soil organic layer. 

The loss of vegetative cover makes the soil organic layer more susceptible to erosion. Loss of 

vegetative cover and the soil organic layer reduces the ability of the soil to hold moisture. Many weed 

species are more capable of utilizing less productive soils with less soil moisture. Some weeds can 

also produce secondary chemical compounds that inhibit native plant germination and growth. These 

compounds also affect nutrient cycling rates by inhibiting soil microbial fauna activity. 

73 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

Maintenance of roads and trails can also spread weeds. Grading disturbs soil and competing 

vegetation, and also transports soil, and weed seeds/parts to new locations. Cleaning 

ditches/developing waterbars moves soils and creates ideal seedbeds. Seeds from equipment can be 

deposited in stream crossings and washed downstream. Mower heads can also move weed seeds/parts 

to new locations. This movement of weed seed/parts can happen at any time of the year since the 

seeds and parts are present in the soil at infested sites at all times of the year. Stockpiles of crushed 

aggregate can also be infested with weeds. When that aggregate is moved to a new location, the 

weeds go with it. Appendix F contains a complete summary of maintenance definitions. 

Another aspect of motor vehicle use that helps to spread weeds is tied to the use of recreational areas 

and facilities, such as trailheads, campgrounds, staging areas, and dispersed camping access areas. 

These areas are frequently the first site on NFS lands that the motor vehicle comes in contact with 

after leaving major highways. Therefore, they frequently receive weed seed and plant parts. These 

areas have constant soil disturbance that provide a good seedbed for any weed seed that is deposited. 

In addition, the visitors themselves can also disperse weed seeds on their clothing, footwear, and 

camping equipment. Since many campgrounds are located near riparian areas and riparian areas in 

campgrounds frequently have high levels of public activity, they have a higher risk of weed 

infestation. Many weeds are adapted to riparian areas and rapidly become established on sites where 

soils were disturbed, such as eroding stream banks, road and trail crossings, and undeveloped trails. In 

addition, streams can carry weed seeds and plant parts great distances, hastening weed spread. 

Aquatic weeds, such as purple loosestrife, can take over whole wetland ecosystems, impeding water 

flow and reducing the quality of wetland habitats. Surveys for this listed noxious weed are 

incomplete, and it is not located with in the analysis area. 

Sensitive plants and watchlist species occurrences located in and/or near motor vehicle roads and 

trails have a high risk of negative impacts from weed introduction and spread. Several of the known 

occurrences of weeds directly and indirectly impact sensitive plant occurrences. Noxious weed 

infestations, such as yellow starthistle and Klamath weed, are present along the Bull Creek Road on 

the Groveland District, and several of the known occurrences and habitat of the sensitive species 

Clarkia australis are directly and indirectly impacted. These occurrences are in open habitat and 

cutbanks where off-trail use can easily occur, and noxious weed spread is a primary concern for high 

risk to habitat and plants. Table 3.02-7 displays the miles of routes infested with invasive weeds. 

Table 3.02-8 displays routes where sensitive/watchlist plants and/or plant communities were impacted 

with noxious weed infestations. These plants and communities are at increased risk of loss of 

individuals and habitat due to weed introduction and spread over the short and long term. The 

sensitive/watchlist species occurrences that have known weed occurrences located within 200 feet are 

at even greater risk of negative impacts from weed infestation. This mileage does not represent a total 

inventory of weeds; it does include the routes with the most extensive roadside infestations on routes. 

While noxious weeds and other invasive plant species may cause direct or indirect effects to sensitive 

plants through competition, weeds have major effects on potentially sensitive habitats. Invasive 

weeds also reduce species diversity in natural habitats across the analysis area. This loss of species 

diversity is of high concern not only at the forest level and analysis area, but for the adjacent private, 

state, and county lands. At present, noxious weeds such as yellow starthistle and Klamath weed are 

present along right-of-ways on Bull Creek Road and other county roads in the Stanislaus National 

Forest. Not only are these invasive species adjacent to private property on which some of the property 

owners are actively engaged in weed control, but they are also present in staging areas for OHV use. 

“Increasing motorized vehicle/OHV traffic within the analysis area, and the entire forest, have the 

potential to provide an avenue for the proliferation of noxious weeds, not only in the areas where they 

currently exist, but also into new areas of the forest and onto adjacent private lands as well as public 

right-of-ways outside the forest boundaries” (Cathi Boze, Mariposa County, comment 042009-02-01). 

74 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.02-6 Weed Species Infestations 

Common Name Botanical Name Acronym Acres 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica AECY 0.05 

Barbed goatgrass Aegilops triuncialis AETR 0.04 

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima AIAL 0.09 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum BRTE 46.46 

Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus CAPY 8.26 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa CEDI 2.10 

Tocalote/Malta starthistle Centauria melitensis CEME 150.10 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis CESO 2,177.51 

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa CEVIS 0.51 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense CIAR 0.25 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare CIVU 33.32 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis COAR 0.01 

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius CYSC 2.01 

French broom Genista monspessulana GEMO 0.27 

Klamath weed Hypericum perforatum HYPE 42.53 

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria ISTI 0.74 

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare LEVU 0.41 

Himalaya blackberry Rubus discolor RUDI 4.40 

Cut-leaved blackberry Rubus laciniatus RULA 5.06 

Bouncing bet Saponaria officionalis SAOF 1.08 

Milk thistle Silybum marianum SIMA 0.37 

Spanish broom Spartinum junceum SPJU 0.02 

Medusahead grass Taeniatherum caputmedusae TACA 138.80 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris TRTE 0.11 

Woolly mullein Verbascum thapsus VETH 2.28 

Total 2,622.96 

The Noxious Weed Risk Assessment describes invasive plant species (project record) 

Table 3.02-7 Motorized Routes Infested with Invasive Weeds 

Road Maintenance Level Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

ML2 16.37 24.36 24.36 21.34 16.06 

ML2 + HLO 4.58 0.00 0.00 3.40 4.57 

ML3 + HLO 4.91 5.16 5.16 4.94 5.16 

Additions to the NFTS 0.80 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 

Total 26.66 29.52 29.52 33.68 25.79 

Table 3.02-8 Additions to the NFTS with Weeds and Direct Impacts to Sensitive Plants 

Route Sensitive Plant Invasive Plants 

15EV43C Tuolumne fawn lily Yellow starthistle 

15EV43C Tuolumne fawn lily Yellow starthistle 

15EV43C Tuolumne fawn lily Yellow starthistle 

15EV43C Tuolumne fawn lily Milk thistle 

15EV43C Tuolumne fawn lily Milk thistle 

15EV43G Tuolumne fawn lily Yellow starthistle 

16EV108 Stebbin’s lomatium Cheatgrass 

16EV109 Stebbin’s lomatium Cheatgrass 

16EV236 Stebbin’s lomatium Cheatgrass 

17EV183 Parry’s horkelia Yellow starthistle 

17EV192 Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower/ Parry’s horkelia Yellow starthistle 

17EV192A Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower/ Parry’s horkelia Yellow starthistle 

17EV231 Three-bracted onion/ Stebbin’s lomatium Tree of heaven 

17EV78 Stebbin’s lomatium Cheatgrass 

17EV88 Three-bracted onion/ Stebbin’s lomatium Cheatgrass 

18EV110 Kellogg’s lewisia/ Stebbin’s lomatium Cheatgrass 

FR98581 Mariposa clarkia Yellow starthistle 

SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS 

The management emphasis for Special Interest Areas (SIA) is to protect and manage unique 

geological, scenic, historical, archaeological, botanical and memorial features, and to preserve the 

75 
 

Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

integrity of the special interest feature for which the area was established. A wide range of resource 

activities is permitted, provided the unique features of each area are protected (see Chapter 3.05, 

Roadless and Special Areas). The two SIAs contain sensitive species and Botanical resources. 

Trumbull Peak Historic and Botanic Area: The entire area covers 150 acres and includes three 

occurrences of sensitive plants, including Yosemite onion (Allium yosemitense), Congdon’s woolly 

sunflower (Eriophyllum congdonii), and Congdon’s lewisia (Lewisia congdonii). The existing road 

access to the area is gated with permitted access only. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area: This 15 acre area contains the two southernmost known groves of 

Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) growing 1/10 mile apart. The two groves contain 20 mature and 

sapling trees, and some seedlings surrounded by riparian vegetation. No known occurrences of 

sensitive plants and no proposed additions to the NFTS in this area. 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS 

Certain botanical resources are protected within four Research Natural Areas (see Chapter 3.05, 

Roadless and Special Areas). 

Bell Meadow Research Natural Area (490 acres): designated for aspen research, the RNA is 

located in the east-central portion of the Forest. It contains 110 acres of aspen stands in Bell Meadow 

along with wet mountain meadow, riparian habitat and examples of the aspen-meadow complex on 

deep soils. 

Critchfield (Bourland Meadow) Research Natural Area (1,003 acres): designated for bogs and 

meadow research the RNA is located in the east-central portion of the Forest adjacent to the Emigrant 

Wilderness. Vegetation consists of seven major associations: red fir, red fir-lodgepole pine, red firwestern white pine-lodgepole pine, red fir-white fir-Jeffrey pine, red fir-white fir, and red fir-aspen. 

Wet and dry meadows are present and the area is noted for aquatic bog values. Successional stages 

are present in several stands, including meadows. 

Grizzly Mountain Research Natural Area (500 acres): designated for black oak research, the RNA 

is located in the southern portion of the Forests on the northern slopes of Little Grizzly and Big 

Grizzly Mountains. Black oak stands occupy most of the area, interspersed with brush and scattered 

ponderosa pine. 

Clark Fork Candidate Research Natural Area (460 acres): designated for white fir research, the 

RNA is located in the northeast portion of the Forest near Clark Fork Campground. It includes 

various mixtures of white fir and other conifers at a range of elevations. Part of the area (250 acres) is 

within the Bald Peak proposed addition to the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and the remainder is within 

the Clark Fork proposed Wild and Scenic River. 

Environmental Consequences 

People, vehicles and the roads they travel on tend to diminish and fragment suitable habitat for certain 

Sensitive species. The Stanislaus National Forest has about 2,947 miles of NFTS roads. Most areas 

have adequate road access. Small areas are still identified where minor amounts of new road 

construction are needed. In addition to the system roads, a number of unauthorized routes exist. 

Unauthorized roads originate in different ways. Some are built as temporary roads, often for timber 

access. Some are user-created routes made by OHV use. The entire forest is not completely surveyed 

for unauthorized routes. The Stanislaus is in a gradual process of inventorying the unauthorized roads, 

and approximately half of the Forest is inventoried (see Chapter 3.08, Transportation). In some areas 

of the Forest, new routes continue to be developed by people driving their vehicles off existing roads. 

After one vehicle leaves a set of wheel tracks, other vehicles follow, creating an unauthorized route. 

76 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Cross-Country travel is prohibited in Alternative 1. Elimination of cross country travel reduces 

impacts to plant communities by reducing direct impacts of crushing, ground disturbance, 

sedimentation, and rutting. Fewer acres are disturbed, resulting in fewer weed infestations. Passive 

recovery would occur on routes not added to the system. Sensitive plant populations could be affected 

by other non-motorized uses on these routes. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Alternative 1 includes 151.64 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS. These additions would likely 

increase the direct and indirect effects to sensitive plants and their habitats. Proliferation of 

unauthorized routes is assumed zero or minor. The significance of direct and indirect impacts is 

dependent on many factors including the amount of disturbance, the sensitive species being impacted, 

and in some cases, the season when the disturbance takes place. The significance of impacts is also 

dependent on the number of sensitive species that occur in a specific location and how many of them 

are damaged. Three routes will be mitigated for direct and indirect effects to plants and habitat in 

Alternative 1. 

The unauthorized routes will be allowed to passively recover. Passive recovery and re-vegetation is 

expected within a 10 year period. Disturbed areas on shallow soils, particularly above 8,000 feet 

elevation (cold temperature), will recover more slowly. These changes will have a positive effect on 

soil conditions as compared to Alternative 2 (see Chapter 3.07, Soil Resource). With less disturbance 

from motor vehicles direct impacts would lessened. Competing vegetation as a result of passive 

recovery may have an indirect effect to sensitive plants and habitat. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 616.80 miles of NFTS roads. It is assumed that changing 

vehicle class does not change impacts to sensitive species and watchlist plants/plant communities, and 

that effects from all types of motor vehicles are assumed equal. These roads already have hardened 

surfaces that lack vegetation. It is likely that direct impacts to sensitive species and watchlist plant 

communities occurred when the road was developed. Indirect impacts may still be occurring if the 

sensitive species and watchlist plants/plant communities have survived within 200 feet of the road. 

These indirect impacts would continue regardless of the type of vehicle using the road. 

Season of Use 

Alternative 1 provides for season of use on designated native NFTS motorized routes (see Chapter 2). 

Lower elevations are open all year, middle elevations are open April 1 through November 30, and 

upper elevations are open May 15 through November 30. Alternative 1 has a longer closure time and 

more benefit with lesser impact on sensitive plant resources than Alternative 4 and more of an impact 

than Alternative 5. Wheeled over snow use would be allowed on 105.92 miles of roads by ATVs 

when 12 inches or more of snow is present (see Table 2.02-2) with no anticipated impact to plant 

communities by allowing this use. 

Indicator Measure 1 – Number of sensitive plant sites/ occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle 

routes 

Under Alternative 1, potential exists for direct and indirect effects to 83 documented sensitive plant 

sites and suitable habitat areas. These 83 sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas are 

documented to be within 200 feet of the 151.64 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS under 

77 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

Alternative 1. Based on the assumption that suitable habitat exist along routes in upland and mid 

slope habitats and lower montane, chaparral, and woodland habitats, fourteen sensitive plant species 

may be directly or indirectly affected by routes within 200 feet of suitable habitat. These include: 

Jepson’s onion, Yosemite onion, Nissenan manzanita, big-scale balsamroot, Pleasant Valley mariposa 

lily, Small’s southern clarkia, Merced clarkia, Tahoe draba, Congdon’s woolly sunflower, Parry’s 

horkelia, short-leaved hulsea, Tuolumne fawn lily, Yosemite lewisia, and slender-stalked 

monkeyflower. 

Indicator Measure 2 - Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on 

either side of route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes 

Alternative 1 contains 159 documented sensitive plant sites with known impacts from motor vehicle 

use, including driving off-road for parking or dispersed camping access. The Biological Evaluation 

(BE) for Sensitive Plants and Other Botanical Resources shows routes with direct impacts to plants 

for this alternative (project record). Table 3.02-9 shows the number of potentially affected 

occurrences for each sensitive plant species along motor vehicle routes included in Alternative 1. 

Table 3.02-9 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 1 

Species Name Occurrences 

Kellogss’s lewisia 3 

Mariposa clarkia; 2 

Small’s southern clarkia 7 

Tuolumne fawn lily 3 

Hetch-Hetchy (slender-stemmed) monkeyflower 9 

three-bracted onion 4 

Stebbins’s lomatium 26 

Parry’s horkelia 5 

Indicator Measure 3 - Miles of motorized routes passing through lava caps 

This alternative includes 29.3 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS within lava caps with sensitive 

plant sites and suitable habitat areas. Three known sensitive plant species may be directly or 

indirectly affected by proposed additions to the NFTS in lava cap habitat areas. These sensitive plant 

sites occur within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS within lava cap areas: Stebbin’s 

lomatium, three-bracted onion, and Kellogg’s lewisia. The three-bracted onion (Allium tribracteatum) 

is an endemic occurring on very thin soils in open habitat and is quite vulnerable to OHV activity. 

This species would be most vulnerable by opening the trails within this habitat in early April (M. 

Willits, personal communication, January 16, 2009). 

Indicator Measure 4 - Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows 

Approximately 1.8 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS pass through meadows with the potential 

to affect several sensitive plant species and mosses. Based on the assumption that suitable habitat 

exist along routes in meadows and riparian areas, seventeen sensitive species, including six mosses, 

one lichen, five moonworts, Tuolumne fawn lily, Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower, subalpine fireweed, 

pansy monkeyflower, and Pilot Ridge fawn lily may be directly/indirectly affected by routes open for 

public motorized vehicle use through wet areas. Of the action alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 4 have 

the greatest number of proposed additions affecting sensitive plants in moist habitats. 

Indicator Measure 5 - Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet 

of sensitive plant occurrences and habitat 

This alternative includes 0.80 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS infested with invasive plant 

species and the potential to indirectly affect sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas. Twenty 

nine known noxious weed and invasive plant infestations are within 200 feet of sensitive plant sites 

and suitable habitat areas. Under this alternative, 22 sensitive plant sites/suitable habitat areas are 

within 200 feet of weed infested proposed additions to the NFTS.The two sensitive plant species with 

78 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

the highest number of sites with potential indirect and direct effects from noxious and invasive weed 

infestations include the Tuolumne fawn lily and Stebbin’s lomatium. Stebbin’s lomatium has 7 sites 

within 200 feet of noxious weed infestations, and Tuolumne fawn lily has 6 sites within 200 feet of 

noxious and invasive weed infestations associated with proposed additions to the NFTS. An 

additional 9 sensitive plant sites may be indirectly or directly affected by noxious and invasive weed 

infested routes under this alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Alternative 1 will potentially have the third highest impact to sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat 

areas after alternative 4 and 2. The Tuolumne fawn lily, an endemic to the Stanislaus National Forest, 

has documented impacts from numerous recreational and other forest uses. Existing impacts by OHV 

in suitable habitat areas for this plant species were extensively documented. The three sensitive plant 

sites of Tuolumne fawn lily that may be impacted by proposed additions to the NFTS under 

Alternative 1 represent approximately 7% of the total known sensitive plant sites for this species in 

the analysis area. Stebbin’s lomatium, another endemic to the Stanislaus National Forest, has 

documented impacts from OHV and other recreational uses. Under this alternative, proposed 

additions to the NFTS and increases in OHV use will likely increase the cumulative effects to both of 

these plant species over time. It is assumed that future OHV use will contribute to the adverse 

cumulative effects, but would not result in reducing the viability of this species. A second vulnerable 

species, Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower, has approximately 204 known sites documented on the 

Stanislaus National Forest. This species has a fairly narrow range, distributed through the southern 

half of the Groveland Ranger District. Nine of the 204 sites have documented impacts from motor 

vehicles on the analysis area. The meadows and seeps where this species occurs are easily accessed 

by OHVs. Numerous types of projects impact this species and were documented including, OHV use, 

logging, Ackerson and Rogge wildfires, large fire salvage, and reforestation projects. The nine plant 

sites potentially impacted by Alternative 1 represent approximately 4% of the total known sites for 

this species within the analysis area. 

Parry’s horkelia occurs in open habitat where users have created unauthorized cross country OHV 

trails and some of these trails pass through known sites. Documented sites exist near a fuel break in 

the Date Flat area. Noxious and invasive weeds spread by OHV use threaten this species. The five 

sites that may be impacted under Alternative 1 represent approximately 4% of the total known plant 

sites. 

Other meadow-dwelling sensitive species include moonworts, hump-mosses, Bolander’s bruchia, and 

Blandow's bog moss. Although these are wide ranging species, none are known numerous in 

California, and some of these species are in decline throughout their historic ranges. It is assumed that 

forest projects have and will impact the suitable habitat. Surveys for these meadow-dwelling sensitive 

species are incomplete within the analysis area. However, it is not likely that the cumulative effects of 

these projects (see Appendix B) will result in reducing the viability of these species. 

This alternative includes noxious and invasive weed infestations associated with 26.66 miles along 

the entire NFTS . Only 0.80 miles are associated with additions to the NFTS. Overall, adverse 

cumulative effects to sensitive plant species under Alternative 1 are not expected to be of the scale 

that would reduce species viability for any of the Stanislaus National Forest sensitive plant species. 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not, over time, improve conditions for sensitive plants and 

their habitats as a result of continued public motorized vehicle use. Impacts to sensitive plant sites and 

suitable habitat areas by motorized uses are taking place and are expected to increase in the 

foreseeable future due to the predicted increase in motor vehicle use. Monitoring of sensitive plant 

sites and any needed mitigations be implemented where impacts from off-road vehicles use is 

documented. 

79 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

While direct effects to sensitive plant species from disturbances caused by these activities was 

minimally mitigated by avoidance, indirect effects such as further invasion by noxious weeds 

occurred. Given the magnitude of the disturbance involved in various activities during the past 150 

years, it is likely that historic fire suppression, road and trail construction (designed and unauthorized 

routes), campground construction, other types of recreation activities including OHV use, timber 

management, salvage activities, reforestation practices, historic grazing and mining activities, and 

hydroelectric development have degraded suitable habitat. It is also likely that individual sensitive 

plants were destroyed by these activities and that entire occurrences may were eliminated. 

For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects of past activities are represented within the 

existing conditions. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects, including private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

present and future activities will contribute to effects on sensitive plant and habitat. Within the project 

area, hazardous fuels reduction and associated timber harvest have occurred on approximately 25,410 

acres of NFS land since 2000 (see Appendix B). These treatments are the primary activity that will 

alter forest vegetation and impact sensitive plants and habitat. These projects will likely occur on an 

estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Since 2000, approximately 

85,000 acres of NFS lands burned in wildfires. Within the project area, prescribed burning occurred 

on about 22,500 acres between 2000 and 2008. CDF lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within 

the Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans were 

submitted. On private timberlands, harvest methods include selective thinning and regeneration 

(clearcut) and then are reforested using herbicides to suppress competing vegetation 

Compliance and maintenance efforts may limit the extent of impacts to the more vulnerable sensitive 

plant habitat areas. Difficult access to suitable habitat areas and sensitive plant occurrence areas, as 

well as prohibiting cross country travel on unauthorized routes will alleviate impacts from motor 

vehicles in some areas of the forest. Under Alternative 1, cumulative impacts to sensitive plants are 

expected to remain below the threshold that reduces the overall viability for these rare plant species, 

or to cause listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Cross-country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative and travel on all existing routes 

would continue except where prohibited by existing Forest Orders. It is assumed that route 

proliferation would continue over the short and long-term. Passive recovery would not occur as the 

routes would continue to be used. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of disturbance to sensitive plants and their habitat. Route 

proliferation would continue at an estimated 2 miles per year. The effect of this route proliferation is 

unknown because the proliferation can occur anywhere on the landscape. It can be expected that 

sensitive plant habitat would be affected and an increased introduction of noxious weeds would occur. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No additions are being proposed to the system. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class 

No changes are made to vehicle class. 

80 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Season of Use 

No changes are made to existing restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). Wheeled over snow activities would 

continue. Alternative 2 has potential direct and indirect effects to approximately 39 percent of all 

documented sensitive plant sensitive plant sites/ occurrences and suitable habitat areas within 200 feet 

of unauthorized routes for the analysis area. Alternative 2 has 11.16 miles of unauthorized routes 

within meadows, and 29.52 miles of weed infested routes. Wheeled over snow use has potential direct 

and indirect impacts to sensitive plant habitat. The potential impacts of these routes to the sensitive 

plants and habitat are included in the analysis in Indicator Measure 1 of this alternative for the upland 

and midslope species and habitat. Indirect effects of wheeled over snow travel to plant species and 

habitat would most likely be a result secondary to rutting or change in hydrology. 

Indicator Measure 1 - Number of sensitive plant sites/ occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle 

routes 

Direct and indirect effects may occur to 612 sensitive plants sites/habitat areas located within 200 feet 

of 2,259.37 miles of motor vehicle routes. Based on the assumption that suitable habitat exist along 

routes in upland and mid slope habitats and lower montane, chaparral, and woodland habitats, 

fourteen sensitive plant species may be directly or indirectly affected by routes within 200 feet of 

suitable habitat. These include: Jepson’s onion, Yosemite onion, Nissenan manzanita, big-scale 

balsamroot, Pleasant Valley mariposa lily, Small’s southern clarkia, Merced clarkia, Tahoe draba, 

Congdon’s woolly sunflower, Parry’s horkelia, short-leaved hulsea, Tuolumne fawn lily, Yosemite 

lewisia, and slender-stalked monkeyflower. 

Indicator Measure 2 - Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on 

either side of route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes 

Alternative 2 contains 248 documented sensitive plant sites with known impacts from motor vehicle 

use, including driving off-road for parking or dispersed camping access. The BE for Sensitive Plants 

and Other Botanical Resources shows routes with direct impacts to plants for this alternative (project 

record). Table 3.02-10 shows the number of potentially affected occurrences for each sensitive plant 

species along motor vehicle routes included in Alternative 2. 

Table 3.02-10 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 2 

Species Name Occurrences 

Kellogg’s lewisia 3 

Mariposa clarkia 25 

Small’s southern clarkia 45 

Tuolumne fawn lily 28 

pansy monkey flower 15 

Hetch-Hetchy (slender-stemmed) monkeyflower 5 

three-bracted onion 18 

Stebbins’s lomatium 68 

mountain lady slipper 4 

Bolander’s bruchia 4 

Tuolumne fawn lily 2 

veiny aquatic lichen 2 

Yosemite wooly sunflower 3 

Parry’s horkelia 19 

Indicator Measure 3 - Miles of motorized routes passing through lava caps 

Approximately 65.97 miles of existing motorized routes within lava caps have sensitive plant sites 

and potential habitat for three sensitive species, including Stebbin’s lomatium, three-bracted onion, 

and Kellogg’s lewisia. The three-bracted onion (Allium tribracteatum) is an endemic occurring on 

very thin soils in open habitat and is quite vulnerable to OHV activity. Of the species most affected 

by OHV activity, the three-bracted onion and Stebbin’s lomatium have the most impacts. 

81 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

The Tuolumne Fawn lily (Erythronium tuolumnense) has 28 known occurrences with impacts due to 

proximity of OHV routes. If Alternative 2 is chosen as the preferred alternative, the risk to the 

viability of this species is high. The Interim Management Guide for this species identifies soil 

compaction and soil movement as the greatest threats because these effects reduce the vigor of the 

individuals and reduce the numbers of individuals within the population. 

The pansy monkey flower (Mimulus pulchellus) has 15 known occurrences that are directly impacted 

by this alternative. The habitat for this species, primarily moist areas on lava caps, is receiving 

potentially detrimental impacts from off road use. Accesses to these areas are from existing routes 

and vehicles have created ruts in these wet areas. As a consequence, drainage from the rutting has 

caused, in some cases, complete destruction of the habitat. 

Indicator Measure 4 - Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows 

Approximately 11.16 miles of routes pass through meadows under this alternative. Based on the 

assumption that suitable habitat exist along routes in meadows and riparian areas, seventeen sensitive 

species, including six mosses, one lichen, five moonworts, Tuolumne fawn lily, Hetch-Hetchy 

monkeyflower, subalpine fireweed, pansy monkeyflower, and Pilot Ridge fawn lily may be 

directly/indirectly affected by routes open for public motorized vehicle use through wet areas. 

Indicator Measure 5 - Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet 

of sensitive plant occurrences and habitat 

At present, 29.52 miles and 521 motorized routes are infested with noxious and invasive weed species 

which potentially affect sensitive plant sites and/or suitable habitat areas. Thirty two known noxious 

and invasive weed infestations are within 200 feet of sensitive plant occurrences and suitable habitat 

areas. Under this alternative, 41 sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas are directly or 

indirectly affected by routes with noxious and invasive weed infestations within 200 feet. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Although adverse cumulative effects to sensitive plant species under Alternative 2 are not expected to 

be of the scale that would reduce species viability, nearly 40 percent of the total number of known 

sensitive plant sites/ occurrences and suitable habitats throughout the Stanislaus National Forest are 

impacted by motor vehicle use. Current impacts by motor vehicle travel are not extensively 

documented in all suitable habitat areas for sensitive plant species. Alternative 2 potentially affects 

approximately 39 percent of all Stanislaus National Forest documented sensitive plant sites and their 

habitats within the analysis. Alternative 2 has the greatest number of miles within meadows and lava 

caps. Under Alternative 2, cumulative effects from implementing a variety of projects listed in 

Appendix B could impact sensitive plants and their habitat, especially in meadows and on lava caps. 

Alternative 2 would not, over time, improve conditions for sensitive plants and their habitats as a 

result of continued public motorized vehicle use on unauthorized routes and cross country travel. 

Impacts to sensitive plant occurrences and habitat are expected to increase in the foreseeable future 

due to the predicted increase in population and associated increased motor vehicle use. In Alternative 

2, cumulative impacts to sensitive plants are expected to remain below the threshold required to 

reduce the overall viability or cause listing status for these rare plant species. The unknown effects to 

sensitive plants and their habitat is greater under this alternative as motor vehicle travel by the public 

would not be limited to NFTS routes and continued use of user created routes is more likely to occur. 

It is assumed present and future unmanaged OHV use will contribute to the adverse cumulative 

effects. The continued use of the existing routes will negatively affect the viability of sensitive plant 

species and habitat. The significance of direct and indirect impacts is dependent on many factors 

including the amount of disturbance, the sensitive species being impacted, and in some cases, the 

season when the disturbance takes place. The significance of impacts is also dependent on the number 

82 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

of individuals of sensitive species that occur in a specific location and how many of them are 

damaged. 

Alternative 2 reflects the greatest number of miles of invasive plant infestations within 200 feet of 

sensitive plant resources and the risk of weed vectoring by motor vehicles is greater than all of the 

other alternatives. Over time, this alternative may have the highest level of cumulative effects to 

sensitive plant resources caused by noxious and invasive plant infestations. 

This alternative would has the greatest impacts to sensitive plant communities in comparison to all of 

the other alternatives, with direct and indirect effects to approximately 612 known sites/suitable 

habitat areas within 200 feet of the 2259.37 miles of routes open for public motorized vehicle use. At 

this time it is unknown what the direct and indirect effects are to undocumented plant occurrences. 

The unknown effects to sensitive plants and their habitat is greater for this alternative as motor 

vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to NFTS routes and continued use of user created 

routes will occur. Because of the inability to predict where route proliferation would occur on the 

Forest, it is difficult to determine what effects route proliferation has on suitable habitat. While direct 

effects to sensitive plant species from disturbances caused by these activities are minimally mitigated 

by avoidance, indirect effects such as further invasion by noxious weeds occurred. Given the 

magnitude of the disturbance involved in various activities during the past 150 years, it is likely that 

historic fire suppression, road and trail construction (designed and unauthorized routes), campground 

construction, other types of recreation activities including OHV use, timber management, salvage 

activities, reforestation practices, historic grazing and mining activities, and hydroelectric 

development have degraded suitable habitat. It is also likely that individual sensitive plants were 

destroyed by these activities and entire occurrences eliminated. 

For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects of past activities are represented within the 

existing conditions. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects including private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

activities will contribute to effects on sensitive plant and habitat. Within the project area, hazardous 

fuels reduction and associated timber harvest have occurred on approximately 25,410 acres of NFS 

land since 2000 (see Appendix B). These treatments are the primary activities that have altered forest 

vegetation and impacted sensitive plants and habitat. These projects will likely occur on an estimated 

3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Since 2000, approximately 85,000 acres 

of NFS lands burned in wildfires. Within the project area, prescribed burning occurred on about 

22,500 acres between 2000 and 2008. CDF lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within the 

Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans were submitted. 

On private timberlands, harvest methods include selective thinning and regeneration (clearcut) and 

then are reforested using herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Motor vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as allowed by permit 

or other authorization. The routes will be allowed to passively recover. Passive recovery and revegetation is expected within a 10 year period. The time frame of 10 years allows for most of the 

routes to grow vegetation and stabilize to background erosion rates. Disturbed areas on shallow soils, 

particularly above 8,000 feet elevation (cold temperature), will recover more slowly. These changes 

will have a positive effect on soil conditions as compared to Alternative 2 (see Chapter 3.07, Soil 

Resource). With fewer disturbances from motor vehicles, direct impacts would lessen. Competing 

vegetation as a result of passive recovery may have an indirect effect to sensitive plants and their 

habitats. 

83 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative would not result in the addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No changes are made to existing restrictions (see Table 2.02-7). No changes are made to the NFTS. 

Indicator Measure 1 - Number of sensitive plant sites/ occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle 

routes 

Because there are no additions to the system, there would be no continued effects on 410 known sites 

of sensitive plant populations associated with unauthorized routes. Protection would be provided to 

these populations by not adding these routes. 

Known sensitive plant populations occur within 200 feet of the NFTS. No changes to the NFTS are 

proposed. These populations will continue to be monitored. At this time it is unknown what the direct 

and indirect effects are to undocumented plant occurrences. Based on the assumption that suitable 

habitat exist along routes in upland and midslope habits and lower montane, chaparral, and woodland 

habitats, fourteen sensitive plant species may be directly or indirectly affected by routes within 200 

feet of suitable habitat. These include: Jepson’s onion, Yosemite onion, Nissenan manzanita, bigscale balsamroot, Pleasant Valley mariposa lily, Small’s southern clarkia, Merced clarkia, Tahoe 

draba, Congdon’s woolly sunflower, Parry’s horkelia, short-leaved hulsea, Tuolumne iris, Yosemite 

lewisia, and slender-stalked monkeyflower. 

Indicator Measure 2 - Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on 

either side of route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes 

Alternative 3 contains 155 documented sensitive plant sites with known impacts from motor vehicle 

use, including driving off-road for parking or dispersed camping access. The BE for Sensitive Plants 

and Other Botanical Resources shows routes with direct impacts to plants for this alternative (project 

record). Table 3.02-11 shows the number of potentially affected occurrences for each sensitive plant 

species along motor vehicle routes included in Alternative 3. By not adding these unauthorized routes 

to the system, the direct effects to these populations will be reduced. 

Table 3.02-11 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 3 

Species Name Occurrences 

Mariposa clarkia; 24 

Small’s southern clarkia 39 

Tuolumne fawn lily 12 

pansy monkey flower 10 

Hetch-Hetchy (slender-stemmed) monkeyflower 14 

three-bracted onion 5 

Stebbins’s lomatium 31 

mountain lady slipper 4 

Bolander’s bruchia 1 

Tuolumne fawn lily 1 

veiny aquatic lichen 1 

Yosemite wooly sunflower 3 

Parry’s horkelia 10 

Indicator Measure 3 - Miles of motorized routes passing through lava caps 

Approximately 65.97 miles of unauthorized routes are on lava caps and within 200 feet of sensitive 

plant sites and/or potential habitat. Three sensitive plant species, including Stebbin’s lomatium, threebracted onion, and Kellogg’s lewisia grow in the lava cap habitat. The three-bracted onion (Allium 

tribracteatum) is an endemic occurring on very thin soils in open habitat and is quite vulnerable to 

OHV activity. These unauthorized routes will not be added to the system. Because of this, effects to 

lava cap associated sensitive plants will be significantly reduced. 

84 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Indicator Measure 4 - Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows 

Approximately 11.16 miles of existing NFTS routes pass through meadows under this alternative. 

Based on the assumption that suitable habitat exist along routes in meadows and riparian areas, 

seventeen sensitive species, including six mosses, one lichen, five moonworts, Tuolumne fawn lily, 

Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower, subalpine fireweed, pansy monkeyflower, and Pilot Ridge fawn lily 

may be directly/indirectly affected by routes open for public motorized vehicle use through wet areas. 

No changes to the existing NFTS are proposed and these routes will continue to pass through 

meadows. 

Indicator Measure 5 - Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet 

of sensitive plant occurrences and habitat 

The analysis area contains 29.52 miles and 440 motorized routes infested with invasive plant species 

and the potential to directly and/or indirectly affect sensitive plant sites and/or suitable habitat areas. 

Thirty two known noxious and invasive weed infestations are within 200 feet of sensitive plant 

occurrences and suitable habitat areas documented for the existing routes. In the analysis area, 41 

sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas may be directly or indirectly affected by routes with 

noxious and invasive weed infestations within 200 feet. This alternative would reduce the continued 

introduction of weeds from OHVs on 2.47 miles of unauthorized routes by not adding any routes to 

the NFTS. No other changes are being proposed in this alternative. The weed infestations associated 

with the remaining roads will continue to be monitored and aggressively treated. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 3, cumulative impacts to sensitive plants are expected to remain below the 

threshold in reducing the overall viability for these rare plant species. Overall, adverse cumulative 

effects to sensitive plant species in Alternative 3 are not expected to be of the scale that would reduce 

species viability. Impacts by motor vehicle travel are not extensively documented in all suitable 

habitat areas for these sensitive plant species. Continued use on the NFTS will likely continue the 

level of effects to all of the sensitive plant species within 200 feet of the NFTS over time. At this 

time, it is assumed that the cumulative effects, present and foreseeable future management activities, 

including those from motor vehicle impacts, would not result in a trend toward federal listing for 

sensitive plants suspected or known to occur within the analysis area. 

Sensitive plant populations exist through the analysis area. Some are directly associated with the NF 

transportation system. Continued motorized use on the NFTS could result in negative effects to these 

plant populations through increased use and parking off road. 

Given the magnitude of the disturbance involved in various activities during the past 150 years, it is 

likely that historic fire suppression, road and trail construction (designed and unauthorized routes), 

campground construction, other types of recreation activities including OHV use, timber 

management, salvage activities, reforestation practices, historic grazing and mining activities, and 

hydroelectric development have degraded suitable habitat. It is also likely that individual sensitive 

plants were destroyed by these activities and entire occurrences eliminated. While direct effects to 

sensitive plant species from disturbances caused by these activities are minimally mitigated by 

avoidance, indirect effects such as further invasion by noxious weeds occurred. 

For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects of past activities are represented within the 

existing conditions. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects, including private lands, within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

activities will contribute to effects on sensitive plant and habitat. Within the project area, hazardous 

fuels reduction and associated timber harvest have occurred on approximately 25,410 acres of NFS 

land since 2000 (see Appendix B). These treatments are the primary activity that will possibly alter 

forest vegetation and impact sensitive plants and habitat. These projects will likely occur on an 

85 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Since 2000, approximately 

85,000 acres of NFS lands burned in wildfires. Within the project area, prescribed burning occurred 

on about 22,500 acres between 2000 and 2008. CDF lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within 

the Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans were 

submitted. On private timberlands, harvest methods include selective thinning and regeneration 

(clearcut) and then are reforested using herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would improve conditions for sensitive plants and their habitats in 

comparison to the other alternatives by eliminating cross country routes, and by not adding any new 

routes or facilities. Impacts to sensitive plant occurrences and habitats are taking place and are 

expected to increase in the foreseeable future due to the predicted increase in motor vehicle use. This 

alternative potentially results in the least amount of impacts and effects on sensitive plant occurrences 

and suitable habitat areas. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Cross-Country travel is prohibited in Alternative 4. The routes will be allowed to passively recover. 

Passive recovery and re-vegetation is expected within a 10 year period. Disturbed areas on shallow 

soils, particularly above 8,000 feet elevation (cold temperature), will recover more slowly. These 

changes will have a positive effect on soil conditions as compared to the Alternative 2 (see 3.07 Soil). 

With fewer disturbances from motor vehicles, direct impacts would lessen. Competing vegetation as a 

result of passive recovery may have an indirect effect to sensitive plants and habitat. 

The significance of direct and indirect impacts is dependent on many factors including the amount of 

disturbance, the sensitive species being impacted, and in some cases, the season when the disturbance 

takes place. The significance of impacts is also dependent on the number of sensitive plant 

individuals that occur in a specific location and how many of them are damaged. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative adds 175.97 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS system, including 102 routes 

within 200 feet of known sensitive plant sites and/or suitable habitat areas. This alternative will have 

the greatest impact to sensitive plant communities of all of the action alternatives, with potential 

direct and indirect effects to approximately 123 known sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas 

within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS within the analysis area. Proliferation of 

unauthorized routes is assumed zero or minor. Use will be discontinued on 65 miles of unauthorized 

routes 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 367.94 miles of NFTS roads. It is assumed that changing the 

class of vehicle does not change impacts to sensitive species and watchlist plants/plant communities 

and that effects from all types of motor vehicles are assumed equal. These roads already have 

hardened surfaces that lack vegetation. It is likely that direct impacts to sensitive species and 

watchlist plant communities occurred when the road was developed. Indirect impacts may still be 

occurring if the sensitive species and watchlist plants/plant communities have survived within 200 

feet of the road. These indirect impacts would continue regardless of the type of vehicle using the 

road. 

86 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Season of Use 

Alternative 4 provides for season of use on designated NFTS motorized routes. Season of use varies 

by surface type and route location within 3 different zones. Lower elevations are open all year, 

middle elevations are open April 1 through December 31, and upper elevations are open April 1 

through December 31. The length of time for season of use increases the potential for direct and 

indirect effects to sensitive plant and other botanical resources under this alternative, in comparison to 

Alternatives 1 and 5. Wheeled over snow use is the same as Alternative 1. 

Indicator Measure 1 - Number of sensitive plant sites/ occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle 

routes 

Alternative 4 proposes adding 175.97 miles to the NFTS, potentially affecting sensitive plant sites 

and/or suitable habitat areas. At this time it is unknown what the direct and indirect effects are to 

undocumented plant occurrences. This alternative has potential to have the greatest impact on 

sensitive plant species and suitable habitat areas. 123 sensitive plant sites and habitat areas within 200 

feet of routes may be affected under Alternative 4. Based on the assumption that suitable habitat exist 

along routes in upland and mid slope habitats and lower montane, chaparral, and woodland habitats, 

fourteen sensitive plant species may be directly or indirectly affected by routes within 200 feet of 

suitable habitat. These include: Jepson’s onion, Yosemite onion, Nissenan manzanita, big-scale 

balsamroot, Pleasant Valley mariposa lily, Small’s southern clarkia, Merced clarkia, Tahoe draba, 

Congdon’s woolly sunflower, Parry’s horkelia, short-leaved hulsea, Tuolumne iris, Yosemite lewisia, 

and slender-stalked monkeyflower. 

Indicator Measure 2 - Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on 

either side of route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes 

Alternative 4 contains 72 documented sensitive plant sites with known impacts from motor vehicle 

use, including driving off-road for parking or dispersed camping access. The BE for Sensitive Plants 

and Other Botanical Resources shows routes with direct impacts to plants for this alternative (project 

record). Table 3.02-12 shows the number of potentially affected occurrences for each sensitive plant 

species along motor vehicle routes included in Alternative 4. 

Table 3.02-12 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 4 

Species Name Occurrences 

Kellogss’s lewisia 4 

Mariposa clarkia; 2 

Small’s southern clarkia 9 

Tuolumne fawn lily 4 

Hetch-Hetchy (slender-stemmed) monkeyflower 11 

three-bracted onion 5 

Stebbins’s lomatium 30 

Parry’s horkelia 6 

Indicator Measure 3 - Miles of motorized routes passing through lava caps 

An additional 32.1 miles of motorized routes within lava caps habitat areas have documented 

sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat. Alternative 4 has the greatest number of routes (a total of 

approximately 128 routes in lava cap habitat areas, and the largest potential for affects to the three 

sensitive plant species found growing on lava caps, including Stebbin’s lomatium, Kellogg’s lewisia, 

and three-bracted onion. The three-bracted onion (Allium tribracteatum) is an endemic occurring on 

very thin soils in open habitat and is quite vulnerable to OHV activity. This species would be most 

vulnerable by opening the trails within this habitat in early April (M. Willits, personal 

communication, January 16, 2009). 

87 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

Indicator Measure 4 - Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows 

This alternative includes 2.1 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS in meadows and riparian areas. 

Based on the assumption that suitable habitat exist along routes in meadows and riparian areas, 

seventeen sensitive species, including six mosses, one lichen, five moonworts, Tuolumne fawn lily, 

Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower, subalpine fireweed, pansy monkeyflower, and Pilot Ridge fawn lily 

may be directly/indirectly affected by routes open for public motorized vehicle use through wet areas. 

Indicator Measure 5 - Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet 

of sensitive plant occurrences and habitat 

Under this alternative, 4 miles and 68 proposed additions to the NFTS are infested with invasive plant 

species with the potential to affect sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas. Forty two known 

noxious weed infestations are within 200 feet of sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas 

documented for the proposed additions to the NFTS under Alternative 4. Under this alternative, a 

total of 17 sensitive plant sites/suitable habitat areas are within 200 feet of noxious weed infestations 

on proposed additions to the NFTS, and 32 sites on existing routes. The two sensitive plant species 

with the highest number of occurrences with potential direct and indirect effects from noxious weed 

infestations include the Tuolumne fawn lily and Stebbin’s lomatium. Stebbin’s lomatium has 6 sites 

within 200 feet of noxious weed infestations, and Tuolumne fawn lily has 5 sites within 200 feet of 

noxious weed infestations. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Overall, adverse cumulative effects to sensitive plant species from Alternative 4 may or may not be of 

the scale that could reduce species viability for two of the most potentially affected species, including 

the Tuolumne fawn lily and Stebbin’s lomatium. Stebbin’s lomatium grows in lava cap habitat areas, 

which tend to have the highest number of routes affecting rare plant resources. At least 8 percent of 

the known sites of Stebbin’s lomatium and approximately 10 percent of the known sites of Tuolumne 

fawn lily are likely to be adversely affected by motor vehicle use from the proposed additions to the 

NFTS under this alternative. It is unlikely that the cumulative effects of present, and foreseeable 

future management activities, including those from motor vehicle impacts, would result in a trend 

toward federal listing for Tuolumne fawn lily(CNPS list 1B.2) and Stebbin’s lomatium (CNPS list 

1B.1). 

Kellogg’s lewisia has 10 sites documented in the analysis area. Three sites have documented direct 

impacts from motor vehicle uses on existing motorized routes. In addition, four sites of this plant 

species may be directly impacted by proposed additions to the NFTS under Alternative 4. A total of 

70% of the known sensitive plant sites may be directly affected by motorized travel under this 

alternative. Due to the extended range of this taxon within the Sierra Nevada and the fact that this 

taxon was only recently listed as sensitive, possible impacts may occur through the range. More 

information from neighboring forest would be useful regarding the impacts from OHV vehicles, and 

possible trend towards a federal listing. It is determined that the cumulative effects in the analysis 

area from present and foreseeable future management activities would not likely result in a trend 

toward federal listing for Kellogg’s lewisia (CNPS list 3), however, the occurrences on the Stanislaus 

National Forest will be highly impacted by the proposed routes. 

Alternative 4 has the greatest number of proposed additions to the NFTS in lava caps of all the action 

alternatives. Stebbin’s lomatium and Kellogg’s lewisia grow in lava cap habitat areas where the 

highest densities of motorized routes occur in the analysis area. Both of these rare plant species are 

anticipated to decline in the number of individual plants and plant sites under Alternative 4. 

The other meadow-dwelling and riparian sensitive species include the moonworts, the hump-mosses, 

Bolander’s bruchia, Blandow's bog moss and the water-veined lichen. While none of these species are 

abundant in California, they are wide ranging species in decline throughout their historic ranges. Even 

88 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

though cumulative effects are likely to occur to these meadow-dwelling sensitive species from present 

and foreseeable future management activities listed in Appendix B, it is not likely to be a trend 

toward federal listing for these wide-ranging species. 

Alternative 4 also has the highest mileage of weed infested routes, with 33.68 miles of infestations on 

native surface routes and 29.68 miles of motorized routes are infested with noxious and invasive 

weed species. Alternative 4 potentially affects 49 known sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat 

areas within 200 feet of weed infested motorized routes. Cumulatively, effects to sensitive plant 

resources caused by invasive species will be more than Alternative 1. Given the magnitude of the 

disturbance involved in various activities during the past 150 years, it is likely that historic fire 

suppression, road and trail construction (designed and unauthorized routes), campground 

construction, other types of recreation activities including OHV use, timber management, salvage 

activities, reforestation practices, historic grazing and mining activities, and hydroelectric 

development have degraded suitable habitat. It is also likely that individual sensitive plants were 

destroyed by these activities and entire occurrences eliminated. While direct effects to sensitive plant 

species from disturbances caused by these activities are minimally mitigated by avoidance, indirect 

effects such as further invasion by noxious weeds occurred. 

For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects of past activities are represented within the 

existing conditions. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects including private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

activities will contribute to effects on sensitive plant and habitat. Within the project area, hazardous 

fuels reduction and associated timber harvest have occurred on approximately 25,410 acres of NFS 

land since 2000 (see Appendix B). These treatments are the primary activity that will alter forest 

vegetation and impact sensitive plants and habitat. These projects will likely occur on an estimated 

3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Since 2000, approximately 85,000 acres 

of NFS lands burned in wildfires. Within the project area, prescribed burning occurred on about 

22,500 acres between 2000 and 2008. CDF lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within the 

Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans were submitted. 

On private timberlands, harvest methods include selective thinning and regeneration (clearcut) and 

then are reforested using herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. 

Implementation of Alternative 4 would improve conditions for those sensitive plant populations and 

their habitats associated with routes not added to the system. Cross country travel prohibitions would 

reduce effects to unknown populations of plants and reduce the risk of noxious weed introduction. 

Impacts to sensitive plant occurrences and habitat are expected to increase in the foreseeable future 

due to the predicted increase in motor vehicle use. Four routes will be mitigated for effects to plants 

and their habitats in Alternative 4. Monitoring of plant sites, signing and barriers may be implemented 

where continued impacts from off-road vehicles use are apparent. Compliance efforts may assist in 

limiting the extent of impacts to the more vulnerable sensitive plant habitats. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Cross-Country travel is prohibited in Alternative 5. Proliferation of unauthorized routes is assumed 

zero or minor. Current use will be discontinued on 220 miles of unauthorized routes. The routes will 

not be added to the NFTS and allowed to passively recover. Passive recovery and re-vegetation is 

expected within a 10 year period. Disturbed areas on shallow soils, particularly above 8,000 feet 

elevation (cold temperature), will recover more slowly. These changes will have a positive effect on 

soil conditions as compared to the Alternative 2 (see Chapter 3.07, Soil Resource). With less 

89 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

disturbance from motor vehicles direct impacts would lessened. Competing vegetation as a result of 

passive recovery may have an indirect effect to sensitive plants and habitat. 

Direct impacts to sensitive species from dispersed recreational access could be significant at least at 

the local, site specific level. The significance of direct and indirect impacts is dependent on many 

factors including the amount of disturbance, the sensitive species being impacted, and in some cases, 

the season when the disturbance takes place. The significance of impacts is also dependent on the 

number of sensitive plant individuals that occur in a specific location and how many of them are 

damaged. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 28.37 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS. 8 routes within 200 feet of 

known sensitive plant occurrences are associated with these additions. This alternative will have less 

of an impact to sensitive plant communities than alternative 1, 2 and 4. Alternative 5 may potentially 

directly and/or indirectly affect 9 known sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat areas within 200 feet 

of proposed additions to the NFTS within the analysis area. 

Alternative 5 has the least number of proposed additions to the NFTS into meadows and lava cap 

areas. Alternative 5 also has the least number of additional miles of weed infested routes, including 

25.79 miles of weed infested routes being analyzed 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 525.73 miles of NFTS roads. It is assumed that changing the 

class of vehicle allowed to use a particular road does not change impacts to sensitive species and 

watchlist plants/plant communities. Effects from all types of motor vehicles are assumed equal. These 

roads already have hardened surfaces that lack vegetation. It is likely that direct impacts to sensitive 

species and watchlist plant communities occurred when the road was developed. Indirect impacts may 

still be occurring if the sensitive species and watchlist plants/plant communities have survived within 

200 feet of the road. These indirect and cumulative impacts would continue regardless of the type of 

vehicle using the road. 

Season of Use 

Alternative 5 provides for season of use on designated native and non-native NFTS motorized routes. 

Lower elevations are open all year, middle elevations are open April 15 through November 15, and 

upper elevations are open May 15 through November 15. This alternative provides for the greatest 

protection for botanical resources, including sensitive plant resources, with the longest season of use 

period in comparison to all of the other alternatives. No wheeled over snow use is proposed. 

Indicator Measure 1 - Number of sensitive plant sites/ occurrences within 200 feet of motor vehicle 

routes 

Direct and indirect effects may occur to 9 sensitive plant sites and/or suitable habitat areas located 

within 200 feet of proposed additions to the NFTS. Alternative 5 includes 28.37 additional miles of 

unauthorized routes that may cause direct/indirect effects to sensitive plant sites and/or suitable 

habitat areas. The direct and indirect effects that may occur to undocumented plant occurrences 

and/or suitable habitats under this alternative are unknown. 

Based on the assumption that suitable habitats exist along routes in upland and mid slope habitats and 

lower montane, chaparral, and woodland habitats, fourteen sensitive plant species may be directly or 

indirectly affected by routes within 200 feet of suitable habitat. These include: Jepson’s onion, 

Yosemite onion, Nissenan manzanita, big-scale balsamroot, Pleasant Valley mariposa lily, Small’s 

90 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

southern clarkia, Merced clarkia, Tahoe draba, Congdon’s woolly sunflower, Parry’s horkelia, shortleaved hulsea, Tuolumne iris, Yosemite lewisia, and slender-stalked monkeyflower. 

Indicator Measure 2 - Number of documented direct impacts to sensitive plant sites/occurrences on 

either side of route’s edge within 30 feet of motor vehicle routes 

Alternative 5 contains 8 documented sensitive plant sites with known impacts from motor vehicle use, 

including driving off-road for parking or dispersed camping access. The BE for Sensitive Plants and 

Other Botanical Resources shows routes with direct impacts to plants for this alternative (project 

record). Table 3.02-13 shows the number of potentially affected occurrences for each sensitive plant 

species along motor vehicle routes included in Alternative 5. 

Table 3.02-13 Species and Occurrences within 30 feet of Motor Vehicle Routes: Alternative 5 

Species Name Occurrences 

Small’s southern clarkia 1 

three-bracted onion 1 

Stebbins’s lomatium 4 

Parry’s horkelia 2 

Indicator Measure 3 - Miles of motorized routes passing through lava caps 

This alternative includes 6.3 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS within lava cap areas with 

sensitive plant sites and suitable habitats. Alternative 5 has the least number of proposed additions to 

the NFTS in lava cap areas of all of the alternatives. The three-bracted onion (Allium tribracteatum) is 

an endemic occurring on very thin soils in open habitat and is quite vulnerable to OHV activity. This 

species would be most vulnerable by opening the trails within this habitat in early April (M. Willits, 

personal communication, January 16, 2009). 

Indicator Measure 4 - Miles of motorized routes passing through meadows 

This alternative includes 0.2 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS through meadows. Based on 

the assumption that suitable habitat exist along routes in meadows and riparian areas, seventeen 

sensitive species, including six mosses, one lichen, five moonworts, Tuolumne fawn lily, HetchHetchy monkeyflower, subalpine fireweed, pansy monkeyflower, and Pilot Ridge fawn lily may be 

directly/indirectly affected by routes open for public motorized vehicle use through wet areas. 

Alternative 5 provides the second most protection for meadow and riparian botanical resources of all 

of the action alternatives. 

Indicator Measure 5 - Miles of motorized routes infested with invasive plant species within 200 feet 

of sensitive plant occurrences and habitat 

This alternative include 0.02 miles of proposed additions to the NFTS, infested with invasive plant 

species and the potential to indirectly and directly affect sensitive plant sites and suitable habitat 

areas. Seven known noxious and invasive weed infestations are within 200 feet of sensitive plant sites 

and suitable habitat areas documented for the proposed additions to the NFTS under Alternative 5. 

Five sensitive plant sites are within 200 feet of noxious weeds that may be indirectly or directly 

affected by infestations proposed additions to the NFTS under this alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Alternative 5 will provide more protection of botanical resources and conservation of sensitive plant 

sites and suitable habitat areas than Alternatives 1, 2 and 4. Alternative 3 provides the most 

protection. Cumulative effects would continue to impact sensitive plants and their habitat, but in a 

manner that slows the damage incurred from motor vehicle travel. This is mainly due to a reduction in 

miles of routes open for public motorized vehicle use within and adjacent to suitable habitat areas and 

plant occurrences, and the prohibition of cross-country travel. Meadow, riparian and other wetland 

habitats are provided with more protection under Alternative 5, since fewer roads would impact wet 

91 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

habitats, including areas with suitable habitats and sensitive plant occurrences. Lava cap habitat areas 

will also be provided with more protection, as Alternative 5 has the least number of proposed 

additions to the NFTS in lava caps. One route includes mitigation measures for direct and indirect 

affects to plants. Monitoring and compliance efforts would still be necessary to mitigate damage to 

the most vulnerable sites. 

This alternative includes 25.79 miles of motorized routes infested with noxious and invasive weed 

species. Alternative 5 potentially indirectly and directly affects 37 known sensitive plant sites and 

suitable habitat areas within 200 feet of additional and existing miles of weed infested motorized 

routes. Cumulatively, indirect and direct effects to sensitive plant and other botanical resources 

caused by invasive species will be less for Alternative 5 than for the Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Given the magnitude of the disturbance involved in various activities during the past 150 years, it is 

likely that historic fire suppression, road and trail construction (designed and unauthorized routes), 

campground construction, other types of recreation activities including OHV use, timber 

management, salvage activities, reforestation practices, historic grazing and mining activities, and 

hydroelectric development have degraded suitable habitat. It is also likely that individual sensitive 

plants were destroyed by these activities and entire occurrences eliminated. While direct effects to 

sensitive plant species from disturbances caused by these activities are minimally mitigated by 

avoidance, indirect effects such as further invasion by noxious weeds occurred. 

For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects of past activities are represented within the 

existing conditions. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects including, private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

activities will contribute to effects on sensitive plant and habitat. Within the project area, hazardous 

fuels reduction and associated timber harvest have occurred on approximately 25,410 acres of NFS 

land since 2000 (see Appendix B). These treatments are the primary activity that will alter forest 

vegetation and impact sensitive plants and habitat. These projects will likely occur on an estimated 

3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Since 2000, approximately 85,000 acres 

of NFS lands burned in wildfires. Within the project area, prescribed burning occurred on about 

22,500 acres between 2000 and 2008. CDF lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within the 

Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans were submitted. 

On private timberlands, harvest methods include selective thinning and regeneration (clearcut) and 

then are reforested using herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. 

Although the effects to sensitive plants vary by alternative and the selection of any alternative may 

contribute to adverse effects on multiple occurrences of sensitive plants, all alternatives, except 

Alternative 2, represent a decreased risk to sensitive plants than under existing conditions. The six 

sensitive plant taxa that were most impacted due to the habitat’s proximity to routes, will continue to 

be most at risk in the future. These sensitive taxa include Stebbin’s lomatium (Lomatium stebbinsii), 

Tuolumne fawn lily (Erythronium tuolumnense), three-bracted onion (Allium tribracteatum), 

Kellogg’s lewisia (Lewisia kelloggii), Small’s southern clarkia (Clarkia australis), and Hetch-Hetchy 

monkeyflower (Mimulus filicaulis). These six taxa have sites and suitable habitat adjacent to routes 

included in all the alternatives with the exception of Alternative 3, which does not have routes with 

impacts to Kellogg’s lewisia, and Alternative 5, which has routes adjacent to occurrences of four taxa. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

Alternatives 1 and 4 decrease the mileage and number of routes available for public motor vehicle use 

and decrease the potential for direct and indirect effects to sensitive plants and suitable habitat 

compared to Alternative 2. Alternatives 3 and 5 will reduce the mileage and number of routes 

available for use and provide the least amount of impacts to sensitive plants and introduction of 

noxious weed species, compared to Alternative 2. 

92 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

The reduction in routes and mileage is likely to concentrate OHV use on the routes designated, 

thereby, increasing the potential for effects to roadside sensitive plant occurrences on those routes. 

Continuation of the introduction of noxious weeds will occur regardless of which alternative is 

selected. Alternatives with fewer routes open for public motorized vehicle use, especially those that 

exclude routes that are weed infested, provide a reduced risk for vectoring of seeds by motor vehicles, 

and may decrease the spread of weeds to non-infested portions of these routes and other parts of the 

forest. When the motor vehicle use on unauthorized routes ceases, the recovery of native vegetation 

can be affected by the presence of weeds within and adjacent to that route. Vegetative recovery in 

areas infested with weeds may not occur if the weeds are not eliminated and desired native vegetation 

is encouraged (Bard 2004). The amount of time needed for the motorized road or trail to revegetate 

with native species is dependent on many factors including the type of weed at the site. 

Sensitive plant species were adversely affected by roadside brushing, piling and burning, erosion 

seeding, grading, hazard tree removal, noxious weed introduction and road and culvert failure. Effects 

of roads on Sensitive plants may occur within the roadside hazard tree removal zone. This zone, 

which occupies about 14% of the Stanislaus roaded acres, is the area within which roadside hazard 

tree removal is likely to affect botanical resources. 

Continued activities of annual road and trail maintenance such as grading and brushing could have 

direct effects to sensitive plant populations adjacent to these facilities with narrow road or trail 

prisms. These plant populations occupy about 2% of the Stanislaus roaded acres. 

Stebbin’s lomatium and Kellogg’s lewisia grow in lava cap habitat areas where the highest densities 

of motorized routes occur in the analysis area. Both of these rare plant species are anticipated to 

decline in the number of individual plants and plant sites under all of the Alternatives. 

Table 3.02-14 gives the summary of effects of motorized routes to Sensitive Plants, Habitats and 

Noxious Weeds on the within the analysis area. 

Table 3.02-14 Botanical Resources Indicator Measures 

Alternative Indicator Measures 1 2 3 4 5 

Additions to the NFTS with sensitive plant sites within 200 ft 68 0 0 102 8 

Additions to the NFTS within meadows (miles) 1.8 0 0 2.1 0.2 

Additions to the NFTS through lava caps with known plant sites 

(miles) 29.3 0 0 32.1 6.3 

Sensitive plant sites with within 30ft of Routes (occurrences) 493 612 410 533 419 

Sensitive plant sites with noxious weed infestations within 200 ft 22 41 41 17 5 

Weed infested additions to the NFTS (miles) 0.80 0 0 4.0 0.02 

Weed infested motorized routes (miles) 26.66 29.52 29.52 33.68 25.79 

Table 3.02-15 presents the direct and indirect effects to sensitive plants by alternative for each 

indicator measure developed. The effects were analyzed for Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 with miles of 

proposed additions to the NFTS and with total miles of existing and proposed additions to the NFTS 

for all alternatives. 

From the results presented in Table 3.02-15, Alternative 3 will have the least amount of impact to 

unique habitats such as lava caps and meadows and will have the least amount of overall impacts to 

sensitive plant sites. Alternative 2 has the most effect to sensitive plants and suitable habitats and lava 

cap and moist habitat types along existing routes. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 has the 

highest direct impacts to known sensitive plant site and the greatest risk to sensitive plants affected by 

routes within 200 feet of areas infested with noxious and invasive plants. 

93 
 

 

Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest 

Table 3.02-15 Direct and Indirect Effects to Sensitive Plants 

Sensitive Plant Occurrence Effects Indicator 

Measure 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Sites directly/indirectly affected (w/in 200 ft) by additions to the NFTS 1 83 0 0 123 9 

Sites directly/indirectly (w/in 200 ft) affected by all roads and trails 1 493 612 410 523 419 

Sites directly affected by additions to the NFTS 2 59 0 0 69 8 

Sites directly affected by total number of routes 2 111 101 55 123 64 

Sites directly/indirectly affected on lava caps by all roads and trails 3 31 0 0 36 6 

Sites directly/indirectly affected on lava caps by total number of routes 3 43 166 12 48 18 

Sites directly/indirectly affected in moist habitats by additions to the NFTS 4 33 0 0 15 0 

Sites directly/indirectly affected in moist habitats by all roads and trails 4 51 66 18 33 18 

Sites directly/indirectly affected by noxious (w/in 200 ft) by additions to the NFTS 5 22 0 0 17 5 

Sites directly/indirectly affected by noxious (w/in 200 ft) by all roads and trails 5 63 41 41 58 46 

Table 3.02-16 presents the direct effects to sensitive plants and one moss by species as measured by 

using the numbers in Indicator Measure 3 and adding the proposed alternative numbers from 1, 4 and 

5. 

Table 3.02-16 Direct Effects to Sensitive Plants 

Plant Species Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Lomatium stebbinsii 26 68 31 30 4 

Allium tribracteatum 4 18 5 5 1 

Clarkia australis 7 45 39 9 1 

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis 2 25 24 2 0 

Mimulus filicaulis 9 15 14 11 0 

Horkelia parryi 5 19 10 6 2 

Erythronium tuolumnense 3 28 12 4 0 

Cypripedium montanum 0 4 4 0 0 

Mimulus pulchellus 0 15 10 0 0 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii 3 3 0 4 0 

Eriophyllum nubigenum 0 3 0 0 0 

Hydrothyria venosa 0 2 1 0 0 

Iris hartwegii ssp.columbiana 0 1 1 0 0 

Balsamoriza macrolepis var. macrolepis 0 0 0 0 0 

Moss Species 

Bruchia bolanderi 0 2 1 0 0 

Additions to the NFTS with Direct Effects to Plants 55 0 0 69 8 

Total 210 248 155 224 163 

Table 3.02-17 shows the potential direct impacts to sensitive plants and unique habitat increases with 

proposed additions to the NFTS under Alternatives 1 and 4, respectively. 

Table 3.02-17 Summary of Effects for Botanical Resources 

Indicators – Botanical Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Unauthorized routes within or adjacent to sensitive plant sites or 

within or adjacent to suitable sensitive plant habitat. 3 1 5 2 4 

Routes open for public motor vehicle use within or adjacent to 

sensitive plant sites. 3 1 5 2 4 

Routes open for public motor vehicle use with documented 

disturbances from motor vehicles that resulted in damage to 

individual sensitive plants or to habitat. 

3 1 5 2 4 

Density of routes open for motor vehicle use within areas of suitable 

TES plant habitat where occurrences exist (e.g., lava caps) 1 3 5 2 4 

Routes open for motor vehicle use within moist habitats (miles) 1 3 5 2 4 

Average for Botanical Resources 2.2 1.8 5.0 2.0 4.0 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact on this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most. 

94 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Determination of Effects 

It is my determination that the Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management EIS: 

1.	 Would have no effect on the sensitive plant species: Tahoe draba (Draba asterophora var. 

asterophora); 

2.	 May affect individuals but likely would not result in a trend toward federal listing for the 

following sensitive plant species: 

Jepson’s onion (Allium tribracteatum), three-bracted onion (Allium tribracteatum), Yosemite 

onion (Allium yosemitense), Nissenan’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos nissenana), big-scale 

balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), upswept moonwort, (Botrichium 

ascendens), scalloped moonwort (Botrichium crenulatum), common moonwort (Botrichium 

lunaria), Mingan’s moonwort (Botrichium manganese), Pleasant Valley Mariposa lily 

(Calochortus clavatus var. avius), Small’s southern clarkia (Clarkia australis), Mariposa clarkia 

(Clarkia biloba ssp. australis), Merced clarkia (Clarkia lingulata), mountain lady’s slipper 

(Cypripedium montanum), subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii), Congdon’s woolly sunflower 

(Eriophyllum congdonii), Yosemite woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum nubigenum), Taylor’s fawn 

lily (Erythronium taylori), Tuolumne fawn lily (Erythronium tuolumnense), Parry’s horkelia 

(Horkelia parryi), short-leaved hulsea (Hulsea brevifolia), Tuolumne iris (Iris hartwegii ssp. 

columbiana), Congdon’s bitterroot (Lewisia congdonii), Yosemite lewisia (Lewisia disepala), 

Kellogg’s lewisia (Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii), Stebbin’s lomatium (Lomatium stebbinsii), 

slender lupine (Lupinus gracilentus), Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower (Mimulus filicaulis), slenderstalked monkeyflower (Mimulus gracilipes), pansy monkeyflower (Mimulus pulchellus), and 

sensitive lichen species: veiny aquatic lichen (Hydrothyria venosa); and sensitive moss species: 

Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi), Bolander’s bruchia (Helodium blandowii), three ranked 

hump moss (Meesia triquetra), broad nerved hump moss (Meesia uliginosa), and elongate copper 

moss (Mieclichoferia elongata). 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

All alternatives comply with the Forest Plan S&Gs for botanical resources. In accordance with the 

Forest Plan, mitigation measures specified below will be implemented. These mitigation measures 

will provide benefits to sensitive and watchlist species and other native vegetation. 

Sensitive Plant Mitigations 

Four routes require mitigation measures, due to direct impacts to the sensitive plants and their 

habitats. These routes are within the Deer Creek area with impacts to the Tuolumne fawn lily, and 

also the Stebbin’s lomatium occurrences in one area. It recommended that these areas be re-surveyed, 

mapped and monitored for continual impacts. Many other routes, especially ones with impacts to lava 

cap habitats are identified in the site specific analysis as having sensitive plant and noxious weed 

occurrences and are addressed within the season of use closures. Further monitoring of these areas is 

recommended, and if impacts continue another analysis of these routes would be required for further 

protection. 

 15EV38 – rock barriers to be placed 50 feet at base of incline to deter vehicles from sensitive 

plants; Recommend accurately mapping and monitoring occurrence 16-9D of Tuolumne fawn lily 

(Alternatives 1, 4 and 5). Further suggest post fence to minimize impacts at access point on 3N58, 

per district botanist recommendation, where dispersed camping access is associated with two 

sensitive plant species occurrences. 

 16EV108 – log barriers to be placed 50 feet at base of hill climb to prevent trail access and 

widening, and access to lava cap and lomatium occurrence. Tractor is not recommended and 

barrier type would require no digging (Alternatives 1 and 4). 

95 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus 

Botanical Resources National Forest
 

 16EV209 – Post fence or rock barriers 740 feet along creek and occurrence; Recommend survey, 

mapping, and monitoring Tuolumne fawn lily occurrences (Alternative 4). 

 16EV265 - rock barriers 182 feet along occurrence of Tuolumne fawn lily to prevent further 

impacts from vehicles and weed disbursement (Alternatives 1 and 5). 

Mitigation for Noxious Weeds 

Mitigation measures are limited and difficult to implement in preventing weed spread. Standard 

project prevention measures (e.g., equipment and vehicle washing before entering uninfested areas) 

are not applicable under travel management. Mechanical treatments of noxious weeds are labor 

intensive and expensive, require many years of repeated treatment, and are impractical for the amount 

of infestation. Chemical treatments are limited primarily to yellow starthistle on the three districts 

within the analysis area. Unless an environmental analysis is approved for chemical treatment of 

invasive species, the risk of spreading noxious weeds will remain high within and adjacent to infested 

areas. 

Best Management Practices are proposed to the Regional Office, streamlining direction for Invasive 

Plant Prevention and Management. The objective of this proposal is to incorporate invasive plant 

prevention as an important consideration in all recreational land use and access decisions, and to use 

Forest-level Access and Travel Management planning to manage travel and travel routes to reduce the 

introduction, establishment and spread of invasive plants. This proposal helps place greater emphasis 

on managing previously “unmanaged recreation” (OHVs, dispersed recreation, etc.) to help reduce 

creation of soil conditions that favor invasive plants, and reduce transport of invasive plant seeds and 

propagules. 

96 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.03 CULTURAL RESOURCES
 

The Congress in 1966 declared a national policy that the Federal government “administer federally 

owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the 

inspiration and benefit of present and future generations” (National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470-1(3)). This policy was made more explicit when the National Historic 

Preservation Act was amended in 1980 and Section 110 was added to expand and underscore Federal 

agency responsibility for identifying and protecting cultural resources and avoiding unnecessary 

damage to them. Many cultural resources are fragile and once damaged or destroyed they can not be 

repaired or replaced. 

Section 106 of the NHPA compels federal agencies to take into account the effect of its undertakings 

on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60) (Cultural Resources). The 36 CFR 212 (Travel 

Management Rule) requires that the effects on cultural resources be considered, with the objective of 

minimizing damage, when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National 

Forest lands (36 CFR 212.55(a), 212.55(b)(1)). 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects cultural resources includes: 

The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage cultural resources by 

several laws. However, the NHPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), provides comprehensive 

direction to federal agencies about their historic preservation responsibilities. Executive Order 11593, 

entitled Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, also includes direction about the 

identification and consideration of cultural resources in Federal land management decisions. 

The NHPA extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to 

include resources that are of State and local significance, expands the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), and establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic 

Preservation Officers. NHPA Section 106 directs all Federal agencies to take into account effects of 

their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible 

for the National Register. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations (36 

CFR 800) implements NHPA Section 106. NHPA Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection, 

and preservation responsibilities for Federally-owned cultural resources. 

The Forest Service policy for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in travel management with 

respect to route designation for motor vehicle use was issued in 2005: USDA Forest Service Policy 

for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor 

Vehicle Use (USDA 2005d). This policy was developed in consultation with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. It outlines minimal requirements for considering possible effects to cultural 

resources that may be associated with designating routes and areas as part of a National Forest’s 

transportation system. This policy statement recognizes that forests with programmatic agreements 

for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA will follow the terms of those agreements. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHPs implementing regulations, Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their 

undertakings on cultural resources, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to 

comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide alternative 

procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. Region 5 has such an agreement: Programmatic 

Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service, 

97 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and 

Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in California (2006) (Motorized Recreation 

PA; USDA 2006a). This agreement defines the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.4(a)(1)) 

and includes a strategy outlining the requirements for cultural resource inventory, evaluation of 

cultural resources, and effect determinations; it also includes protection and resource management 

measures that may be used where effects may occur. 

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued May 13, 

1971, directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to nominate to 

the National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use 

due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that Federal 

plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-Federally owned properties. 

The Stanislaus National Forest cultural resource specific S&Gs are described below (see Appendix 

C). 

 Complete a cultural resource inventory prior to any land disposal action or any Forest or Forestpermitted or assisted action, activity or program that has the potential of altering prehistoric or 

historic cultural values to identify all potentially eligible cultural properties which may be 

affected (36 CFR 219.24). 

 Consult with members of the potentially affected local Native American community to identify 

specific locations and issues. 

 Assess the scientific, historic and ethnic significance for each cultural property before 

determining further treatment (36 CFR 219.24). 

 Use appropriate Programmatic Agreements and Treatment Plans whenever possible. 

 Apply the National Register of Historic Places criteria in 36 CFR 60 and regulations in 36 CFR 

63 to determine the eligibility of a cultural property to the National Register. 

 Use FSM 2361, FSM 1680, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's "Treatment of 

Archaeological Properties: A Handbook", and the traditional values of local Miwok, Washoe and 

Paiute Indian communities as guidelines for evaluating significance. 

 Evaluate the effect of Forest undertakings on the resource. 

 Apply the Criteria of Effect in 36 CFR 800, and follow FSM 2361 for determining the effect of 

an undertaking. 

 All identified cultural resources are to be protected until they are evaluated. The integrity and 

significant values of eligible properties and National Historic Landmarks are to be protected. 

When necessary, mitigative excavation or data recovery may be accomplished. 

 Use the guidelines in FSM 2361 and FSM 1680 for developing and implementing protective 

measures. 

 Comply with 36 CFR 800 regulations and follow the guidelines in 36 CFR 66, FSM 2361, and 

the 13 principles in the "Treatment of Archaeological Properties" Handbook (ACHP). 

 Utilize law enforcement patrols to help prevent site vandalism and conduct law enforcement 

investigations when cultural resources are impacted using ARPA, 36 CFR 261.9, and other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

 Plan interpretation, research and restoration projects for the benefit of the public and of cultural 

resources. 

 Treatments of cultural properties, including maintenance of cultural resources, should be 

appropriate to their assessed values (as documented in the Statement of Significance in the 

Request for Determination of Eligibility and National Register nomination form), the state of 

knowledge and methods of cultural resource disciplines, and the public interest. 

98 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

 The significant values of National Register and eligible historic structures shall be conserved by 

physical protection and maintenance or recording to professional standards if physical 

preservation is not possible. 

 Work with Interpretive Services to develop high quality brochures, publications and/or audiovisual presentations. Work with cooperators to develop high quality interpretive, stabilization, 

and/or restoration projects. 

 Encourage the Sierra Miwok, Washoe, and Mono Lake Paiute to contribute to the Forest's 

cultural resource management activities, to enhance public understanding of their traditional and 

contemporary cultures. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources 

1.	 Unauthorized, user-created routes and areas have already affected cultural resources within 

route/area prisms. 

2.	 Historic railroad grades and roads being used as routes were built for the purposes of travel and 

continued use of them will cause no effect. 

3.	 Under the action alternatives, use will continue at current levels or increase over time on the 

designated system with the prohibition of cross country motorized travel. 

4.	 Given identical environmental variables, no measurable difference in potential impacts to cultural 

resources exists between that generated by different vehicle classes (i.e., full-size four-wheel 

drive vehicles, off-road vehicles and motorcycles). 

5.	 According to the Motorized Recreation PA, all archaeological and historical sites identified 

within the APE for all alternatives adding facilities to the NFTS are considered cultural resources 

for the purposes of this undertaking, unless they already have been determined not eligible in 

consultation with the SHPO or through other agreed on procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800). 

6.	 Changing vehicle class or season of use is not considered an undertaking subject to the NHPA. 

However, opening a road to public vehicle use when it was closed previously due to a resource 

conflict is considered an undertaking. 

7.	 Changes to the existing NFTS, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future 

actions are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural resources. 

8.	 Wheeled over snow use has no measurable potential impact to cultural resources. 

Data Sources 

1.	 Site-specific cultural resource inventories. The Forest conducted cultural resources field surveys 

for this undertaking throughout 2004–08. The primary objectives of these surveys were to 

identify cultural resources in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect 

information on their current condition. 

2.	 Existing information from cultural resource records, historic archives, maps, and GIS spatial 

layers was also used. 

Cultural Resources Indicators 

1.	 Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished. 

2.	 Number of cultural resources within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use. 

3.	 Average number of cultural resources per acre at risk if new routes or areas are created. 

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

99 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

Spatial boundary: Forest scale where motor vehicle use is not already prohibited by law (e.g., 

wilderness). 

Indicator(s): Number of cultural resources within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use. 

Methodology: GIS analysis to identify: (1) the number of cultural resources at risk within 

existing unauthorized routes (estimate of on-going direct and indirect effects curtailed); and (2) 

the average number of cultural resources per acre that would be protected from any new routes 

created in the future without a prohibition (estimate of indirect effects). 

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year 

Long-term time frame: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: Location of historic property. 

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site 

record files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of 

unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct or indirect 

effects. 

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class 

Changing vehicle class and/or season of use are not considered an undertaking subject to NHPA 

Section 106 compliance (USDA 2005d). Motorized vehicles can already use NFTS roads. 

Allowing or prohibiting non-highway vehicle use will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effect on cultural resources. However, opening a road that was previously closed due to conflicts 

with cultural resources is considered an undertaking. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year 

Long-term time frame: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: Location of historic property. 

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site 

record files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of 

unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct or indirect 

effects. 

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA. 

100 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest administrative boundary (outside of designated Wilderness). 

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site 

record files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of 

unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have cumulative effects. 

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA. 

Affected Environment 

Cultural resources are archaeological, cultural, and historical legacies from our past that are more 

than 50 years old. Cultural resource information, combined with environmental data, can illuminate 

past relationships between people and the land. Cultural-ecological relationships, the result of both 

natural processes and approximately 10,000 years of human interaction in the central Sierra Nevada, 

are key topics in this region’s anthropological, archaeological, and historical research. 

The Forest currently contains 4,538 recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites (cultural 

resources). The vast majority of these (2,708) represent prehistoric Native Americans and 

ethnographic Miwok and Washoe land use. These include seasonal villages, temporary camps, 

toolstone quarries, and bedrock mortar milling locations. Today, the Miwok still actively use the 

Forest for gathering traditional food and medicine plants, hunting, and conducting ceremonies. 

There are 1,501 recorded sites representing historic land use of the Forest. These include emigrant 

trails, historic cabins, roads, bridges, lumber or mining complexes and camps, ditches, homesteads, 

grazing camps, arbor glyphs (tree carvings), railroad grades, trestles, mining shafts and adits, and 

Forest Service administrative buildings and compounds. All of the historic sites found in the Forest, 

date from ca. 1846 to the present. Historic sites provide many opportunities for interpretation and 

public appreciation. 

Since people today favor many of the areas preferred by Native people, there are 329 sites that have 

both a prehistoric and historic component. 

Existing Conditions 

This project constitutes one of the Forest’s largest Section 106 compliance projects ever undertaken. 

The scale of this undertaking required that extensive field surveys be conducted to identify cultural 

resources in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect information on their current 

condition. Cultural resources specialists conducted field surveys throughout the summers of 2004–08. 

They also reviewed existing archaeological, historic, and ethnographic literature in the Forest’s 

Heritage Program files. The results of the cultural resource surveys and information from the Heritage 

files were used in the following analysis. 

A cultural resources report includes all of the data collected for this project (USDA 2008a). The 

report includes a site-specific analysis of the cultural resources associated with all routes or areas 

being considered for addition to the NFTS. No previously unidentified cultural resource sites were 

located during field surveys. In addition, sites were monitored and their current condition 

documented. The report provides background information, outlines the methodologies employed, 

describes the condition of cultural resource sites, describes results, and includes cultural resource site 

101 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

records. Route specific survey coverage was entered into the forest’s digital Geographic Information 

Software (GIS) files. 

The primary objectives of this project from its inception in 2004 have been to identify cultural 

resources in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect information on their current 

condition. Surveys consisted of pedestrian transects conducted according to methods and standards 

mandated in the Motorized Recreation PA. The data reported in this section are reported at the forestwide scale. As compiled and reported here, the data basically describe current conditions as reflected 

by the No Action Alternative. 

The Motorized Recreation PA includes an identification strategy outlining cultural resource inventory 

requirements for most routes and areas considered for addition to the NFTS (project record). The 

current status of the cultural resources field survey is tabulated in Table 3.03-1. The Forest has 

calculated that 175.97 miles of unauthorized routes are being analyzed as potential additions to the 

NFTS. A total of 164.24 miles of routes had been surveyed prior to August 2008 at various periods in 

the past for both unrelated Forest undertakings and for associated OHV projects. The remaining 11.73 

miles were surveyed in September and October 2008. 

Table 3.03-1 Status of Cultural Resources Survey within APE 

Item Miles 

Routes Previously Surveyed 164.24 

Routes Surveyed for this project 11.73 

Routes Unsurveyed 0.00 

Total 175.97 

The existing condition of cultural resources in the APE provides baseline information in assessing the 

potential effect of adding routes to the NFTS. The first-order indicator of existing conditions is the 

total number of cultural resources located within the project APE—regardless of effects. Seventy-six 

cultural resources have been identified within the APE forest-wide (Table 3.03-2). The sum includes 

all properties where any segment of an unauthorized route bisects the boundary of a historic property, 

regardless of scale or impact. 

All cultural resources sites that have not been determined eligible for the NRHP are being considered 

eligible for the purposes of this undertaking unless they have previously been determined not eligible 

(project record). The process of completing evaluations of significance for the NRHP is often a time 

consuming and expensive undertaking. For that reason very few cultural sites have formally been 

evaluated. The current NRHP status of all sites located within the APE are reported in Table 3.03-2. 

In addition to the procedures in the Motorized Recreation PA addressing potential effects, the 

integrity measures listed in the adverse effect criteria at 36 CFR 800.5(a) were also used to 

characterize the severity of any identified effects: 

Criteria of adverse effect: an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly 

or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for 

inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association.[emphasis added] Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of 

a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original 

evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance or be cumulative. (36 CFR §800.5(a)) 

Different disturbance agents can combine in a variety of ways to create a potential threat to cultural 

resources. The results of field survey and the literature search demonstrated a number of potential 

adverse effects to cultural resources should certain routes be added to the NFTS. The analysis 

102 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

documented both direct effects of designating specific routes (caused by the action and occur at the 

same time and place) as well as indirect (caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable). The more common threats identified are summarized 

in Table 3.03-3. The list is not exhaustive. Other disturbances have been noted, but those threats 

specified in Table 3.03-3 constitute the most common disturbances documented. 

The undertaking’s effect on the integrity of each of the 76 cultural resource sites currently identified 

in the APE was determined. Available data were reviewed for each cultural resource site in order to 

determine whether or not the proposed addition of any route to the NFTS would diminish the integrity 

of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Table 3.03-2 Cultural Resources within APE 

Site ID Site Type NRHP Status 

05165100023 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100024 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100067 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100097 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100101 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100114 historic unevaluated 

05165100118 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100120 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100122 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100144 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100156 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100171 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100173 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100228 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100244 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100257 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100263 historic unevaluated 

05165100270 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100282 historic unevaluated 

05165100287 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100288 historic unevaluated 

05165100302 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100303 historic unevaluated 

05165100304 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100388 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100389 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100394 multi-component unevaluated 

05165100444 historic eligible 

05165100598 historic unevaluated 

05165100599 historic unevaluated 

05165100612 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165100625 historic eligible 

05165100638 historic unevaluated 

05165100639 historic unevaluated 

05165100646 historic unevaluated 

05165100647 historic unevaluated 

05165100680 historic unevaluated 

05165100690 prehistoric unevaluated 

Site ID Site Type NRHP Status 

 05165100737 historic unevaluated 

05165100896 historic unevaluated 

05165100934 historic unevaluated 

05165100941 historic unevaluated 

 05165100974 historic unevaluated 

05165100976 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165101040 historic unevaluated 

05165101117 historic unevaluated 

05165101233 historic eligible 

05165200216 historic unevaluated 

05165200427 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165200826 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400019 multi-component contributing 

05165400031 historic unevaluated 

05165400034 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400039 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400102 prehistoric contributing 

05165400120 multi-component unevaluated 

05165400193 multi-component unevaluated 

05165400232 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400285 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400288 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400297 prehistoric eligible 

05165400351 prehistoric unevaluated 

 05165400404 historic unevaluated 

 05165400418 historic unevaluated 

05165400433 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165400486 multi-component unevaluated 

05165400504 historic unevaluated 

05165400527 historic contributing 

05165400638 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165401007 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165401009 historic unevaluated 

05165401283 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165401320 prehistoric unevaluated 

05165401660 prehistoric district eligible 

05165401661 historic district eligible 

 05165401663 historic unevaluated 

103 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

Table 3.03-3 Examples of Site Disturbances Documented within Project APE 

Indirect Effects Direct Effects 

- Driving off-established routes onto cultural sites 

- Motorized vehicle camping-related activities (e.g., 

digging fire pits) within boundaries of cultural sites 

that contain significant cultural features. 

- Motorized vehicle camping on site where the 

occupants conducted illicit digging activities within 

prehistoric and historic site boundaries. 

- Routes bisect a primary locus in a prehistoric cultural resource 

site. 

- Routes promote direct vehicle contact with architectural 

features. 

- Routes promote direct vehicle contact with resourceprocurement features 

The magnitude of any effect to a cultural resource site’s integrity determines the severity of any 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. The following effect analysis identifies the scale and severity of 

potential adverse effects. Accordingly, effects are categorized based on a professional assessment of 

the data available to date: no/negligible, minor, moderate, and major. These categories represent a 

progressive scale that provides a qualitative assessment of the severity of any direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to the integrity of a cultural resource site. 

No distinction is made between “no” disturbance and “negligible” disturbance. All sites determined to 

be within the APE have been bisected in varying degrees by some route or area. Therefore it is more 

appropriate to describe the most innocuous effects as “negligible” as opposed to “none.” In either 

case, the threat to cultural resources is minimal and no mitigation measures are required. 

Working definitions for the four severity categories are provided in Table 3.03-4. A severity rating of 

“minor” indicates that some relatively minor disturbance has been noted within the boundaries of 

cultural resource site. A “minor” value indicates that, if present patterns of use are indicative of future 

trends, direct and indirect effects can most likely be avoided by employing the simplest of protection 

measures. In most cases this will consist of installing signage in strategic locations informing the 

public of the presence of sensitive forest resources. In some locations, it may be necessary to prohibit 

motorized vehicle camping or use to eliminate the threat. 

If a cultural resource site is “moderately” susceptible to direct, indirect or cumulative effects, 

evidence of more extensive site disturbance has been noted. In this case, mitigation measures to avoid 

or minimize identified effects are required. Prescribed mitigation measures for moderate severity 

effects will most often take the form of physical barriers that prohibit off-route travel that could 

adversely affect cultural resources. Materials used may consist of timber, boulders, vegetation or 

other materials, or a combination thereof. A number of alternative mitigation measures could be 

employed, many of which are expressly described in the Motorized Recreation PA (USDA 2006a). In 

the event that the mitigation measures listed in the Motorized Recreation PA are inadequate or 

untenable, the PA will no longer apply and compliance with 36 CFR §800 regulations will be 

necessary. 

An effect severity rating of “major” indicates that the integrity of cultural resource site values would 

be affected in a significant way unless appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. A “major” 

value is reserved for those cases where a cultural resource site exhibits evidence of an adverse effect 

associated with past activities either directly or indirectly associated with the motorized use of an 

unauthorized route and these adverse effects will continue or increase if the route or area is added to 

the NFTS. Mitigation measures associated with direct or indirect effects of “major” severity require a 

substantial investment of time and resources to implement. 

104 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.03-4 Severity of Effects 

Severity 

of Effects Working Definition Explanatory Notes 

Negligible Cultural resources are adjacent to routes 

but are not bisected or route bisects 

some portion of the site, but the effect on 

NRHP values is insignificant 

If the effect on integrity measures is determined to be “negligible,” 

there is essentially no measurable effect on the cultural resource; 

therefore no mitigation measures are prescribed. 

No distinction is made between “no” disturbance and “negligible” 

disturbance. All sites determined to be within the APE have been 

bisected in varying degrees by some length of an unauthorized 

route. Therefore it is more appropriate to describe the most 

innocuous effects as “negligible” as opposed to “none.” In either 

case, no mitigation measures are necessary, so the outcome is 

identical. 

Minor Effects on cultural resources are 

relatively minor, but not insignificant. 

Integrity of the NRHP values may 

diminish if measures are not taken to 

alleviate the potential effect. 

If the severity of effect is determined to be “minor,” some type of 

mitigation measure may be required. In most cases the preferred 

method of protection will be the erection of signs with wording to 

the effect that there are critical resource concerns in the area and 

certain activities (for example, camping) may be prohibited in 

localized areas. Most minor problems consist of indirect effects. 

In some cases, monitoring is prescribed to ensure that the minor 

degree of disturbance (or potential for disturbance) initially noted 

does not increase in severity over time. 

It is assumed for minor effects that an adaptive management 

strategy will be employed—a prescription specifically outlined in 

the Motorized Recreation PA. Signs, for example, may be erected 

as a first measure. If signs do not curtail potential adverse actions, 

more aggressive measures will be taken. Barriers (such as low 

impact barriers) are sometimes prescribed for minor threats when 

it appears as though the action responsible for the disturbance is 

well entrenched and not likely to be curtailed by the simple 

installation of a sign. The threshold between a “minor” and 

“moderate” threat is therefore more subjective than others. 

Moderate Effects on cultural resources are either 

localized or noted in multiple areas. 

Materials associated with NRHP values 

exhibit some degree of damage or 

alteration, but NRHP integrity can be 

retained or improved if the detrimental 

activity is curtailed 

If the integrity measure is determined to be “moderate,” some 

types of mitigation measures are required. In most cases the 

preferred method will be to erect a barrier large enough to prohibit 

vehicle traffic off the designated route, thereby eliminating the 

potential for an adverse effect to cultural resources. Padding of the 

cultural material in order to eliminate potential effect is also an 

option. 

Major Effects on cultural resources are severe. 

If that particular route is added to the 

system without mitigation measures, the 

action would result in adverse effects to 

the NRHP values. 

If the effect is determined to be “major,” more complex and 

potentially costly mitigation measures are required to prevent 

direct adverse effects to the resource. In some cases, potential 

mitigation measures can not be determined without additional 

consultation under 36 CFR §800 and evaluation against the NRHP 

criteria. Due to costs, the only viable option may be to not add the 

route to the system or re-route the activity around the resource. 

Table 3.03-5 provides a summary of the effects to cultural resources based on an analysis of effects to 

site integrity. The data categorize current forest-wide severity of effects if no action is taken to avoid 

adverse effects. Several sites have multiple routes within their boundaries that have a range of effects. 

For purposes of this table, only the most serve effect is counted for each site. 

Table 3.03-5 Cultural Resource Effect Severity 

Negligible Minor Moderate Major Total 

44 2 14 16 76 

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

potential adverse effects. The Motorized Recreation PA mandates that all “at-risk” properties within 

the APE be monitored over a two-year period after designation (USDA 2006a). If monitoring 

demonstrates that mitigation measures initially prescribed prove ineffective, other protection 

measures in the PA will be used as appropriate or the SHPO will be consulted to identify other 

105 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

resource protection or management needs. This type of adaptive management policy is listed as an 

option in the Motorized Recreation PA (USDA 2006a). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under this alternative, cross country travel is prohibited and a total of 151.64 miles of unauthorized 

routes (445 routes in total) would be added to the system. Of these, 70 cultural resource sites fall 

within the APE of 68 proposed routes. If these routes are added to the system, 35 routes would have a 

negligible/minor effect on 42 sites. Sixteen routes would have a moderate effect on 15 sites. Nineteen 

routes would have a major effect on 15 sites. 

Of the 15 sites with moderate effects, the use of low impact barriers or padding will reduce or 

eliminate the effects. 

Of the 15 sites with major effects, the direct and indirect causes can not be reasonably mitigated 

without additional NHPA Section 106 consultation with SHPO (see Table 3.03-6). The routes range 

in length of between 0.02-0.84 miles. Estimated costs for mitigation (NRHP evaluation, 

archaeological data recovery, and then additional mitigations based on those findings [e.g., barriers, 

fencing, monitoring]) could range between $10,000 for smaller sites to $25,000 or more for larger 

complex sites. Consultation with SHPO is needed to refine mitigation requirements and respective 

costs. 

The locations of mitigations prescribed by other disciplines (soils, botany, etc.) were examined and 

none will cause any negative effect to cultural resources. 

Changes to Existing NFTS: This alternative proposes to open 67.37 miles of ML1 roads (104 routes 

in total) to motorized use. No cultural resource sites are located within the APE of these routes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Prior to the 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA), effects to cultural 

resources were not considered during project planning or implementation. Consequently, cumulative 

impacts of varying degrees occurred within the project area from various land management activities 

including mining, logging, road construction, recreation development, dam construction, and 

hydroelectric development to name a few. Stochastic effects, such as natural environmental processes 

and unrestricted land uses, have also contributed to effects to cultural resources within the project 

area. These include dispersed recreation, looting and vandalism by the public, unregulated OHV use, 

illegal mountain bike trail construction, mining, previous road and trail construction and existing road 

and trail conditions, wildfires, erosion, and exposure to the elements. 

Subsequent to the 1974 RPA, the vast majority of cultural resources were protected using “flag and 

avoid” measures. Unfortunately, this management practice, which is essentially deferred 

management, has resulted in a high number of recorded archaeological sites that have not been 

evaluated for inclusion into the NRHP resulting in the Forest managing hundreds of sites that may be 

not eligible for inclusion. 

All projects listed in the Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Considered in Cumulative Effects 

Analysis (Appendix B) have been or will be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential 

effects to cultural resources would be identified at that time following stipulations in the 

Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California 

State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 

Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Historic Properties Managed by the National Forests of 

the Sierra Nevada, California (Sierra PA; USDA 1996) or successor agreement(s). 

106 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

This alternative, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future actions and events are 

not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural resources. 

Alternative 1 will reduce potential effects to cultural resources through prohibition of cross country 

travel and the reduction in the number of motorized routes on the Forest. Unregulated cross country 

travel can cause adverse impacts to cultural resources making the route designation process an 

important part of preventing long-term impacts to resources. Outside of the wilderness, there are 

0.0082 known sites per acre. It can be assumed that these sites would be protected from adverse 

effects through the prohibition of cross country travel. 

Table 3.03-6 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources: Alternative 1 

Route ID Site Number Type Nature of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

11808B 05165400418 direct/indirect looting and camping major additional consultation with SHPO required 

15EV43G 05165100444 none none negligible n/a 

15EV47A 05165100282 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16E182 05165100118 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16E182A 05165100118 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV154 05165100896 direct none negligible n/a 

16EV160 05165100114 none none negligible n/a 

16EV176 05165100156 none none negligible n/a 

16EV230 05165100302 none none negligible n/a 

16EV230 05165100304 none none negligible n/a 

16EV243 05165100690 direct bisected and damaged moderate use padding (60 x 3 feet) to protect site 

16EV259A 05165100257 direct bisected and damaged moderate use padding (300 x 4 feet) to protect site 

16EV266 05165100244 direct bisected and damaged moderate use padding (300 x 4 feet) to protect site 

16EV269 05165100287 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV272 05165100974 none none negligible n/a 

16EV272 05165101040 none none negligible n/a 

16EV303 05165100976 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV79 05165100288 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV79 05165100303 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV79 05165100263 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV81 05165100270 indirect off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users out of Feature 

One 

17EV130 05165200826 indirect off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (300 feet on north 

side of route) to keep users on route 

17EV14 05165100612 direct/indirect bisected and damaged moderate use low impact barriers (250 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on route 

17EV15B 05165100171 indirect camping moderate use low impact barriers (50 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on route and 

prevent parking 

17EV192 05165400120 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on the route 

17EV192A 05165400120 direct off route travel, rutting, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV241 05165100941 none none negligible n/a 

17EV249 05165100638 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV249A 05165100638 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV267 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV268 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV51 05165100599 none none negligible n/a 

17EV58 05165100173 direct none negligible n/a 

17EV901 05165400120 direct bisected and damage moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on the route 

18EV105 05165100023 indirect damage minor signage (No Motor Vehicles or camping) 

18EV258 05165100024 direct bisected and damage moderate use low impact barriers (360 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on the route 

18EV281 05165100388 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

107 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

Route ID Site Number Type Nature of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

18EV283 05165100394 none none negligible n/a 

18EV308 05165100737 direct/indirect off route travel and 

damage 

moderate block route just before creek crossing mp 

0.04 - 30 ft. 

18EV67 05165100097 direct/indirect bisected, damage, and 

camping 

moderate use low impact barriers (50 feet on each 

side of route) to define route and block 

camping area, signage (No Motor Vehicles 

or camping) 

18EV67 05165100101 none none negligible n/a 

1S1727 05165400486 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on north 

side of route) to keep users on route 

1S1736 05165400285 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (1300 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on route 

1S1933 05165400193 indirect looting moderate use low impact barriers (500 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on route, 

signage (No Motor Vehicles or camping) 

EV681 05165100389 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR10178 05165400527 none none negligible n/a 

FR10178 05165401661 none none negligible n/a 

FR14721 05165401663 none none negligible n/a 

FR8601 05165400404 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (200 feet on each 

side of route) to keep users on route 

FR9501 05165200427 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98477 05165401007 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98477 05165401009 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98481 05165400102 direct/indirect looting, damaged, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98482 05165400039 direct damaged major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98493 05165400232 direct damaged major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98504 05165400031 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98507 05165400034 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98507 05165400351 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98508 05165400288 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98523 05165400433 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98541 05165400297 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98544 05165401320 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98547 05165401283 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98552 05165400034 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98552 05165400351 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98554 05165400019 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98554 05165401660 none none negligible n/a 

FR98566 05165400504 none none negligible n/a 

FR98592 05165400638 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98603 05165100067 indirect off route travel and 

camping 

minor signage (No Motor Vehicles or camping) 

FR98612 05165100122 direct/indirect damaged major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98616 05165100646 indirect none negligible n/a 

FR98616 05165100680 none none negligible n/a 

FR98616 05165101233 none none negligible n/a 

FR98663 05165200216 none none negligible n/a 

FR98671 05165400486 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98686 05165100228 indirect camping negligible n/a 

FR98690 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98691 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98704 05165100120 direct/indirect rutting, off route travel, 

damage, and camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

Note: although there are no direct and indirect effects currently known, the following sites are near routes and should be monitored for 

effect: 05165100411, 05165400093, 05165400094, 05165400106, 05165400108, and 05165401240. 

108 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under this alternative, cross country travel would not be prohibited. There would be no management 

of any known unauthorized motorized routes. An untold number of additional routes not being 

proposed in this project would continue to be used. Using Alternative 4 as a guide, there are 76 

cultural resource sites located within the APE of the 175.97 miles proposed for addition; forty of 

these routes are having a moderate/major effect on 32 sites. Since there are 0.0082 known sites per 

acre outside the wilderness and cross country travel could occur anywhere on the forest, an additional 

unknown number of cultural resources likely would be affected. This alternative does not propose any 

mitigation for known effects and any potential effects. Since Alternative 2 would have unmitigated 

adverse effect on an unknown number of cultural resources, it would not meet the requirements of 

Section 106 of the NHPA. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future actions are expected to 

cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural resources. Alternative 2 will increase the potential 

effects to cultural resources by allowing cross country travel. Over the next 20 years, it is estimated 

that an additional 2.25 miles of new routes will be created annually on the Forest, for a total of 45 

new miles of unauthorized motorized routes (project record). Based on Alternative 4 where 175.97 

miles are having a moderate/major effect on 32 sites, an additional 20 cultural resource sites could be 

subject to moderate/major effects over the 20 year projections. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under this alternative, cross country travel is prohibited; no unauthorized motorized routes would be 

added to the system and no changes made to the existing NFTS. No cultural resource sites would be 

affected. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

As noted in more detail under Alternative 1, this alternative, when combined with the past, present 

and foreseeable future actions are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural 

resources. Alternative 3 will reduce potential effects to cultural resources through prohibition of cross 

country travel and adding no new motorized routes on the Forest. The 32 sites with moderate/major 

effects under Alternative 4 would no longer be affected. Further, since cross country travel is 

prohibited, there would be no expected adverse impacts to the 0.0082 known sites per acre outside the 

Wilderness. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under this alternative, cross country travel is prohibited and a total of 175.97 miles of unauthorized 

motorized routes (496 routes in total) would be added to the system. Of these, 76 cultural resource 

sites fall within the APE of 76 proposed routes. If these routes are added to the system, 38 routes 

would have would have a negligible/minor effect on 46 sites. Nineteen routes would have a moderate 

effect on 16 sites. Twenty-one routes would have a major effect on 16 sites. 

Of the 16 sites with moderate effect, the use of low impact barriers or padding will reduce or 

eliminate the effects. 

Of the 16 sites with major effects, the direct and indirect causes can not be reasonably mitigated 

without additional NHPA Section 106 consultation with SHPO (see Table 3.03-6). The routes range 

109 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

in length of between 0.02-0.84 of a mile. Estimated costs for mitigation (NRHP evaluation, 

archaeological data recovery, and then additional mitigations based on those findings [e.g., barriers, 

fencing, monitoring]) could range between $10,000 for smaller sites to $25,000 or more for larger 

complex sites. Consultation with SHPO is needed to refine mitigation requirements and respective 

costs. 

The locations of mitigations prescribed by other disciplines (soils, botany, etc.) were examined and 

none will cause any negative effect to cultural resources. 

Changes to Existing NFTS: This alternative proposes to open 101.24 miles of ML1 roads (141 

routes in total) to motorized use. Twelve cultural resource sites are within the APE of four routes. Of 

these 12 sites, two are being moderately affected but can be mitigated through the use of barriers. For 

the remaining 10 sites with major effects, further consultation with SHPO is necessary before the 

routes can be opened (see Table 3.03-9). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

As noted in more detail under Alternative 1, this alternative is not expected to cumulatively lead to 

increased impacts to cultural resources. Alternative 4 will reduce potential effects to cultural 

resources through prohibition of cross country travel and the reduction in the number of motorized 

routes on the Forest. Unregulated cross country travel has the greatest potential for creating adverse 

impacts to cultural resources making the route designation process an important part of preventing 

long-term impacts to resources. 

Table 3.03-7 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources: Alternative 4 

Route ID Site Number Type Nature of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

11808B 05165400418 direct/indirect looting and camping major additional consultation with SHPO required 

15EV43G 05165100444 none none negligible n/a 

15EV47A 05165100282 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16E182 05165100118 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16E182A 05165100118 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV154 05165100896 direct none negligible n/a 

16EV160 05165100114 none none negligible n/a 

16EV176 05165100156 none none negligible n/a 

16EV230 05165100302 none none negligible n/a 

16EV230 05165100304 none none negligible n/a 

16EV243 05165100690 direct bisected and 

damaged 

moderate use padding (60 x 3 feet) to protect site 

16EV259A 05165100257 direct bisected and 

damaged 

moderate use padding (300 x 4 feet) to protect site 

16EV266 05165100244 direct bisected and 

damaged 

moderate use padding (300 x 4 feet) to protect site 

16EV269 05165100287 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV272 05165100974 none none negligible n/a 

16EV272 05165101040 none none negligible n/a 

16EV273 05165100270 indirect off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users out of Feature One 

16EV303 05165100976 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV79 05165100288 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV79 05165100303 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV79 05165100263 direct bisected negligible n/a 

16EV81 05165100270 indirect off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users out of Feature One 

17EV130 05165200826 indirect off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (300 feet on north side 

of route) to keep users on route 

17EV14 05165100612 direct/indirect bisected and 

damaged 

moderate use low impact barriers (250 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on route 

17EV15B 05165100171 indirect camping moderate use low impact barriers (50 feet on each side of 

route) to keep users on route and prevent 

parking 

110 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Route ID Site Number Type Nature of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

17EV192 05165400120 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on the route 

17EV192A 05165400120 direct off route travel, 

rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV212 05165100639 direct none negligible n/a 

17EV241 05165100941 none none negligible n/a 

17EV249 05165100638 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV249A 05165100638 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV267 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV268 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

17EV51 05165100599 none none negligible n/a 

17EV51 05165100598 direct/indirect looting, rutting, and 

camping 

major last .125 mile not recommended for inclusion 

17EV51 05165100647 none none negligible n/a 

17EV58 05165100173 direct none negligible n/a 

17EV901 05165400120 direct bisected and damage moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on the route 

18EV105 05165100023 indirect damage minor signage (No Motor Vehicles or camping) 

18EV258 05165100024 direct bisected and damage moderate use low impact barriers (360 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on the route 

18EV281 05165100388 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

18EV283 05165100394 none none negligible n/a 

18EV308 05165100737 direct/indirect off route travel and 

damage 

moderate block route just before creek crossing mp 0.04 - 

30 ft. 

18EV51 05165100625 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on route 

18EV67 05165100097 direct/indirect bisected, damage, 

and camping 

moderate use low impact barriers (50 feet on each side of 

route) to define route and block camping area, 

signage (No Motor Vehicles or camping) 

18EV67 05165100101 none none negligible n/a 

1S1727 05165400486 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (100 feet on north side 

of route) to keep users on route 

1S1736 05165400285 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (1300 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on route 

1S1907A 05165400297 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, 

deterioration, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

1S1933 05165400193 indirect looting moderate use low impact barriers (500 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on route, signage (No 

Motor Vehicles or camping) 

21711G 05165101117 direct bisected negligible n/a 

EV681 05165100389 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR10178 05165400527 none none negligible n/a 

FR10178 05165401661 none none negligible n/a 

FR14721 05165401663 none none negligible n/a 

FR15091 05165100934 none none negligible n/a 

FR15091 05165100171 indirect camping moderate use low impact barriers (50 feet on each side of 

route) to keep users on route and prevent 

parking 

FR15091 05165100934 none none negligible n/a 

FR8601 05165400404 direct off route travel moderate use low impact barriers (200 feet on each side 

of route) to keep users on route 

FR9501 05165200427 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98477 05165401007 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98477 05165401009 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98481 05165400102 direct/indirect looting, damaged, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98482 05165400039 direct damaged major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98493 05165400232 direct damaged major additional consultation with SHPO required 

111 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

Route ID Site Number Type Nature of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

FR98504 05165400031 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98507 05165400034 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98507 05165400351 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98508 05165400288 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98523 05165400433 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98541 05165400297 direct/indirect rutting, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98544 05165401320 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98547 05165401283 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98552 05165400034 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98552 05165400351 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98554 05165400019 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98554 05165401660 none none negligible n/a 

FR98566 05165400504 none none negligible n/a 

FR98592 05165400638 direct bisected negligible n/a 

FR98603 05165100067 indirect off route travel and 

camping 

minor signage (No Motor Vehicles or camping) 

FR98612 05165100122 direct/indirect damaged major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98616 05165100646 indirect none negligible n/a 

FR98616 05165100680 none none negligible n/a 

FR98616 05165101233 none none negligible n/a 

FR98663 05165200216 none none negligible n/a 

FR98671 05165400486 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98686 05165100228 indirect camping negligible n/a 

FR98690 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98691 05165100144 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

FR98704 05165100120 direct/indirect rutting, off route 

travel, damage, and 

camping 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

Note: although there are no direct and indirect effects currently known, the following sites are near routes and should be monitored for 

effect: 05165100158, 05165100242, 05165100411, 05165400093, 05165400094, 05165400106, 05165400108, and 05165401240. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under this alternative, cross country travel is prohibited and a total of 28.37 miles of unauthorized 

motorized routes (85 routes in total) would be added to the system. Of these, four cultural sites fall 

within the APE of four proposed routes. None of the routes are causing any effect (see Table 3.03-8). 

The locations of mitigations prescribed by other disciplines (soils, botany, etc.) were examined and 

none will cause any effect to cultural resources. 

Changes to Existing NFTS: This alternative proposes to open 11.66 miles of ML1 roads (9 routes in 

total) to motorized use. No cultural resource sites are located within the APE of these routes. 

112 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

As noted in more detail under Alternative 1, this alternative, when combined with the past, present 

and foreseeable future actions and events are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts 

to cultural resources. Alternative 5 will reduce potential effects to cultural resources through 

prohibition of cross country travel and the reduction in the number of motorized routes currently 

being used on the Forest. Unregulated cross country travel has the greatest potential for creating 

adverse impacts to cultural resources making the route designation process an important part of 

preventing long-term impacts to resources. 

Table 3.03-8 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources: Alternative 5 

Route ID Site Number Type Nature of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

16EV176 05165100156 none none negligible n/a 

17EV51 05165100599 none none negligible n/a 

17EV241 05165100941 none none negligible n/a 

16EV303 05165100976 direct bisected negligible n/a 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

Table 3.03-9 Effects to Cultural Resources: Changes to Existing NFTS 

Route Site Number ALT Site Eligibility Type Nature 

of Effect Severity Protection/Mitigation 

02S59A 05165400528 4 multi unevaluated direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major use low impact barriers (500 feet both sides 

of road) to keep users on route 

02S05C 05165400455 4 prehistoric unevaluated direct bisected/ 

damaged 

moderate use low impact barriers (688 feet both sides 

of road) to keep users on route 

02S22 05165400241 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S22 05165401025 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S22 05165401660 4 prehistoric eligible direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165400113 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165400245 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165400247 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165400757 4 prehistoric unevaluated direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165400758 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165401494 4 prehistoric contributing direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

02S26 05165401660 4 prehistoric eligible direct bisected/ 

damaged 

major additional consultation with SHPO required 

Table 3.03-10 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources 

Indicators – Cultural Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Degree to which the integrity of cultural resource values are 

diminished 

3 1 5 2 4 

Number of cultural resources within unauthorized routes at risk 

from ongoing use 

3 1 5 2 4 

Average number of cultural resources per acre protected from 

creation of new routes 

3 1 5 2 4 

Average for Cultural Resources 3 1 5 2 4 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the least impact for this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative is the most 

impact. 

113 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus 

Cultural Resources National Forest
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 comply with all Forest Plan S&Gs as well as with all federal laws identified 

in the Analysis Framework Section. Alternative 2 does not comply with Forest Plan S&Gs or with the 

federal laws identified in the Analysis Framework Section. 

114 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.04 RECREATION RESOURCES
 

Nearly all forest visitors, regardless of the purpose for their visit, use the motorized transportation 

system to reach their destination. Making changes to the NFTS (e.g. adding facilities, prohibiting or 

allowing motor vehicle use by vehicle type or season of use) changes the diversity of motorized and 

non-motorized opportunities on the forest. These visitors may be participating in motorized 

recreation, or utilizing motor vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, destinations, or geographic areas 

that are utilized for non-motorized recreational activities. This section of the Travel Management EIS 

examines the extent to which the diversity of recreation opportunities are affected by the proposed 

action and alternatives and the extent to which alternatives are consistent with direction established in 

the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), and the Travel Management (TM) Rule. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Regulatory Direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects recreation resources 

includes: 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): The NFMA sets forth requirements for development 

of Forest Plans. The Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan includes 

standards and guidelines for management of recreation including use of Off Highway Vehicles. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The SNFPA established the direction to 

prohibit motor vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails, and limited off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current forest plans or other specific area standards and 

guidelines or forest orders, cross-country travel by over-snow vehicles would continue. 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B (36 CFR 212.50-57): (Criteria that incorporated E.O. 11644 

and E.O. 11989). 

1.	 The responsible official shall consider the effects of designated roads, trails and areas on the 

provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, and conflicts among uses of National Forest 

System lands. 36 CFR 212.55 (a) 

2.	 The responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: 

Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest 

System lands or neighboring federal lands; Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle 

uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring federal lands; and the compatibility of motor 

vehicle uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, 

and other factors. 36 CFR 212.55 (b) 

Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: The Forest Plan provides 

goals for the recreation resource and requires a broad range of developed and dispersed recreation 

opportunities in balance with existing and future demand. For management and conceptual 

convenience, possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, and probable experience 

opportunities have been arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This continuum is called the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Planning for recreation opportunities using the ROS are 

conducted as part of Land and Resource Management Planning. The ROS provides a framework for 

defining the types of outdoor recreation the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the 

spectrum a given National Forest might be able to provide. ROS is divided into six classes: 

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural and 

Urban. Each class is defined in terms of its combination of activity, setting, and experience 

opportunities (ROS Users Guide, USDA 1986). The intent is to use ROS and its associated settings to 

provide recreation input into Forest Plans which in turn may be incorporated into Forest Plan 

115 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

management prescriptions or used in project level planning beyond the programmatic planning used 

to develop the Forest Plan. For the purposes of travel management actions, ‘off-highway vehicles’ is 

applied to public motor vehicle use (highway legal and non-highway legal). On the Stanislaus 

National Forest, ROS was integrated into the management prescriptions and associated standards and 

guidelines of the Forest Plan. 

In summary, the Forest Plan direction, specific to recreation, emphasizes providing a variety of 

quality recreation opportunities while protecting the natural setting and natural resource values. 

Specific elements in the Plan address motorized activities to optimize recreation opportunities while 

minimizing conflict with non-motorized activities, encouraging public participation, managing 

conditions on the ground, and assuring effective and sustainable management. See Appendix C, 

Forest Plan Direction for specific recreation and OHV direction. 

Impacts Relevant to Recreation Include: 

1.	 The compatibility of proposed changes to the NFTS with Forest Plan recreation and OHV 

management prescriptions and ROS. 

2.	 The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on non-motorized (i.e., quiet) recreation (dust, 

noise, use conflicts). 

3.	 The amount and diversity of motorized recreation opportunity by alternative. 

4.	 The amount of motorized access to dispersed recreation by alternative. 

5.	 The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, 

noise, use conflicts). 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Assumptions Specific to Recreation Resources 

1.	 The prohibition of cross country travel is not a change to ROS (semi-primitive motorized for 

example). It is simply a prohibition within that ROS ‘zone’ to travel off designated routes. 

2.	 The change from an open to cross country travel condition to a cross country travel prohibited 

condition will reduce the availability of acreage for both motorized recreation as well as 

motorized access to dispersed recreation activities. 

3.	 The change from an “open to cross country travel” condition to a cross country travel prohibited 

condition will increase the availability of acreage for non-motorized recreation as well as nonmotorized access to dispersed recreation activities. 

4.	 Proposed additions to the NFTS will have a beneficial effect on motorized recreation 

opportunities by providing a variety of trail riding experiences and increasing the amount of 

motorized recreation opportunities (loops, connectors, etc.). 

5.	 Proposed changes and additions to the NFTS will have a beneficial effect on the amount of 

motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities available once the TM rule is enforced. 

This will be a significant reduction from existing access. 

6.	 The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report accurately expresses the most popular 

motorized and non-motorized recreation activities for use in this analysis. 

7.	 Overall changes in the NFTS that require non-significant plan amendment(s) will result in no 

change in the net SPNM ROS class acres available on the Forest, but will affect them. 

8.	 The area of influence (dust, noise) of motorized use on populated areas or ‘quiet recreation’ 

opportunities is 1⁄2 mile from associated boundaries (e.g. wilderness, RNA, property line, urban 

limit line). 

9.	 There has been limited use analysis of the unauthorized routes and little data exists (traffic counts, 

etc). As a result it would be highly speculative to make assumptions of use levels on the 

unauthorized routes. 

10. The majority of the motorized public use occurring on NFS land is occurring within the existing 

NFTS based on observation and NVUM data. 

116 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

11. For each unauthorized route added to the NFTS as a road or trail for the purpose of accessing 

dispersed recreation, a minimum of one site is accessed. In many instances, multiple camping, 

trailhead, and/or day use sites may be accessed through the addition of these routes to the system. 

The total number of routes and sites affected are not know at this time, but for analysis purposes, 

it is assumed that there are approximately 2000 unauthorized routes accessing one or more 

individual sites. 

12. The Forest Plan states that recreation demand will not be met at some point in the future (USDA 

1991d). With the exception of Alternative 2, all alternatives reduce supply, resulting in more 

concentrated use. The OHV supply and demand section of the Recreation Report (see project 

record) discusses supply and demand in detail. 

13. Trailheads and staging areas may need to be developed near designated trail systems in the future 

to maximize use of the NFTS system. These projects, if needed, will be analyzed in a future 

NEPA analysis. 

14. Wheeled Over Snow Routes for use by all terrain vehicles have the potential to affect other winter 

uses (snowmobiling, cross country skiing, snow play, etc). 

Data Sources 

1. Forest Plan 

2. GIS 

3. NVUM reports 

4. Personal knowledge of Forest Service employees and citizens. 

Recreation Resources Indicators 

Indicator measures are intended to address how each alternative conforms to the Forest Plan, 

significant issues identified in scoping, and Subpart B of the TM Rule. Indicator measures are used to 

determine whether the alternatives have the potential to conflict with other recreation opportunities, 

specifically non-motorized opportunities. They are used to evaluate the effects of the proximity of 

motor vehicle use to populated areas or neighboring private and federal lands. They are used to 

analyze the quality of the motorized recreation experience and the quality of motorized access to 

dispersed areas for both motorized and non-motorized uses. Indicator measures that have been 

developed respond to the amount of motorized access available on the unit. Conflicts with other 

resources (including air quality) are examined in other resource sections. Chapter 3.08 

(Transportation) addresses public safety. 

Indicator measures were used to analyze the effects of changes to the NFTS by vehicle class and 

season of use as well as the addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads or trails,. Mileage 

available for each class of vehicle is useful as an indicator in analyzing the ability of Forest users to 

not only travel around the Forest and enjoy motorized recreation opportunities but also to access nonmotorized recreation opportunities, such as trailheads, hunting, and dispersed recreation sites for 

activities such as fishing and camping. These types of activities were identified as important from the 

information gathered from the NVUM data and comments made by the public for this project 

(English 2002). Mileage for motorized recreation is an indicator of the number and types of 

experiences available for motorcycles, ATVs and 4WDs in each alternative. The changes to 

motorized mileages can be used to interpret the level of change in opportunities for motorized and 

non-motorized users. The analysis of the proposed season of use relates to the closure periods when 

motorized recreation will not be allowed to use designated roads or trails. This defines the effect on 

non-motorized recreation activities accessed by roads subject to closure and potential conflict with 

motorized activity during the season of use. Number of acres located 1⁄2 mile away from roads, trails 

and boundaries are used to analyze the opportunity for non-motorized and ‘quiet’ recreation on the 

Forest. Finally, the amount of motorized access for dispersed recreation in each alternative is 

displayed. 

117 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

1.	 ROS consistency with Forest Plan. 

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact to ROS due to proposed NFTS 

changes. 

Method: Number of ROS acres in each class under each alternative and number of required nonsignificant ROS plan amendments (and or any associated changes to Forest Plan recreation and 

OHV management prescriptions) displayed by associated acreage changes in the Forest Plan by 

alternative. 

2.	 Non-motorized recreation opportunity. 

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on non-motorized recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts). It also addresses the “Quiet Recreation” 

issue. 

Method: Number of Acres outside 1⁄2 mile of an area where motorized use is allowed (designated 

NFTS road and trail miles that would result under each alternative). This method was determined 

through a literature review of sound studies and reports cited at the end of this section and listed 

in Appendix G. 

3.	 Motorized recreation opportunity. 

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on motorized recreation opportunities by alternative. 

Method: Road miles available by vehicle class and season of use. Trail miles available by vehicle 

class and season of use. Trail variety- miles by Trail class and degree of difficulty 

4.	 Motorized access to dispersed recreation. 

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities by alternative. 

Method: Route miles available by vehicle class and season of use. 

5.	 Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and public lands (dust, noise, 

and use conflicts). 

Description: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts) by alternative. 

Method: Number of miles of new routes proposed within 1⁄2 mile of populated areas, neighboring 

federal land boundaries, wilderness boundaries, and private land boundaries. This acts as a 

surrogate to indicate how much conflict may create by alternative. This method was determined 

through a literature review of sound studies and reports listed at the end of this section and in 

appendix G. 

Recreation Resources Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel 

Short-term time frame: 1 year. 

Long-term time frame: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The forest boundary is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects 

associated with changes in the NFTS or season of use. 

Indicators: (1)The compatibility of proposed changes to the NFTS with Forest Plan recreation
 

and OHV management prescriptions and ROS; (2) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

118 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

on non-motorized (i.e., quiet) recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts); (3) The amount and diversity 

of motorized recreation opportunity by alternative; (4) The amount of motorized access to 

dispersed recreation by alternative; (5) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts). 

Rationale: The effects measurement indicators are based on NFMA and Travel Management 

Rule requirements as well as significant issues raised during internal and public scoping. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class 

Short-term time frame: 1 year. 

Long-term time frame: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The forest boundary is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects 

associated with changes in the NFTS or season of use. 

Indicators: (1)The compatibility of proposed changes to the NFTS with Forest Plan recreation 

and OHV management prescriptions and ROS; (2) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on non-motorized (i.e., quiet) recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts); (3) The amount and diversity 

of motorized recreation opportunity by alternative; (4) The amount of motorized access to 

dispersed recreation by alternative; (5) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts). 

Rationale: The effects measurement indicators are based on NFMA and Travel Management 

Rule requirements as well as significant issues raised during internal and public scoping 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class 

Short-term time frame: 1 year. 

Long-term time frame: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The forest boundary is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects 

associated with changes in the NFTS or season of use. 

Indicators: (1)The compatibility of proposed changes to the NFTS with Forest Plan recreation 

and OHV management prescriptions and ROS; (2) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on non-motorized (i.e., quiet) recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts); (3) The amount and diversity 

of motorized recreation opportunity by alternative; (4) The amount of motorized access to 

dispersed recreation by alternative; (5) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts). 

Rationale: The effects measurement indicators are based on NFMA and Travel Management 

Rule requirements as well as significant issues raised during internal and public scoping 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Short-term time frame: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame. 

Long-term time frame: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: The forest boundary is the unit of spatial analysis for determining cumulative 

effects. 

Indicators: (1)The compatibility of proposed changes to the NFTS with Forest Plan recreation 

and OHV management prescriptions and ROS; (2) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS 

on non-motorized (i.e., quiet) recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts); (3) The amount and diversity 

119 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

of motorized recreation opportunity by alternative; (4) The amount of motorized access to 

dispersed recreation by alternative; (5) The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts). 

Rationale: The effects measurement indicators are based on NFMA and Travel Management 

Rule requirements as well as significant issues raised during internal and public scoping 

Affected Environment 

The Stanislaus offers a variety of high quality recreation opportunities in a range of settings, year 

round. Located between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park on the western slope of the Sierra, it 

is within a 3 hour drive of the San Francisco Bay Area. The forest provides a wide range of facilities 

located in attractive settings, primarily located along reservoirs or rivers. The developed facilities 

include: 47 family campgrounds, 5 group campgrounds, 12 picnic grounds, 47 trailheads (this 

includes OHV trailheads), 8 boating sites, 745 recreation residences, 8 organization camps, and 4 

resorts. These developed facilities often support recreation activities that occur outside of the 

developed sites in what is referred to as dispersed recreation in the general forest. State Highways 4, 

108 and 120 provide easy access to most recreation opportunities. Of the 3 corridors, Highway 108 

serves the most recreation use on the Forest. Highway 4 is a National Scenic Byway and Highway 

120 is the most direct route between the San Francisco Bay Area and Yosemite National Park. The 

lakes and rivers offer excellent fishing, boating, and swimming opportunities. The elevation ranges 

from 1,500’ to 12,000’, providing a variety of settings for year-round recreational use. 

Motorized Recreation Opportunities 

A key goal of recreation management is to provide for a wide range of recreation opportunities. 

Where appropriate, the Forest goal is to provide OHV recreation opportunities in a variety of settings 

from semi-primitive motorized areas to fairly developed Roaded Natural areas. OHV trails should 

also offer a range of trail experiences in terms of length, degree of difficulty (easy to difficult), and a 

variety of recreation opportunities. This includes access to dispersed camping, picnicking, fishing, 

hunting, viewing wildlife, scenic vistas, trailheads and other opportunities within the back country of 

the Forest. Activity or motor sport trails primarily used by non highway legal vehicles should be 

designed for user enjoyment in terms of vegetation type, layout of the trails with views, loop 

opportunities, or trail systems that connect so users can explore a variety of trails and areas. These 

factors facilitate a quality recreation experience. A large system of trails results in opportunities for 

solitude and remoteness. A small system compresses the increasing use into a limited area, resulting 

in crowding, dust, noise, and user conflicts (between other motorized users as well as non-motorized 

users), and resource degradation which affects the recreational setting. The Forest currently has about 

85 miles of OHV NFTS trails and 1,744 miles of roughly graded NFTS roads open to all motorized 

vehicle use. 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities 

The Forest contains portions of three designated Wildernesses; the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River; 

and the Merced Wild and Scenic River. These areas contribute to the 238,763 acres of Primitive (P) 

ROS and 128,816 acres of SPNM ROS on the Forest. The remainder of the forest is Roaded Natural 

with a very small amount of Rural, totaling 530,520 acres. Most of the managed non-motorized trail 

system is within the P and SPNM settings which are free of conflict with motorized activities. Several 

hundred miles of non-motorized trails exists outside of these areas, offering a range of opportunities, 

including mountain biking. They vary from heavily used, paved bicycle trails and interpretive trails to 

lightly used or overgrown historic routes in a variety of settings. Even in the most highly developed 

areas of the Forest, such as Pinecrest, many non-motorized opportunities exist in a quiet setting at 

certain times. OHV activities currently occur on Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural areas 

throughout the Forest. This allows for a choice and mix of motorized and non-motorized activities. 

120 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

This mix is preferred by many visitors, but also has the potential to create conflict with non-motorized 

recreation activities. 

Recreation Visitor Use 

The Stanislaus National Forest currently ranks within the top five National Forests in California for 

overall annual recreation use according to the latest NVUM data (USDA 2008b). The Forest receives 

more visitation than any other Sierra Nevada National Forest on the western slope. The Recreation 

Facility Analysis (RFA) projected an increase in overall recreation use of 43% during the next 20 

years (USDA 2007b). This is dramatically more than the average forest nationally, but typical of 

adjacent Forests in the central Sierra. The expected increase in visitor use will create challenges as 

demand for all types of activities approaches capacity in the future. 

Visitor use estimates for the Forest were generated based on the NVUM survey that was conducted 

from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. Recreation use on the Stanislaus National Forest 

for this period was estimated at 1,817,200 National Forest visits and 2,100,300 site visits. The survey 

was designed to assess existing recreation demand on the forest by asking visitors what they did 

during their visit. This assessment resulted in two categories of visitor use: all activities in which 

they participated in and the main activity (the primary purpose for their visit to the Forest). The 

survey highlighted the fact that the two uses may or may not be related. For example, 75 percent of 

the forest visitors reported participating in the viewing of natural features, but only 42 percent 

reported this as their main activity. The top five recreation activities visitors participated in were; 

viewing scenery, hiking/walking, general relaxation, viewing wildlife, and picnicking. Each visitor 

also picked one of these activities as their primary activity for the current recreation visit to the forest. 

Table 3.04-1 shows the top main activities were viewing scenery, downhill skiing, relaxing, OHV use 

(including motorized trails), and fishing (USDA 2008b). 

Most visitors to the Forest participate in a variety of activities. Many activities, such as “viewing 

natural features” can be either motorized or non-motorized. The overwhelming majority of visitors 

arrive to the Forest in a motorized vehicle, the exception being immediately adjacent residents that 

hike or bicycle. This means that motorized and non-motorized activities are often combined as part of 

the total recreation experience. The presence of motorized activities can be either a positive or 

negative factor, depending on the circumstances. Table 3.04-1 identifies all classified activities in the 

NVUM report and highlights those that are primarily either motorized or non-motorized. Activities 

that are primarily non-motorized appear to have more use than motorized activities in both categories. 

Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Opportunities 

California is experiencing the highest level of OHV use of any state in the nation with 786,914 ATVs 

and OHV motorcycles registered in 2004, up 330% since 1980. Annual sales of ATVs and OHV 

motorcycles in California were the highest in the U.S. during recent years. Four-wheel drive vehicle 

sales were also very high. They increased 1500% to 3,046,866 from 1989 to 2002 (Cordell 2008, 

USDA 2004a). According to field personnel, overall use has more than doubled at many Forest 

locations during the last 10 years. These observations are supported by several studies, including the 

latest NVUM results from 2007 surveys (USDA 2008b). 

OHV use ranks 11th in the participation category and 4th as a main activity in Table 3.04-1. It is an 

important program on the Forest. 2007 NVUM data indicates the Stanislaus ranks fifth out of 18 

National Forests in California for overall recreation use, but it ranks near the top in OHV use. This is 

an increase from the 2003 report (USDA 2004b) in both categories. In 2004, out of 122 Forests 

nationally, the Stanislaus ranked 45th for overall recreation use but 18th for OHV use15. The new data 

indicates that the Stanislaus could be among the top 10 nationally, but this will not be verified until 

the next national OHV study. Reductions in riding opportunities (capacity) would likely have a 

15 OHV Use on National Forests: Volume and characteristics of visitors. 2004 

121 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

greater effect on the Stanislaus than at other Forests with a lower percentage of OHV use and less 

growth in the activity. 

Table 3.04-1 NVUM Classified Activities 

Activity Category Participation 

(%) Rank Main Activity (%) Rank 

Developed Camping 16.2 9 3.5 8 

Primitive Camping 5.7 15 0.4 18 

Backpacking Non Mot 2.2 20 0.3 19 

Resort Use 6.6 14 0.9 15 

Picnicking 20.5 5 2.3 10 

Viewing Natural Features 75.3 1 42.0 1 

Visiting Historic Sites 2.5 18 0 -

Nature Center Activities 1.3 25 0 -

Nature Study 1.9 21 0 -

Relaxing 35.2 3 8.2 3 

Fishing 18.7 8 8.0 5 

Hunting 9.0 12 7.7 7 

OHV Use Mot 10.4 11 8.1 * 4 

Driving for Pleasure Mot 19.9 6 1.9 11 

Snowmobiling Mot 1.8 22 1.5 12 

Motorized Water Activities 2.3 19 0.1 20 

Other Motorized Activity Mot 0.1 26 0.1 21 

Hiking / Walking Non Mot 36.2 2 7.7 6 

Horseback Riding Non Mot 1.8 23 0.9 14 

Bicycling Non Mot 3.2 17 0.6 17 

Non-motorized Water 7.9 13 3.5 9 

Downhill Skiing 11.4 10 10.9 2 

Cross-country Skiing Non Mot 1.8 24 1.1 13 

Other Non-motorized Non Mot 18.7 7 3.2 9 

Gathering Forest Products 4.1 16 0 -

Viewing Wildlife 32.0 4 0.7 16 

Total motorized Mot 32.2 11.6 

Total non-motorized Non Mot 61.7 13.5 

Information based on 2007 monitoring and January 2009 update.
 

The new category of Motorized Trail use was combined with Motorized Use to conform to the 2003 

survey data. See project record for a more complete explanation of factors.
 

The above activities are combined into four broad categories in Figure 3.04-2. Although motorized 

use has lower values than the other categories (Non motorized, Wildlife, Nature Related, and All 

Other), these groupings have a component of motorized within them since virtually everyone travels 

to their destination via motorized transportation. The top activity for both primary and participation is 

viewing scenery (natural features). This falls within the “All Other” category above. The majority of 

this activity occurs while touring in a motorized vehicle. Other activities have a similar relationship. 

Most bird watching occurs a short distance from the parked vehicle, and possibly from the vehicle in 

some situations. The indirect motorized component is the travel time to the destination, which in 

some cases may be related to the activity. A group of bird watchers are likely to be looking for birds 

while traveling to a hike. However the same can not be said for an angler, since no fishing occurs on 

roads. Additional research is needed to identify what proportion of all activities occurs in direct 

association with motorized vehicles. If the motorized component of all activities were added to the 

“Motorized” category, and removed from the others, it may have the highest visitation value in Figure 

3.04-2. 

122 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 Activity 

Figure 3.04-1 

Backpacking 

Hiking / Walking 

Horseback Riding 

Bicycling 

Cross-country Skiing 

Other Non-motorized 

OHV Use 

Driving for Pleasure 

Snowmobiling 

Other Motorized Activity 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Viewing Wildlife 

Viewing Natural Features 

Nature Center Activities 

Nature Study 

Motorized Water Activities 

Non-motorized Water 

Downhill Skiing 

Developed Camping 

Primitive Camping 

Resort Use 

Picnicking 

Visiting Historic Sites 

Relaxing 

Gathering Forest Products 

Sightseeing 

No Activity Reported 

-

Recreation Use by Activity 

Primary vs. Participation: Stanislaus NF 

250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 

Primary Visits Participation Visits 

Note: In the display above, motorized trails are included in the “other motorized” category. For comparison purposes, this category should be combined 

with “OHV Use” giving it a much higher value. The display below is based on 2007 NVUM results. 

Figure 3.04-2 Recreation Use by Type of Activity 

Primary vs. Participation: Stanislaus NF 

Primary Visits Participation Visits 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

NonMotorized Motorized Wildlife Nature Related All Other 

Activity Group 

123 
 

Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

Table 3.04-2 Visitors by Activity 

Type NVUM Category Activity1 

(%) Visitors2 

Camping Developed Camping 

Primitive Camping 

3.9 70,863 

Hunting Hunting 7.7 139,909 

Motorized Uses OHV use 

Driving for Pleasure 

Other Motorized Activity 

10.1 183,517 

Non-motorized 

Uses 

Backpacking 

Fishing 

Hiking/Walking 

Horseback Riding 

Bicycling 

Other Non-Motorized 

Activities 

20.7 376,119 

Other Activities Resort Use 

Picnicking 

Viewing Natural Features 

Visiting Historic Sites 

Nature Center Activities 

Nature Study 

Relaxing 

Gathering Forest Products 

Viewing Wildlife 

54.1 982,997 

Water Sports Motorized Water Activities 

Non-motorized Water 

5.8 105,386 

Winter Sports Downhill Skiing; 

Cross-country Skiing 

Snowmobiling 

13.5 245,295 

total 115.8 1,817,200 

1 The percentages exceed 100% because some people select more than one main 

activity. 

2 Theses 2007 visitation figures do not total correctly since some visitors interviewed 

did not declare a main activity.
 

Environmental Consequences 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS COMMON FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Indicator Measure 1: ROS consistency with Forest Plan: This measurement indicator looks at the 

impact to ROS due to proposed NFTS changes. The number of ROS acres in each class by 

alternative and the number of required non-significant ROS plan amendments is displayed by 

associated acreage changes in the Forest Plan by alternative. 

Primitive (P) ROS opportunities exist on 238,763 acres within designated Wilderness and Proposed 

Wilderness on the Forest, which remains the same for all alternatives. The Forest Plan identifies 

128,816 acres of SPNM class outside of Wilderness. These two ROS classes identify areas available 

for quiet recreation (non-motorized) on the Forest. 

Table 3.04-3 Effects on SPNM 

Item Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

NFTS proposed in SPNM (miles) 1.70 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 

SPNM within 1⁄2 mile of route(s) (acres) 463 0 0 2394 0.00 

Cross country prohibition yes no yes yes yes 

Table 3.04-3 displays that Alternatives 3 and 5 add no miles to the NFTS (within SPNM) and prohibit 

cross country travel, therefore having the least impact on the SPNM setting. Alternative 2 will not 

prohibit cross country travel, and therefore is most likely to result in vehicle intrusion into SPNM 

areas, but no miles of NFTS are added. Alternative 1 would add 1.7 miles, and Alternative 4 would 

add 5.20 miles, the most of all alternatives. 

124 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

In the following discussions of effects, motorized and non-motorized activities interact. It is often 

desirable for the two to exist together at the same location, but not necessarily at the same time. 

Mountain bikers may enjoy riding motorcycle trails, for instance. Many pristine non-motorized 

experiences are possible in Semi-Primitive and Roaded Natural settings and will remain available in 

all alternatives to a varying extent. During low visitation periods, the forest can be remarkably quiet 

in all settings. The greatest conflict between activities occurs during high use periods. Most of the 

proposed changes to recreation settings occur within the 530,520 acre roaded natural ROS setting. 

These changes are site specific and vary by alternative. Refer to the alternative maps and summaries 

of specific areas in the Recreation Report (see project record). Alternative 2 represents the current 

situation. Motorized use is concentrated in a few locations but is generally dispersed throughout the 

Forest (where not restricted). All of the other alternatives would limit OHV travel to NFTS routes, 

resulting in more concentrated use at these locations. Fewer riding opportunities would result in more 

noise and dust at these locations. Quiet recreation activities would be negatively impacted within the 

immediate area (1/2 mile), but opportunities for quiet recreation will be expanded as areas are closed 

to motorized use. 

Indicator Measure 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity: This measurement indicator looks at 

the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on non-motorized recreation (dust, noise, use 

conflicts). It also addresses the “Quiet Recreation” issue. The Number of Acres beyond 1⁄2 mile of a 

designated NFTS road or trail under each alternative. 

As expected, most of the Roaded Natural (RN) ROS class is influenced by roads. Two-thirds of the 

530,520 acres in the RN setting are within 1⁄2 mile of a proposed system road. This road “influence 

zone” has the potential to be noisier than more remote locations. The zone represents 39% of the 

overall Forest (including Wilderness and other P and SPNM acres). Table 3.04-4 shows a summary of 

acres affected by proposed changes, and the acres beyond the 1⁄2 mile corridor that would be less 

influenced by NFTS roads. The differences between alternatives are slight, since the additions are 

small compared to existing NFTS roads, all of which remain in this proposal. The roughly 350,000 

acres are scattered throughout the Forest, in both large and small blocks and correlate closely with 

road density. 

The following table shows the acreage beyond 1⁄2 mile of routes proposed for public use under each 

alternative as a measurement indicator of acreage available for quiet recreation and non-motorized 

activities without the potential for use conflicts with motorized vehicles. 

Table 3.04-4 Effects on Quiet Recreation 

Type 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Impacted 5416 < 1 0 0 0 0 6241 < 1 514 < 1 

Quiet Recreation 346,740 39 352,156 39 352,156 39 345,915 39 351,642 39 

Quiet Recreation and Non-Motorized 704,855 78 710,271 79 710,271 79 704,030 78 709,757 79 

Indicator Measure 3: Motorized recreation opportunity: This measurement indicator looks at the 

impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on motorized recreation opportunities by alternative. This 

includes the road and trail miles available by vehicle class and season of use. Trail variety is 

expressed by trail class and degree of difficulty. 

The quality and diversity of riding experiences vary considerably by alternative. Routes range from 

high standard, surfaced roads already designated for public highway-licensed motor vehicle use, to 

rough native surface roads and trails. A variety of riding experiences on loop systems are desirable, 

whether touring on roads or riding trails. 

125 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

Mileages for “degree of difficulty” by trail category are presented in Table 3.04-5. Alternatives 1 and 

4 display a balance of riding opportunities. Alternative 2 would not designate additions to the NFTS 

but would have more miles in each category available for use. 

Table 3.04-5 Additions to the NFTS: Degree of Difficulty 

Degree of Difficulty 

(miles) 

Alternative 

1 2 4 4 5 

Difficult 22.26 0.00 0.00 28.27 2.27 

Moderate 58.10 0.00 0.00 65.09 11.52 

Easy 71.28 0.00 0.00 82.61 14.58 

total 151.64 0.00 0.00 175.97 28.37 

Table 2.05-4 in Chapter 2 illustrates the total motorized recreation opportunities including existing 

and proposed NFTS routes and existing unauthorized routes. It shows the net effect of all actions. 

Alternative 4 has the most total miles, followed by alternatives 2, 1, 3 and 5. In addition to total miles 

and difficulty, the geographical distribution and interconnectedness are factors that would vary by 

alternative. 

Table 3.04-6 displays the total trail mileage available for each vehicle class by alternative and by the 

proposed season of use. Season of use applies to alternatives 1, 4 and 5. Alternatives 2 and 3 have no 

additions to the NFTS. The majority of riding opportunities are on existing roads. Trails vary between 

4% (Alternatives 2 and 3) and 15% (Alternative 4) of the total NFTS. Motor Sport riders generally 

prefer trails over roads. Single track dirt bike and ATV trails are in high demand, but represent a 

small portion of overall trail component. Non highway legal vehicles would be affected more than 

other categories by the changes identified in the alternatives. During the closure period, less than one 

mile is available in any alternative. 

Table 3.04-6 Additions to the NFTS: Trail Categories and Season of Use 

Trail Category 

(miles) Season of Use Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail ( Zone 1) Open All Year 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail (Zone 2) Apr 1 - Nov 30 8.87 0.00 0.00 7.90 0.25 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail (Zone 3) May 15 - Nov 30 4.45 0.00 0.00 4.25 2.56 

subtotal 14.31 0.00 0.00 13.13 2.81 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail (Zone 1) Open All Year 7.72 0.00 0.00 8.09 2.98 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail (Zone 2) Apr 1 - Nov 30 14.01 0.00 0.00 20.75 4.96 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail (Zone 3) May 15 - Nov 30 27.43 0.00 0.00 31.60 2.40 

subtotal 49.16 0.00 0.00 60.44 10.34 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Trail (Zone 1) Open All Year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Trail (Zone 2) Apr 1 - Nov 30 12.69 0.00 0.00 13.89 2.31 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Trail ( Zone 3) May 15 - Nov 30 24.32 0.00 0.00 33.82 5.15 

subtotal 37.01 0.00 0.00 47.71 7.46 

Motorcycle (MC) Trail (Zone 1) Open All Year 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 

Motorcycle (MC) Trail (Zone 2) Apr 1 - Nov 30 39.09 0.00 0.00 42.02 11.74 

Motorcycle (MC) Trail (Zone 3) May 15 - Nov 30 15.04 0.00 0.00 15.64 0.15 

subtotal 54.73 0.00 0.00 58.26 11.89 

total 151.64 0.00 0.00 175.97 28.37 

Indicator Measure 4: Number of routes or miles accessing dispersed recreation sites. Motorized 

access to dispersed recreation opportunities: This measurement indicator looks at the impact of 

proposed changes to the NFTS on motorized access to dispersed recreation sites or areas by 

alternative. The number of routes, mileage, and season of use are summarized. 

Dispersed recreation sites may be campsites or parking areas for many other activities (fishing, 

hunting, bird watching, etc) which are both motorized and non-motorized. Some visitors prefer the 

characteristics of dispersed areas, which include the lack of development, fees, regimentation, and 

management controls. Greater solitude and privacy are often possible at these remote locations. Some 

126 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

visitors may prefer the freedom to engage in legal activities that would not be allowed in developed 

campgrounds, such as OHV use, shooting firearms, or bringing along a noisy dog. Some dispersed 

sites accommodate groups, providing the opportunity to camp close to each other, and away from 

others, compared to developed campgrounds. Sites that have a long history of repeated use are often 

special places that visitors return to over time, creating family memories and traditions. Elimination 

of motorized access to these sites can be a significant change, especially for the elderly or persons 

with disabilities. Some traditional activities relying on proximity to the vehicle such as; RV, trailer, or 

camper use is displaced as vehicle access is prohibited. 

These sites would then be available for non-motorized use with the parking relocated to the nearest 

NFTS road. Existing sites in close proximity to system roads will be affected less than those at great 

distances. Of the estimated 2,000 routes on the forest, 245 (or 12%) were inventoried and included in 

this analysis (see Table 3.04-7). The average inventoried dispersed access route length is 690 feet 

adding up to 31.15 miles total. It is estimated that this is about 1/3 of the total mileage on the Forest, 

since routes not analyzed are shorter in length, estimated to an average of 200 feet. It is assumed that 

the majority not analyzed will be closed to motorized uses. This is the most significant change in the 

EIS within the recreation resource area. Alternative 4 would designate almost all of the inventoried 

routes, but this represents only 11% of the existing routes. Only Alternative 2 would not have a 

significant reduction. 

Table 3.04-7 Additions to the NFTS: Dispersed Access and Season of Use 

Trail Category Season of Use ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail ( Zone 1) Open All Year 0.99 0.99 0.00 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail (Zone 2) Apr 1 - Nov 30 8.80 7.90 0.25 

4 Wheel Drive (4WD) Trail (Zone 3) May 15 - Nov 30 4.45 3.72 2.56 

subtotal 14.24 12.61 2.81 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail (Zone 1) Open All Year 0.41 0.41 0.00 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail (Zone 2) Apr 1 - Nov 30 6.03 10.23 1.77 

All Vehicles (ALL) Trail (Zone 3) May 15 - Nov 30 5.86 7.41 0.00 

subtotal 12.30 18.05 1.77 

total 26.54 30.66 4.58 

Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private and 

public lands (dust, noise, use conflicts). 

Other federal lands adjacent to the Stanislaus National Forest include the Eldorado National Forest 

(north), the Sierra National Forest (south), Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests (northeast), Yosemite 

National Park (southeast), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (west). The ROS classes for 

each of the bordering National Forests vary, but are compatible with the ROS classes on the 

Stanislaus. ROS classes adjacent to the BLM and Yosemite National Park are not entirely compatible. 

Proposed changes would require coordination with them. Calaveras Big Trees State Park is located 

within the Forest boundary and would also require coordination for any changes. 

The private lands surrounding the Stanislaus National Forest vary between very rural/sparsely 

populated to residential subdivisions. Potential impacts to populated areas may differ among the 

alternatives. The alternatives with fewer routes would possibly have a lower impact of noise, dust and 

physical presence near populated areas. Many adjacent residents enjoy riding directly onto Forest 

land from their property and would prefer to continue. Others may strongly disagree. These issues 

have surfaced at several locations on the Forest and are difficult to resolve. 

The project record includes a complete listing of routes within this zone. Alternative 2 poses the 

greatest impact to populated areas, since all use, including non NFTS open riding will continue and 

some new unauthorized routes will develop. Existing ML2 roads will remain open for use by all 

OHVs. Existing routes through private land will continue to be used without limitations unless action 

127 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

is taken by the owner. As shown in Table 3.04-8, alternatives 3, 4, 1 and 5 pose progressively less 

impact. 

Table 3.04-8 Effects on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands 

Location Route Type Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Near Private Land Additions to the NFTS within 1⁄2 mile 99.50 0.00 0.00 118.80 21.80 

Existing NFTS within 1⁄2 mile 1031.70 1031.70 1031.70 1031.70 1031.70 

Near Other Public Land Additions to the NFTS within 1⁄2 mile 9.70 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.10 

Existing NFTS within 1⁄2 mile 75.60 75.60 75.60 75.60 75.60 

Near Forest Service 

Designated Wilderness 

Additions to the NFTS within 1⁄2 mile 2.50 0.00 0.00 2.50 1.50 

Existing NFTS within 1⁄2 mile 63.30 63.30 63.30 63.30 63.30 

total (miles) 1216.90 1107.30 1107.30 1238.10 1130.20 

Note: Some acres appear in more than one category, since they may be within 1⁄2 mile of more than one category 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

ROS Consistency with Forest Plan: Two NFTS road segments, 4N80Y (0.16 miles) and 5N02R 

(1.48 miles) change from all vehicles to highway legal only with a Non-Motorized Forest Plan 

Amendment (see Table 2.02-5) allowing continued use on roads that are currently available for public 

motor vehicle use. The amendment will not change the designation of SPNM, but assuming a 1⁄2 mile 

influence zone this potentially affects 463 acres of SPNM. Although these two roads are located 

within proposed Wild River corridors, continued highway legal only use will not preclude future Wild 

and Scenic River designation of these segments of the North Fork Stanislaus River. 

Recreation settings and non-motorized recreation: Cross-country travel would be prohibited 

resulting in a smaller footprint for motorized activity and better management of the NFTS. Routes 

have been selected to reduce potential impact with non-motorized activities. More use would occur on 

the NFTS creating more noise and dust impacts near them, but other areas would become free of 

motorized activities enhancing quiet recreation opportunities. Many favorite remote quiet recreation 

settings would lose motorized access, requiring a longer hike access them. 

Motorized recreation: Alternative 1 would provide the 3rd-highest motorized mileage available to 

all OHV use, behind alternatives 2 and 4. NFTS routes would meet existing demand and the 

immediate future (10 years). Consideration has been given to accommodate a range of riding 

difficulty for motorcycles, ATVs, and four-wheel-drive vehicles and they are distributed to many 

different riding areas. Of the 246 miles of unauthorized route, 151 miles will be added to the NFTS. 

Road management will change to allow an additional 22 miles of use by OHVs, primarily to complete 

loop opportunities. Access to staging or trailheads is easy over good roads. Since the Forest would be 

closed to cross-country travel, all use is on designated routes. Season of use is more restrictive than 

Alternative 4, but less than 5. Although a reduction in miles occurs, this system would be more 

manageable and sustainable than alternatives 2 or 4 with 2,432 miles of potential opportunity on the 

NFTS (see Table 2.05-4). 

The existing and proposed NFTS trails in popular OHV riding areas would have increasing use that 

approaches capacity within a decade if current trends continue. At these popular areas and other 

heavily used NFTS routes, more noise, and dust would occur, negatively affecting quiet recreation 

activities for some recreationists. As demand increases for motorized activity, these effects may be 

observed or experienced more. At some point, limitations on the amount of use may be needed. The 

Recreation Report (see project record) discusses supply and demand. 

Dispersed recreation access: 2,432 miles of existing routes are provided for motorized access, 

serving hundreds of campsites and other activities. The majority (90%) of the motorized routes 

historically used to access dispersed camping will be closed to motorized vehicles. They will remain 

128 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

available for walk-in access only with parking one vehicle length off the NFTS system. Many 

recreation activities stage from a vehicle, camper, or trailer. Closure of routes will displace this 

activity to the parking area at the edge of the road. Fire rings, clearing of the Forest floor for tents, 

tables, etc. will result in new user-made campsites at many locations. Over time, proliferation of new 

campsites adjacent to NFTS roads would replace many of those closed to motorized access. Some 

existing campsites would continue to be used, especially those close to the parking area. Other 

campsites away from the road would be welcomed by those who prefer quiet recreation, solitude, and 

separation from motorized use, especially near water and other attractions. Many routes and 

campsites would not be used and will naturally recover (disappear) over time. Enforcement would be 

a challenge in popular traditionally used sites. 

Adjacent ownership: Changes to the system and additions avoid conflict with adjacent landowners, 

and are generally compatible with adjacent public lands. This alternative includes much more HLO 

(ML2) compared to Alternative 2, reducing trespass. Many routes lacking documented rights of way 

would not be designated reducing potential conflict with private lands. 

Season of Use: These changes will impact early recreation (before May 15) and late fall recreation 

(after November 30) in zone 3. Zone 2 will be available earlier, beginning on April 1. Popular 

locations traditionally available for motorized access on opening day of fishing season will not be 

available for several weeks. In December, the high country (zones 2 and 3) would be closed. The wet 

weather closure could interrupt back country activities at any time of the open season. Wheeled Over 

Snow Routes provide 106 miles of opportunities for over snow travel by ATVs when 12” or more of 

snow is present. Other roads open year round are available for over snow travel by 4WD and other 

vehicles consistent with the vehicle class designation. This over-snow use increases noise in 

concentrated areas and could be in conflict with cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and snow play 

activities. The residual wheel tracks may affect snowmobiling in addition to the above activities. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The direct and indirect effects disclosed above contribute to cumulative effects along with certain 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative Effects 

Analysis). Some future new trail construction will occur, primarily to complete loop opportunities (5 

miles minimum). A future analysis of unauthorized routes providing motorized access to dispersed 

recreation sites could make other additions to the NFTS not analyzed in this EIS. Timber harvest and 

fuel projects may make changes to the NFTS system on a case by case basis. The combined effects of 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions are not expected to be significant. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

ROS Consistency with Forest Plan: Three NFTS road segments, 4N80Y (0.16 miles), 5N02R (1.48 

miles) and 1N09 (2.78 miles) are open to all vehicles, not fully implementing current Forest Plan 

direction. 

Recreation settings and non-motorized recreation: Cross-country travel would continue unabated, 

potentially entering SPNM areas, creating additional resource issues in the future. This alternative has 

the greatest potential to negatively alter recreation settings and cause resource damage. Recreation 

settings in popular areas will become more dominated by OHVs (and their influence) as use increases 

in the future. Dust, noise, and vehicle traffic, resulting from motorized use, would increase and 

expand to new areas on the Forest. Although use would grow and expand, it will be dispersed over 

much of the Forest, and be less concentrated than other alternatives. This would provide more 

expansive riding opportunities compared to the other alternatives. This would negatively affect the 

experience of many recreationists engaged in non-motorized activities. This alternative would have 

the highest potential impact on non-motorized or quiet recreation activities. 

129 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

Motorized recreation: Alternative 2 would provide the most motorized opportunities with few 

limitations. Of the 246 miles of existing unauthorized routes, all would remain available for use, 

including all dispersed access routes. By considering the use on all unauthorized routes and 2,279 

miles of existing NFTS roads and trails, this alternative has a total of 2,525 miles. This does not 

include up to 100 miles of dispersed recreation access routes that would remain open. Cross country 

travel will also continue. This results in more total miles of motorized opportunity than any other 

alternative, including Alternative 4. Existing closures would remain in effect. Weather permitting, 

year-round opportunities continue. Allowable uses on roads will not change. Without a prohibition on 

cross country riding, opportunities to pioneer new routes will exist, resulting in an estimated addition 

of 45 miles of user created routes over the next 20 years. Due to terrain and vegetation limitations, 

true motorized cross country travel opportunities are limited. Significant management challenges 

would occur since the extensive and growing network of routes will be difficult to monitor, maintain, 

and enforce. Increased resource degradation and user conflicts would reduce the quality of the 

recreation experience and could lead to closure at some locations, where user conflict, safety 

concerns, and resource damage is not acceptable. This alternative would be the least sustainable over 

time, reactive rather than proactive. To meet standards, it would be the most expensive and most 

demanding. 

Dispersed recreation access: Alternative 2 is the only alternative that would continue to provide 

motorized access to all of the existing dispersed recreation sites on the forest. The number of sites is 

estimated at 2,000 Forestwide. Long established patterns of motorized dispersed recreation use will 

continue. 

Adjacent ownership: This alternative would have the greatest conflict with adjacent land owners 

and the most incompatibility with adjacent public lands. 

Season of Use: Ranger Districts will continue managing gates based on established weather factors. 

Wheeled over snow use would be prohibited on groomed snowmobile trails and marked cross country 

ski routes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The direct and indirect effects disclosed above contribute to cumulative effects along with certain 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative Effects 

Analysis). Some future new trail construction will occur, primarily to complete loop opportunities (5 

miles minimum). An analysis of unauthorized routes providing motorized access to dispersed 

recreation sites could make other additions to the NFTS not analyzed in this analysis. Timber harvest 

and fuel projects may make changes to the NFTS system on a case by case basis. The combined 

effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions are not expected to be significant. 

Without a cross country prohibition, existing motorized use would expand, creating approximately 

2.25 miles of new unauthorized routes each year. The lack of controls and enforcement capability 

would encourage activities that result in resource degradation and overuse. Over time, this will affect 

the quality of the experience for the more responsible riders. The Forest Service would be challenged 

to meet standards. It therefore is the least sustainable of all alternatives. With no deterrent to 

increasing use, demand would not be limited in any way by the supply of OHV opportunities. The 

Recreation Report (see project record) discusses supply and demand. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

ROS Consistency with Forest Plan: Three NFTS road segments, 4N80Y (0.16 miles), 5N02R (1.48 

miles) and 1N09 (2.78 miles) are open to all vehicles, not fully implementing current Forest Plan 

direction. 

130 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Recreation settings and non-motorized recreation: Alternative 3 does not provide any additional 

motorized routes and prohibits cross-country travel. The recreation setting would change from a 

predominately motorized setting to a predominately non-motorized setting on lands currently popular 

for riding. This alternative would also provide the lowest potential to negatively alter the physical 

recreation settings and cause resource damage. The indirect effect of displacing and concentrating use 

to other areas is the primary impact. Outside of those few locations, dust and noise from motorized 

vehicles would be minimized. More use would occur on the existing NFTS, creating more noise and 

dust impacts near them, but other areas would become free of motorized activities enhancing quiet 

recreation opportunities. Many favorite remote quiet recreation settings will lose motorized access, 

requiring a longer hike to get to them. 

Motorized recreation: Alternative 3 makes no additions to the NFTS and cross-country travel 

would be prohibited, eliminating use on 246 miles of unauthorized routes. No conversion of NFTS 

routes to non-motorized use is proposed. 2,279 miles of existing roads and trails will remain 

available. Existing closures would remain in effect. Motorized use will be prohibited on many of the 

most challenging motorcycle and ATV trails. This use would continue only on existing NFTS system 

routes. The quality of the recreation experience for experienced riders will be most affected. Isolated 

segments of existing roads do not provide a quality opportunity. These segmented sections are 

therefore not desirable and will receive little use by motorized riders. Existing use will be 

concentrated in a few desirable areas. Crowded conditions would result, negatively changing the 

experience and setting. This alternative is the least desirable for motorized recreation. Little thought 

of the recreation experience has been incorporated. Use would be limited to existing level 2 roads, 

which do not necessarily provide continuity or loop experience. 

The few existing NFTS OHV riding areas would receive substantially greater use than in Alternatives 

1 or 4. The concentration of use at these locations will change the riding experience (more 

congestion, dust, etc). Quiet recreation will be increasingly impacted nearby, and resource impacts 

concentrated. Demand will not be met for more difficult trail riding. The quality motorized 

opportunities remaining on the Forest will receive a high level of use. Intensive management 

(permits, etc.) would be needed during implementation, since demand would exceed the capacity. 

This would be necessary to protect the quality of the experience and assure safety of users. 

Increasingly intensive management will be required as use increases beyond a desirable level in the 

near future. The OHV supply and demand section of the Recreation Report (see project record) 

discusses supply and demand. 

Dispersed recreation: This alternative provides motorized access to the fewest number of dispersed 

recreation opportunities contrasting with Alternative 2 which retains all existing motorized access to 

dispersed campsites on the forest. All of the estimated 2,000 routes serving dispersed recreation will 

be closed to motorized travel. Parking will be limited to the shoulder of NFTS roads. Campsites and 

special places would still be available to those who wish to hike or bicycle on the route. Dispersed 

campers would seek new sites in lieu of access to their traditional sites which would be unavailable 

for motorized use. Proliferation of new campsites adjacent to parking locations along NFTS roads 

would occur at many locations. Some existing campsites would continue to be used, especially those 

close to the parking area (within a vehicle length of the NFTS route). Other campsites away from the 

road would be welcomed by those who prefer quiet recreation, solitude, and separation from 

motorized use, especially near water and other attractions. Many routes and campsites would not be 

used and will naturally recover (disappear) over time. 

Adjacent ownership: This alternative would have the least conflict with adjacent land owners and 

the most compatibility with adjacent public lands since no unauthorized routes would remain open. 

Season of Use: same as Alternative 2. 

131 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

ROS Consistency with Forest Plan: Two NFTS road segments, 4N80Y (0.16 miles) and 5N02R 

(1.48 miles) change from all vehicles to highway legal only; and, one NFTS road segment of 1N09 

(2.78 miles) remains open to all vehicles with a Non-Motorized Forest Plan Amendment (see Table 

2.02-11) allowing continued use on roads that are currently available for public motor vehicle use. 

The amendment will not change the designation of SPNM, but assuming a 1⁄2 mile influence zone this 

potentially affects 2,394 acres of SPNM. Although 4N80Y and 5N02R are located within proposed 

Wild River corridors, continued highway legal only use will not preclude future Wild and Scenic 

River designation of these segments of the North Fork Stanislaus River. 

Recreation settings and non-motorized recreation: Cross-country travel would be prohibited 

resulting in a smaller footprint for motorized activity and better management of the designated routes. 

Routes have been selected to maximize motorized opportunities on routes with legal access. This 

alternative has the 2nd greatest potential to impact non-motorized activities. Use would increase 

moderately on the designated routes creating more noise and dust impacts near them, but other areas 

would become free of motorized activities. This would increase opportunities for quiet recreation 

away from the proposed routes, but less than alternatives 3, 5 or 1. Many favorite remote quiet 

recreation settings will lose motorized access, requiring a longer hike to get to them, but fewer than 

the other action Alternatives. 

Motorized recreation: Alternative 4 would provide the 2nd-highest motorized mileage available to 

all OHV use, behind Alternative 2. Existing demand would be met with less concentration of use 

compared to the other action alternatives. Consideration has been given to accommodate a range of 

difficulties for motorcycles, ATVs, and four-wheel-drive vehicles and they are distributed to many 

different riding areas on the Forest. Of the 246 miles of existing trails, 175 miles will be added to the 

NFTS. Road management will change to allow an additional 91 miles of use by OHVs, primarily to 

complete loop opportunities. Access to existing staging or trailheads is convenient to most areas on 

good roads. Since the Forest would be closed to cross-country travel, all use is on designated routes. 

Unlike Alternative 1, some of these routes will not be part of a loop system. Season of use is less 

restrictive than alternatives 1 or 5, providing more winter opportunities. Although a reduction from 

the existing use, this system would be more manageable and sustainable than Alternative 2, but less 

than 1. Some future new trail construction will occur, primarily to complete loop opportunities (5 

miles minimum). Combined with the road system, 2,555 miles of potential opportunity exist, more 

than the other four alternatives (see project record, recreation report Appendix A). 

The more extensive riding opportunities, compared to alternatives 1, 3 and 5, would disperse use and 

likely attract more volunteers and potential funding from the OHV community. This is important 

because the more expansive system will be more expensive to manage. Use would concentrate at the 

most popular areas, but less than alternatives 1, 3 and 5. At these popular areas, and heavily used 

NFTS routes, more noise and dust would occur, negatively affecting the quality of the motorized 

experience and quiet recreation activities for some recreationists. As demand increases for motorized 

activity, these effects will be more pronounced. At some point, controls on the amount of use may be 

needed as demand exceeds available supply. The OHV supply and demand section of the Recreation 

Report (see project record) discusses supply and demand. 

Dispersed recreation access: This alternative would convert the majority of the motorized routes 

accessing dispersed recreation sites to non-motorized status. 30.96 miles of routes will continue to 

serve hundreds of campsites and other activities, slightly more than Alternative 1, at 11% of existing. 

132 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Many recreation activities stage from a vehicle, camper, or trailer. Closure of routes will displace this 

activity to the parking area at the edge of the nearest NFTS road. Fire rings, clearing of the Forest 

floor for tents, tables, etc. will result in new user-created campsites at many locations. Over time, 

proliferation of new campsites adjacent to NFTS roads would replace many of those closed to 

motorized access. Some existing campsites would continue to be used, especially those close to the 

parking area (within a vehicle length of the NFTS route. Other campsites away from the road would 

be welcomed by those who prefer quiet recreation, solitude, and separation from motorized use, 

especially near water and other attractions. Many routes and campsites would not be used and will 

naturally recover (disappear) over time. 

Adjacent ownership: Some conflicts with adjacent private land may occur with the routes selected 

for addition. Proposed routes are compatible with adjacent public lands. Fewer miles of HLO (ML2) 

than alternatives 1 or 4, increases the possibility of trespass. 

Season of Use: These changes will impact early spring recreation use (before April 1) and winter 

access (after December 31). Locations traditionally available for motorized access on opening day of 

fishing season will be available. Since normally the forest is under snow cover in the winter, there 

will be very little impact. The wet weather closure could interrupt back country activities during the 

open season. Wheeled Over Snow Routes provide 106 miles of opportunities for over snow travel by 

ATVs when 12” or more of snow is present. Other roads open year round are available for over snow 

travel by 4WD and other vehicles consistent with the vehicle class designation. This over snow use 

increases noise in concentrated areas and could be in conflict with cross country skiing, snow 

shoeing, and snowmobiling. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

ROS Consistency with Forest Plan: Three NFTS road segments, 4N80Y (0.16 miles), 5N02R (1.48 

miles) and 1N09 (2.78 miles) are closed to public motor vehicle use, fully implementing current 

Forest Plan direction. 

Recreation settings and non-motorized recreation: Cross-country travel would be prohibited 

resulting in a smaller footprint for motorized activity and better management of the NFTS. This 

alternative has the least potential to impact non-motorized activities. Use would increase substantially 

on the NFTS, but other areas would become free of motorized activities. This would increase 

opportunities for quiet recreation away from the NFTS, similar to alternative 3. The result of this is; 

many favorite remote and quiet recreation settings will lose motorized access, requiring a longer hike 

to get to them, more than the other action Alternatives. No motorized uses are proposed within SPNM 

areas. The North Fork of the Stanislaus River will be managed for Wild and Scenic values by 

eliminating motor vehicle use on Candy Rock and Pine Needle Flat roads. 

Motorized recreation: Alternative 5 would provide the lowest motorized mileage available to all 

OHV use. With 28 miles of addition to the NFTS, more quality riding opportunities than Alternative 

3 would exist. Demand in the single track and ATV trail categories would not be met. This alternative 

includes less than 1⁄2 the mileage of alternatives 1 and 4. Little consideration was given to 

accommodate a range of difficulty for OHVs on trails, and they are not well distributed to different 

riding areas on the Forest. Current allowed OHV use on NFTS roads would be reduced an additional 

47 miles. Fewer loops provide limited riding opportunities for non-HLO vehicles. The quality of the 

recreation experience for experienced riders will be most affected. Isolated segments of existing roads 

do not provide a quality opportunity. Existing use will be concentrated in a few desirable areas. 

133 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

Crowded conditions would result, negatively changing the experience and setting. Access to staging 

or trailheads is convenient, but loop and system riding opportunities from them are minimal. 

Since the Forest would be closed to cross-country travel, all use is on designated routes. Unlike 

alternatives 1or 4, most routes will not be a part of a loop system. Season of use is more restrictive 

than either alternative 1 or 5, providing fewer winter opportunities. Being a substantial reduction from 

the existing use, this system would be more manageable and sustainable, but less likely to attract 

volunteers and partnerships. Some future new trail construction will occur, primarily to complete loop 

opportunities (5 miles minimum). Combined with the road system, 2,240 miles of potential 

opportunity in the NFTS is less than the other four alternatives, most of it on existing ML 2 roads (see 

Table 2.05-4). The few remaining riding areas would receive substantially greater use than in 

Alternatives 1 or 4. The concentration of use at these locations will change the riding experience 

(more congestion, dust, etc). Demand will not be met for more difficult trail riding. Quiet recreation 

would be increasingly impacted nearby these areas and resource impacts concentrated. Increasingly 

intensive management will be required as use increases beyond a desirable level in the near future. As 

demand exceeds supply, controls on amount of use will be required (permits, etc.). The Recreation 

Report (see project record) discusses supply and demand. 

Dispersed recreation access: Motorized access would be prohibited on the majority of existing 

routes. A total of 4.58 miles of routes (5% of existing) would continue to provide motorized access to 

less than 100 campsites forestwide. This is about 1⁄2 of the other action alternatives. Proliferation of 

new campsites adjacent to NFTS roads would occur. Some existing campsites would continue to be 

used, especially those close to the parking area (within a vehicle length of the NFTS route. Other 

campsites away from the road would be welcomed by those who prefer quiet recreation, solitude, and 

separation from motorized use, especially near water and other attractions. Many routes and 

campsites would not be used and will naturally recover (disappear) over time. 

Adjacent ownership: The low mileage of new routes and reduction of non-HLO use on existing 

NFTS routes reduces the possibility of conflict with adjacent landowners. No known conflicts with 

adjacent public lands result from proposed additions to the NFTS. 

Season of Use: These changes will impact early spring fishing (before May 15) and late fall hunting 

(after November 15 in zones 2 and 3. Zone 2 will be available earlier (on April 15). Popular locations 

traditionally available for motorized access on opening day of fishing season would not be available 

for several weeks (in zone 3). Significant use often occurs in late November during good weather. 

Under this alternative, the forest is closed (for Thanksgiving week). The wet weather closure could 

interrupt back country activities during the open season. This alternative does not include wheeled 

over snow routes for ATVs. Other roads open year round are available for over snow travel by 4WD 

and other vehicles consistent with the vehicle class designation. The direct effects would be loss of 

winter play activity historically allowed on the Forest. Quiet recreation would benefit from reduction 

in noise. Conflicts would be reduced between ATVs and cross-country skiers, snowshoers, etc. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across all Alternatives 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel in 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5. 

Direct Effects: As a result of prohibiting cross-country travel, motorized recreation riding 

opportunities would be reduced. In addition, access to dispersed campsites by all vehicles would 

be reduced. This would directly impact recreationists that rely on motorized access to their 

“special places”, reducing capacity for those types of use. Opportunities for some non-motorized 

134 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

recreation activities would be affected by the loss of access. . Some non-motorized opportunities 

would benefit from the action by improving opportunities for quiet recreation. 

Indirect Effects: The recreation setting in areas that receive significant cross-country use would 

change from a predominately motorized environment to a predominately non-motorized 

environment. By default, routes not inventoried or included in this analysis will be unavailable for 

motorized use. This is most significant for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. 

Vehicles would be required to park alongside the NFTS road, often in new locations where 

camping and other dispersed recreation activities would occur. This would indirectly result in 

resource and possibly safety impacts that have not been analyzed. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class in Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. 

Direct Effects: The addition of facilities would sanction existing riding opportunities for OHV 

vehicle classes, but at a reduced scale, varying by alternative. Riding opportunities decrease 

during the closure period affecting early and late-season use. High country access is limited 

during early spring and late fall in the action alternatives affecting all recreation activities. The 

wet weather closure has the potential to disrupt many recreation activities during the summer 

season. 

Indirect Effects: The addition of routes to the NFTS, publishing the MVUM and signing will 

clarify to all users where the motorized uses are allowed. This would facilitate enforcement. Maps 

and information about these routes would be valuable to new riders and make enforcement easier. 

Recreationists would know where to expect motorized activity in order to avoid it if they desire a 

quiet setting. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class in Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. 

Direct Effects: Motorized recreation would benefit if the changes contribute to the continuity of 

the motor-touring experience, including access to dispersed recreation and loop trails. Motorized 

recreation would also benefit with the addition of routes designated for mixed use. Changes of 

vehicle class from “highway legal only (HLO) to “all vehicles” (ALL) would expand recreational 

opportunities on the specific routes affected. In contrast, changes from ALL to HLO will reduce 

motorized opportunities. 

A reduced season of use would limit early and late season access in zones 2 and 3. 

Indirect Effects: Changes to the volume and mixes of vehicles would occur. 

Table 3.04-9 shows a summary of the effects on recreation resources across all alternatives. 

Table 3.04-9 Summary of Effects for Recreation Resources 

Indicator – Recreation Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Non-motorized recreation opportunity. 3 2 4 2 4 

Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring private 

and public lands (dust, noise, use conflicts). 4 1 4 3 4 

Average for non-motorized/quiet recreation 3.5 1.5 4 2.5 4 

Motorized recreation opportunity. 3 5 1 4 1 

Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation. 2 5 1 3 2 

Average for motorized opportunities/access 2.5 5 1 3.5 1 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the least impact for this resource; a score of 1 indicates the most impact. 

135 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus 

Recreation Resources National Forest
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 include Forest Plan amendments making them consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Alternative 3 meets Forest Plan direction. Alternative 2 does not comply with the Forest Plan because 

it allows wheeled vehicle travel off designated routes. 

136 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.05 ROADLESS AND SPECIAL AREAS
 

This section describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences for Roadless 

and Special Areas. Roadless Areas are Inventoried Roadless Areas identified in the second Roadless 

Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II). Special Areas are Forest Plan management area land 

allocations that include Research Natural Areas (RNA); Special Interest Areas (SIA); Wild and 

Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers; and, Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness 

(USDA 2005a). 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

The Forest Service conducted RARE II from 1977 to 1979 studying 13 roadless areas (236,100 acres) 

on the Stanislaus for their Wilderness values. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 designated 

100,000 of those acres as Wilderness, released about 100,000 acres for non-wilderness uses and 

identified three “further planning areas” for more study and future consideration as Wilderness: 

Tryon Peak (3,400 acres), Bald Peak (20,500 acres) and Pacific Valley (10,300 acres). The Forest 

addressed the “further planning areas” through the land management planning process in 1991 by 

recommending Wilderness designation for Tryon Peak and Bald Peak (USDA 1991b). 

Both RARE II and the California Wilderness Act of 1984 made several roadless area boundary splits 

based on issues and resource values, resulting in the now 17 specific named IRAs listed in Table 

3.05-1 along with the Forest Plan management area allocations. The Forest Plan allocates Wilderness, 

Wild Rivers, Near Natural and RNA to non-motorized uses while all other allocations allow 

motorized use (USDA 2005a, p. 63-164). 

Table 3.05-1 Forest Plan Management Area Allocations: Roadless Areas 

Roadless 

Area 

Management Area 

acres Wilderness Wild and Scenic Near 

Natural Wildlife SIA RNA Scenic Corridor 

General 

Forest 

Winter 

Wild Other Sports

Arnot Creek 100 100 

Bald Peak 20,500 (1500) (360) 20,500 

Bell Meadow 5,700 1,500 500 250 250 8,200 

Carson-Iceberg 1,700 8,900 2,700 1,200 400 14,900 

Cherry Lake 1,000 1,000 

Dome 950 4,500 3,500 50 2,200 200 11,400 

Eagle 14,300 700 700 300 16,000 

Mt. Reba 2,900 900 300 4,100 

Night 1000 2,100 3,100 

North Mountain 1,600 5,600 900 8,100 

Pacific Valley 1000 9,300 10,300 

Raymond Peak 500 2,100 600 3,200 

Trumbull Peak 600 5,250 50 400 6,300 

Tryon Peak 3,400 (900) 3,400 

Tuolumne River 3,600 13,000 700 17,300 

Waterhouse 4,200 200 4,400 

Wheats Meadow 3,000 800 3,800 

total 23,900 7,400 3,650 80,850 11,700 100 500 5,050 2,450 500 136,100 

RNA=Research Natural Area; SIA=Special Interest Area 

RNAs are managed to maintain select vegetative, aquatic, and/or geologic elements in natural 

conditions. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 4063.3 provides protection against any activities that 

directly or indirectly modify ecological processes (USDA 2005b). RNAs, established for research and 

study purposes, are a discrete land area large enough to represent a specific natural ecosystem. RNAs 

137 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

are important because they provide benchmarks for comparison of present and future management of 

the National Forests and will prove to be an invaluable asset in the future. The Forest Plan includes 

direction to manage RNAs with allocations to Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS and Closed Motor 

Vehicle Travel Management (USDA 2005a, p. 134). 

Forest Plan direction for SIAs is to protect values, make educational opportunities available and 

preserve the integrity of the special interest feature for which the areas were established (USDA 

2005a, p. 117). The Forest Plan allocates the Emigrant Road and the Big Trees-Carson Valley Road 

SIA to Primitive ROS and Closed Motor Vehicle Travel Management because it is within 

Wilderness; and, all other SIAs to Semi-Primitive Motorized or Roaded Natural ROS and Restricted 

Motor Vehicle Travel Management (USDA 2005a, p. 119-120). 

Management of Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers within Wilderness complies with Wilderness 

designations and the Wilderness Act of 1964. The following river segments (46 miles) within 

Wilderness are not affected by the proposed action or any alternatives and motorized activity is 

prohibited under all the alternatives per the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

- North Fork Mokelumne River: entire Segment 2, from the Mokelumne Wilderness boundary 

to Salt Springs Reservoir (18 miles) 

- Middle Fork Stanislaus River: entire Segment 2, Kennedy Creek (8 miles) 

- Middle Fork Stanislaus River: entire Segment 3, Summit Creek headwaters to Relief 

Reservoir (7 miles) 

- Clark Fork: entire Segment 1, headwaters to Carson-Iceberg Wilderness boundary (8 miles) 

- Clavey River: portion of Segment 1, Bell Creek (1 mile) 

- Clavey River: portion of Segment 2, Lily Creek (4 miles) 

Forest Plan direction for Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers is to protect and enhance Wild and Scenic 

River characteristics and manage the same as designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (USDA 2005a, p. 

108). The Forest Plan allocates Wild classification segments to Primitive or Semi-Primitive NonMotorized ROS and Closed Motor Vehicle Travel Management; Scenic and Recreational 

classification segments to Roaded Natural ROS and Restricted Motor Vehicle Travel Management 

(USDA 2005a, p. 105-106). 

The Stanislaus National Forest manages all or portions of the Carson-Iceberg, Emigrant and 

Mokelumne Wildernesses. Actions proposed comply with Wilderness designations and the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. Designated Wilderness is not affected by the proposed action or any 

alternative and motorized activity is prohibited in those areas under all alternatives. 

Forest Plan direction for Proposed Wilderness is to protect and enhance Wilderness characteristics 

and manage them the same as designated Wilderness with allocations to Primitive ROS and Closed 

Motor Vehicle Travel Management (USDA 2005a, p. 66-67). 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Assumptions Specific to Roadless and Special Areas 

1.	 All of the unauthorized routes considered for motorized use are currently available for motorized 

use because nothing prohibits such use. The effect of this motorized use is part of the existing 

situation. 

2.	 Actions proposed within Wilderness comply with Wilderness designations and the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. Designated Wilderness is not affected by the proposed action or any alternative and 

motorized activity is prohibited in those areas under all alternatives. 

3.	 Outside of designated Wilderness, no Forest Order prohibiting motorized use or cross country 

travel is in effect within Roadless and Special Areas. 

138 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

4.	 Wheeled Over Snow (WOS) use does not affect Roadless and Special Areas because the 

proposed WOS routes are all on existing NFTS routes that are open to public motorized use 

during the normal summer driving season. 

5.	 No NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes exist within RNAs. 

6.	 Bald Peak Proposed Wilderness currently contains one NFTS road segment of 07N76A (0.02 

miles) that is not available for public motorized use. No other authorized or unauthorized 

motorized routes exist within any Proposed Wilderness. 

7.	 No unauthorized routes in designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (Merced and Tuolumne) are added 

to the NFTS in any alternative. 

8.	 Changing vehicle class from All Vehicles to Highway Legal Only reduces overall motor vehicle 

use and noise by prohibiting that portion of the previous use by non-highway legal use. 

Data Sources 

1.	 Forest Plan 

2.	 GIS 

3.	 RNA Establishment Records 

4.	 Wild and Scenic River Study 

Roadless and Special Areas Indicators 

The environmental consequences described for the alternatives below identify only the individual 

roadless and special areas affected by that alternative using the following indicators. 

 Roadless Area Characteristics: the following values or features often characterize inventoried 

roadless areas (66 Federal Register 9, January 12, 2001; p. 3245): 

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air: these three key resources are the foundation 

upon which other resource values and outputs depend. Healthy watersheds catch, store, and safely 

release water over time, protecting downstream communities from flooding; providing clean 

water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses; helping maintain abundant and healthy fish 

and wildlife populations; and are the basis for many forms of outdoor recreation. 

Sources of public drinking water: National Forest System lands contain watersheds that are 

important sources of public drinking water. Maintaining these areas in a relatively undisturbed 

condition saves downstream communities millions of dollars in water filtration costs. 

Diversity of plant and animal communities: roadless areas are more likely than roaded areas to 

support greater ecosystem health, including the diversity of native and desired non-native plant 

and animal communities due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and accompanying 

activities. Inventoried roadless areas also conserve native biodiversity by serving as a bulwark 

against the spread of non-native invasive species. 

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land: roadless areas function as biological 

strongholds and refuges for many species. 

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized recreation 

opportunities: roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such 

as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, nordic skiing and canoeing. While they may have many 

wilderness-like attributes, unlike Wilderness, mountain bikes and other mechanized uses are often 

allowed. 

Reference landscapes: knowledge about the effects of management activities over long periods 

of time and on large landscapes is very limited. Reference landscapes of relatively undisturbed 

areas serve as a barometer to measure the effects of development on other parts of the landscape. 

139 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality: high quality scenery, especially scenery 

with natural-appearing landscapes, is a primary reason that people choose to recreate. 

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: traditional cultural properties are places, sites, 

structures, art or objects that played an important role in the cultural history of a group. Sacred 

sites are places with special religious significance to a group. Traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites may be eligible for protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. However, 

many of them have not yet been inventoried, especially those that occur in inventoried roadless 

areas. 

Other locally identified unique characteristics: roadless areas may offer other locally identified 

unique characteristics and values. Examples include uncommon geological formations, valued for 

their scientific and scenic qualities, or unique wetland complexes. 

 Research Natural Area Values: RNA values are specific to each RNA and may include 

selected aquatic, geologic or vegetation elements. 

 Special Interest Area Values: SIA values are specific to each SIA and may include unique 

botanic, cultural, geologic, scenic, historic and memorial features. 

 Wild and Scenic River Values: For a river to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation 

it must be free-flowing and, with its adjacent land area, must possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values (47 Federal Register 173, September 7, 1982; p. 39454-39461). For the 

purpose of this analysis Wild and Scenic River or Outstandingly Remarkable (OR) values are 

interchangeable. OR values are specific to each river segment any may include cultural, ecologic, 

fish, geologic, historic, scenic, recreation, wildlife or other special and unique features (USDA 

1991c). 

 Wilderness Characteristics: The principal Wilderness characteristics, as described in Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, that follow are generally, but not necessarily, listed in order of 

importance or desirability (USDA 2007a). 

Natural: ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization and 

generally appear affected primarily by forces of nature. Effects of modern civilization include: 

- The presence of non-native species that alter the composition of natural plant and animal 

communities (such as non-native plants, animals, fish, livestock, invertebrates, and 

pathogens). 

- Developments that degrade the free-flowing condition of rivers and streams (such as dams or 

other water diversions and impoundments). 

- The presence of light pollution that degrades night sky quality and night sky quality related 

values 

- The presence of pollutants that degrade water quality; and, 

- The health of ecosystems, plant communities, and plant species that are rare or at risk. 

Undeveloped: the degree to which the area is without permanent improvements or human 

habitation. A measure of undeveloped is the level of human occupation and modification 

including evidence of structures, construction, habitations, or other forms of human presence, use 

and occupation. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: the area 

provides solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation including a wide range of 

experiential opportunities such as: physical and mental challenge, adventure and self-reliance, 

feelings of solitude, isolation, self-awareness and inspiration. Solitude is the opportunity to 

experience isolation from sights, sounds, and the presence of others from the developments and 

evidence of humans. The opportunity to experience isolation from the evidence of humans, to feel 

140 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

a part of nature, to have a vastness of scale, and a degree of challenge and risk while using 

outdoor skills are measures of primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Special Features and Values: the area provides other values such as those with ecologic, 

geologic, scientific, educational, scenic, historical, or cultural significance. Examples include 

unique fish and wildlife species, unique plants or plant communities, connectivity, potential or 

existing research natural areas, outstanding landscape features and significant cultural resource 

sites. 

Roadless and Special Areas Methodology by Action 

The effects of each alternative are described below according to three actions common to all 

alternatives: 

1.	 Cross Country Travel: prohibition of cross country motor vehicle travel is included in all 

alternatives except Alternative 2 (No Action). 

2.	 Additions to the NFTS: all unauthorized routes proposed as additions to the NFTS are added as 

motorized trails. No unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS as roads in any alternative. 

3.	 Changes to the Existing NFTS: includes changes to vehicle class and season of use on the 

existing NFTS. Impacts caused by changes to vehicle class and season of use on the existing 

NFTS are described generally by alternative. 

Roadless Areas - Affected Environment 

Six roadless areas do not contain NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes: Arnot Creek, Cherry Lake, 

Night, Pacific Valley, Tyron Peak and Wheats Meadow. Table 3.05-2 shows that the remaining 

eleven roadless areas currently contain 44.88 miles of motorized routes (41.97 NFTS and 2.91 

unauthorized) of which 26.63 miles are available for public motorized use. 

Table 3.05-2 Existing Motorized Routes: Roadless Areas 

Roadless Area NFTS Roads NFTS Trails NFTS 

total 

UNR 

UNT total 

ADM ALL ML1 HLO total ALL ATV total 

Bald Peak 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 

Bell Meadow 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.17 

Carson Iceberg 0.06 2.14 4.44 0.00 6.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.64 0.18 6.82 

Dome 6.68 4.79 0.25 0.00 11.72 0.64 0.00 0.64 12.36 0.00 12.36 

Eagle 0.00 0.01 0.79 0.00 0.80 6.42 0.00 6.42 7.22 0.00 7.22 

Mt. Reba 0.30 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.66 3.30 0.70 4.00 4.65 1.66 6.31 

North Mountain 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.03 0.27 

Raymond Peak 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.21 1.76 

Trumbull Peak 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.25 

Tuolumne River 0.76 2.85 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.83 4.44 

Waterhouse 0.84 0.55 2.86 0.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.25 0.00 4.25 

total 9.91 12.58 8.34 0.07 30.91 10.36 0.70 11.06 41.97 2.91 44.88 

ADM=Administrative Use Only; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; HLO=Highway Legal Only; 

ML1=Maintenance Level 1; NFTS=National Forest Transportation System; UNR=Unauthorized Road; 

UNT=Unauthorized Trail; ADM and ML1 are closed to public motorized use 

The following discussions focus on the 17 non-wilderness roadless areas, totaling 136,100 acres on 

the Stanislaus National Forest (see Figure 3.05-1) 

Arnot Creek 

The small Arnot Creek portion (100 acres) of the original Carson-Iceberg roadless area is located in 

the northeast portion of the Forest. The main attraction in this area is a maintained Forest Service 

non-motorized trail on a gentle grade, next to a creek within walking distance from the two Forest 

Service campgrounds and two organization camps. Equestrians and hikers pass through the area on 

141 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

their way to the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. Soils on flat bottomlands are generally deep cobbly 

sandy loams, developed from glacial alluvium. Vegetative cover consists of lodgepole pine, true fir 

and Jeffrey pine, with montane shrubs and herbaceous species. This area does not contain any NFTS 

or unauthorized motorized routes. 

Bald Peak 

The Bald Peak portion (20,500 acres) of the original Carson-Iceberg roadless area is a proposed 

Wilderness addition located within a triangle formed by Clark Fork Road, Highway 108 and the 

Carson-Iceberg Wilderness between Iceberg Meadow and Sonora Peak. Elevations range from 6,000 

to 11,462 feet. The area is typified by mountain peaks, steep slopes, scattered pockets of timber and 

meadows, and considerable granite rock. The Pacific Crest Trail crosses a corner of the area near 

Sonora Pass. One other hiking trail along Douglas Creek receives only light use. Soils between 

extensive rock outcrops are generally shallow to moderately deep, stony coarse sandy loams 

developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Meadows have deep, organic, sandy 

loams developed from alluvium. Red fir and lodgepole pine are the predominant tree species, with 

Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, and white fir common associates. Hunters use the area in pursuit of deer, 

grouse and quail. Spotted owl, goshawk, fisher, pine marten, wolverine and red fox inhabit this area. 

The area is also important as summer range for the Stanislaus Deer Herd. Table 3.05-2 shows the 

Bald Peak roadless area currently containing 0.02 miles of NFTS motorized routes that are not 

available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Bell Meadow 

The Bell Meadow roadless area (8,200 acres) is located in the central part of the Forest. Elevations 

range from 6,300 feet at the trailhead near the west end of Bell Meadow to 7,600 feet on the upper 

slopes of Bell Mountain. The area receives heavy day use due to its proximity to the popular Pinecrest 

recreation area. Ten miles of maintained non-motorized trails exist in the area. It is a popular entry 

point to the Emigrant Wilderness. Moderate livestock grazing occurs. It is heavily hunted for deer in 

the fall. Soils between extensive rock outcrops on the uplands are generally shallow to moderately 

deep, stony coarse sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Bell 

Meadow has deep, organic sandy loams developed from alluvium. Vegetation is true fir, mixed 

conifer and lodgepole pine mixed with montane shrubs such as mountain whitethorn. Large stands of 

aspen as well as other wet meadow and riparian vegetation are found adjacent to the stream courses. 

This roadless area contains important wildlife habitat, including several key deer fawning areas, and 

habitat for goshawk and fisher. Bell Meadow (110 acres) is surrounded by large groves of quaking 

aspen with high scenic value. Table 3.05-2 shows the Bell Meadow roadless area currently containing 

0.17 miles of NFTS motorized routes available for public motorized use. This area does not contain 

any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Carson-Iceberg 

The Carson-Iceberg portion (14,900 acres) of the original Carson-Iceberg roadless area is located in 

the north central part of the Forest. The original Carson-Iceberg roadless area was once a large 

contiguous unit of 132,300 acres within the Stanislaus National Forest. The California Wilderness Act 

of 1984 designated part of the roadless area as Wilderness. The remaining portions of the CarsonIceberg roadless area include the western portion of Whittaker's Dardanelles, Shoofly Meadow, Bear 

Trap Meadow, and Highland Creek from Spicer Meadows dam to the confluence of the North Fork 

Stanislaus River and the Stanislaus River canyon downstream to Ramsey. Elevations vary from 4,600 

feet along the Stanislaus River to 7,800 feet atop Whittaker's Dardanelles. The area is surrounded on 

three sides by roads, logged and developed areas. The eastern edge of this roadless area abuts the 

Wheats Meadow roadless area. A scout camp at Sand Flat is a source of much river use. The SpicerSand Flat non-motorized trail links the scout camp with Union and Utica reservoirs, Elephant Rock 

Lake, Summit Lake, Rock Lake and Spicer Meadow Reservoir. A mile and a half of this trail passes 

142 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

through the roadless area. Another non-motorized trail links Ganns on State Highway 4 with the river. 

At the western edge of this roadless area access to the river is provided by a 4-wheel drive road to a 

site known as Ramsey. With 12 miles of maintained non-motorized trail, deer hunting is popular in 

the upper elevations. Soils are developed mostly from granitic glacial debris and residual rock, while 

about 1,200 acres are developed from residual volcanic rock. A large proportion of the soils (4,400 

acres) are deep or moderately deep, sandy loams or gravelly sandy loams. Vegetation is characterized 

by mixed conifer, lodgepole pine and true fir forest. Meadows near Whittaker's Dardanelles include 

aspen and lodgepole pine. The canyons of Highland Creek and the North Fork Stanislaus contain live 

oak and chaparral. Meadows in the southern portion of the roadless area are important fawning 

grounds. The area, in general, is important summer range for the Stanislaus Deer Herd. Table 3.05-2 

shows the Carson-Iceberg roadless area currently containing 6.82 miles of motorized routes (6.64 

NFTS and 0.18 unauthorized) of which 2.32 miles are available for public motorized use. 

Cherry Lake 

The Cherry Lake roadless area (1,000 acres) is located in the east-central portion of the Forest 

adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness and Yosemite National Park. Elevations range from 4,700 to 

7,000 feet. The Kibbie Ridge non-motorized trail passes through the northeast corner of the area. This 

trail is a portal to both Yosemite and the southern portion of the Emigrant. Cherry Lake receives light 

to moderate use by fishermen and water skiers. Deer hunters use boats to gain access to portions of 

the roadless area. Much of the area consists of steep bluffs and soils are variable with bare granite 

outcrops interspersed with shallow to deep sandy loam to clay loam soils developed from granitic 

bedrock and glacial debris. Vegetation is mixed conifer with black oak and canyon live oak. This area 

does not contain any NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes. 

Dome 

The Dome roadless area (11,400 acres) is located in the northeast part of the Forest generally between 

Highway 108 and Eagle Meadow Road (5N01). Elevations range from 6,200 to 8,700 feet. Recreation 

use within the area is low due to the steep terrain; however high use campgrounds in the Brightman 

area and the popular Niagara Rim 4WD trail are adjacent to the area. The Double Dome rock 

formation is a recognized landmark which can be seen from many view points. Many no longer 

consider Dome a “true” roadless area due to the presence of over 5 miles of NFTS roads and evidence 

of past timber harvests completed in the 1980s. Table 3.05-2 shows the Dome roadless area currently 

containing 12.36 miles of NFTS motorized routes, of which 5.43 miles are available for public 

motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Eagle 

The Eagle roadless area (16,000 acres) is located in the northeast part of the Forest. Elevations range 

from 6,300 to 9,700 feet. The area is characterized by bare volcanic ridges and rock outcrops, 

scattered timberland, and small sub-alpine meadows. Hiking and backpacking occur along Eagle 

Meadow and Cooper Meadow trails. Soil over most of the area is generally very thin, coarse sandy 

loam developed mainly from volcanic rock, except for a few areas of granitic rock. Much of the area 

is covered by bare volcanic rock outcrop. The Three Chimneys rock formation is a recognized 

landmark which can be seen from many view points. Two of the peaks are on the Emigrant 

Wilderness boundary. The area contains many key deer fawning sites. Table 3.05-2 shows the Eagle 

roadless area currently containing 7.22 miles of NFTS motorized routes, of which 6.43 miles are 

available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Mt. Reba 

The Mt. Reba roadless area (4,100 acres) is located in the north central part of the Forest adjacent to 

the Mokelumne Wilderness. Elevation ranges from 6,400 to 8,849 feet. An off-highway vehicle trail 

to Mt. Reba is located on the east side of this area. The western portion of the roadless area includes 

143 
 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

several jeep trails north of Bear Trap basin. A hiking trail accesses Camp Irene, a camping area on the 

Mokelumne River within the Mokelumne Wilderness. The Grouse Valley trail links Highway 4 with 

the Mokelumne Wilderness in the center of this roadless area. Recreation use within the area is 

primarily deer hunting with hiking over the trails leading into the Wilderness. Occasional cross 

country skiers traverse the slopes of Mt. Reba. Soils on the uplands are generally moderately deep to 

shallow, gravelly sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. 

Meadow soils are organic sandy loams developed from alluvium. Vegetation includes red fir, 

lodgepole pine and sub-alpine species. This area is an important deer summer range. Table 3.05-2 

shows the Mt. Reba roadless area currently containing 6.31 miles of motorized routes (4.67 NFTS 

and 1.66 unauthorized) of which 6.01 miles are available for public motorized use. 

Night 

The Night roadless area (3,100 acres) is located in the northeast part of the Forest. Elevations range 

from 6,800 to 10,600 feet. It lies between Highway 108 on the north and the Emigrant Wilderness on 

the south. This area is largely inaccessible and receives little use, except for the portion traversed by 

the Pacific Crest Trail. The area is used for hiking, deer hunting and nordic skiing. When Highway 

108 is plowed over Sonora Pass in late spring, snow play and nordic skiing occur on the gentler 

slopes. Two low-standard trails access Nightcap Peak and Blue Canyon. Soils between extensive rock 

outcrops are generally shallow to moderately deep stony, coarse, sandy loams developed from 

volcanic and granitic bedrock. Vegetative cover consists of true fir, mountain hemlock and other subalpine shrubs and herbaceous species. This area does not contain any NFTS or unauthorized 

motorized routes. 

North Mountain 

The North Mountain roadless area (8,100 acres) is located in the southeast part of the Forest adjacent 

to Yosemite National Park. Elevations range from 2,400 to 5,800 feet. The area is characterized by 

steep slopes and timber in the north, and steep, rocky canyon slopes in the south. The Tuolumne 

River flows through five miles of the southern portion of the area. Most of the recreation use occurs 

along the first three miles of the Tuolumne River east of Early Intake in the form of hiking, fishing, 

swimming and camping. Steep slopes preclude most other uses. Soils are shallow to moderately deep, 

stony sandy loam to clay loam, developed from granitic rock. Vegetation in the canyon consists of 

live oak-chaparral on the north-facing slopes with scattered sparse stands of ponderosa pine and 

annual grass-chaparral on south-facing slopes. Table 3.05-2 shows the North Mountain roadless area 

currently containing 0.27 miles of motorized routes (0.24 NFTS and 0.03 unauthorized) available for 

public motorized use. 

Pacific Valley 

The Pacific Valley portion (10,300 acres) of the original Carson-Iceberg roadless area lies between 

Highway 4 and the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness in the northeast portion of the Forest. Elevations range 

from 7,000 to 9,600 feet. Mountain peaks, glaciated valleys with meadows, and scattered timber 

typify the area. Hiking, backpacking, camping, fishing and hunting, and some cross country skiing 

occur with most dispersed recreation along the Grouse Creek and Marshall Canyon trails. Soils 

between extensive rock outcrops on the uplands are generally shallow to moderately deep, stony 

coarse sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Meadows have 

deep, organic sandy loams developed from alluvium. Lodgepole pine and red fir are the predominant 

tree species. The Pacific Valley further planning area is a deer summer range. This area does not 

contain any NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes. 

Raymond Peak 

The Raymond Peak roadless area (3,200 acres) is located in the northeast part of the Forest in a 

narrow band of land between Highway 4 and the Mokelumne Wilderness. The California Wilderness 

144 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Act of 1984 designated 13,000 acres of the original 16,200 acre Raymond Peak area as Wilderness. 

Elevations range from 7,400 to 3,700 feet. Recreation includes hiking, hunting, nordic skiing, fishing 

and motorized recreation along 8N02. Soils are generally shallow to moderately deep stony coarse 

sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Meadows have deep, 

organic sandy loams developed from alluvium. Lodgepole pine and red fir are the predominant timber 

species. The area includes deer summer range. Table 3.05-2 shows the Raymond Peak roadless area 

currently containing 1.71 miles of motorized routes (1.55 NFTS and 0.16 unauthorized) available for 

public motorized use. 

Trumbull Peak 

This Trumbull Peak roadless area (6,300 acres) is located in the southern portion of the Forest. 

Elevations range from 1,400 to 4,800 feet. It is characterized by steep, south-facing slopes and hot 

summer temperatures. Vegetative is mostly chamise chaparral and live oak with some ponderosa pine 

at higher elevations. Soils are generally shallow, gravelly loams and sandy loams developed from 

meta-sedimentary and granitic rock. Trumbull Peak Lookout is a prominent feature. The area is a 

major deer winter range for a portion of the Yosemite herd. Table 3.05-2 shows the Trumbull Peak 

roadless area currently containing 1.25 miles of NFTS motorized routes that are not available for 

public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Tryon Peak 

Tryon Peak portion (3,400 acres) of the original Carson-Iceberg roadless area is a proposed 

Wilderness addition located in the northeast corner of the Forest between the Sierra Nevada crest and 

Highland Lakes Road. Elevations range from 8,100 to 9,970 feet. Mountain peaks, glaciated valleys 

with large meadows, and scattered timber characterize the area. Recreation use, primarily hikers from 

the Highland Lakes area and along the Pacific Crest Trail, is moderate while hunters use the area in 

the fall. Soils between extensive rock outcrops in the uplands are generally shallow to moderately 

deep, stony coarse sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. The 

meadows have deep, organic, sandy loams developed from alluvium. Red fir and lodgepole pine are 

the predominant tree species with Jeffrey pine and mountain hemlock. This area does not contain any 

NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes. 

Tuolumne River 

The Tuolumne River roadless area (17,300 acres) is located in the southwest part of the Forest. 

Elevations range from 900 to 3,900 feet in an area of steep mountain slopes and river canyons. It 

contains the lower Clavey River and about 18 miles of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River used for 

whitewater boating and dispersed camping. Three campgrounds outside the roadless area near 

Lumsden Bridge serve as a base for fishing and general nature study. Some deer and quail hunting 

occur in the fall. Hikers use about eight miles of existing trails to access the river. Vegetative cover is 

mostly chamise and manzanita chaparral, annual grass and live oak, with small inclusions of 

ponderosa pine. Soils are shallow to moderately deep sandy loam or clay on north-facing slopes, 

developed from meta-sedimentary and granitic rocks; some highly erodible. The area includes key 

deer winter range on the south-facing slopes of Jawbone Ridge and Paper Cabin Ridge. Table 3.05-2 

shows the Tuolumne River roadless area currently containing 4.44 miles of motorized routes (3.61 

NFTS and 0.83 unauthorized) of which 3.68 miles are available for public motorized use. 

Waterhouse 

The Waterhouse roadless area (4,400 acres) is located in the central portion of the Forest just east of 

Pinecrest Lake adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness. Elevations vary from 5,700 to 8,200 feet. The 

area consists of the canyon of the upper South Fork Stanislaus River. This area receives recreation use 

in the form of hiking, fishing, and hunting. Its proximity to the Pinecrest Lake recreation area makes 

it readily accessible for day use. A trail extends eastward, up the river canyon, from Pinecrest Lake to 

145 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

a series of attractive granite pools and falls. Vegetation is predominantly red fir forest on upper north 

slopes with mixed conifer forest on upper south slopes. Lower slopes and the drainage bottom, once 

scoured by glaciers, are characterized by large expanses of granite with small pockets of vegetation. 

Pockets of soil are scattered between large expanses of bare, glaciated granitic rock in the lower part 

of the canyon, while on the ridge to the north, near Pinecrest Peak, soils are very shallow to shallow 

sandy loams developed from volcanic bedrock. On the slopes between, the soils are shallow to 

moderately deep, developed from granitic glacial debris. Meadows located in the area are important 

fawning grounds. Table 3.05-2 shows the Waterhouse roadless area currently containing 4.25 miles of 

NFTS motorized routes of which 0.55 miles are available for public motorized use. This area does not 

contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Wheats Meadow 

The Wheats Meadow portion (3,800 acres) of the original Carson-Iceberg roadless area is located in 

the north-central part of the Forest. Elevations range from 4,900 to 7,700 feet. The northeast portion 

of the area (1,800 acres) is part of Spicer Meadow Reservoir, and at full reservoir capacity is mostly 

underwater. Red fir, lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, incense cedar and white fir occur in stands and 

scattered pockets in the western portion of the area. Soils between extensive rock outcrops in the 

uplands are generally shallow to moderately deep stony coarse sandy loams developed from volcanic 

and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Meadows have deep, organic sandy loams developed from 

alluvium. This area does not contain any NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes. 

Roadless Areas - Environmental Consequences 

The following section describes how the alternatives affect roadless areas using the following 

indicators: 

 Roadless Area Characteristics (roadless) 

 Wilderness Characteristics (wilderness) 

Table 3.05-3 Additions to the NFTS: Roadless Areas 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad Roadless Area 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

17EV130 CAL 0.27 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4911 Tamarack Mt. Reba 

17EV275 CAL 0.01 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4911 Tamarack Mt. Reba 

17EV275 CAL 0.02 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4911 Tamarack Mt. Reba 

17EV278 CAL 0.73 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4911 Tamarack Mt. Reba 

subtotal 1.02 

17EV320 GR 0.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV321 GR 0.01 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV327 GR 0.12 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV328 GR 0.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV329 GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV330 GR 0.10 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV331 GR 0.10 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

17EV332 GR 0.03 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne River 

subtotal 0.52 

18EV301 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4902 Spicer Mdw Res Raymond Peak 

FR9090 CAL 0.11 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack Raymond Peak 

subtotal 0.16 

FR9441 CAL 0.18 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4911 Tamarack Carson-Iceberg 

subtotal 0.18 

total 1.88 

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; CAL=Calaveras; GR=Groveland; 

INV=Inventory; MC=Motorcycle; MI=Miles; NAT=Native; RD=Ranger District; SRC=Source; SUR=Surface; 

SYS=System (National Forest System); UNT=Unauthorized Trail 

146 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.05-4 Vehicles Class Changes: Roadless Areas 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad Roadless Area 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR98580 GR 0.03 INV ML1 ALL NAT HLO ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S North Mountain 

subtotal 0.03 

01N09 GR 2.78 GIS ML2 ALL NAT ADM ADM 4571 Duckwall Mt Tuolumne River 

01S06B GR 0.07 GIS ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland Tuolumne River 

subtotal 2.85 

03N17Y MW 0.16 GIS ML2 ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest Bell Meadow 

subtotal 0.16 

06N33Y SU 0.92 GIS ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake Dome 

06N34Y SU 2.82 GIS ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake Dome 

06N34YD SU 0.25 GIS ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake Dome 

06N36Y SU 0.75 GIS ML2 ALL NAT ADM ADM 4904 Dardanelle Dome 

subtotal 4.74 

FR8322 CAL 0.02 MAP ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley Raymond Peak 

FR8323 CAL 0.02 MAP ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley Raymond Peak 

FR9330 CAL 0.01 MAP ML2 ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4902 Spicer Mdw Res Raymond Peak 

subtotal 0.05 

06N17B CAL 0.59 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4913 Boards Crossing Carson-Iceberg 

06N66YB CAL 0.43 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill Carson-Iceberg 

06N80Y CAL 0.55 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill Carson-Iceberg 

06N80YA CAL 0.04 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill Carson-Iceberg 

subtotal 1.60 

total 9.43 

ADM=Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use); ALL=All Vehicles; CAL=Calaveras; CR=Cultural 

Resources; GIS=Geographic Information System; GR=Groveland; HLO=Highway Legal Only; INV=Inventory; 

MI=Miles; ML1=Maintenance Level 1; ML2=Maintenance Level 2; MW=Mi-Wok; NAT=Native; RD=Ranger District; 

SRC=Source; SU=Summit; SUR=Surface; SYS=System (National Forest System); t-ALL=NFTS road converted to All 

Vehicles trail 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

The cross country travel prohibition protects the roadless and wilderness characteristics of each area 

by preventing route proliferation and reducing the area available for motorized use. Roadless and 

wilderness characteristics improve over time as unauthorized routes passively restore to natural 

conditions. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 1.88 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails in 

roadless areas (see Table 3.05-3) with direct or indirect effects as described below. All routes are 

located within Forest Plan land allocations allowing motorized use. 

Additions to the NFTS affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless areas: 

- Carson-Iceberg: one segment of FR9441 (0.18 miles) accesses the North Fork Diversion 

Reservoir off 7N17 (Slick Rock). Although this a short trail within and adjacent to an existing 

developed road corridor, adding a motorized trail could affect non-motorized recreation 

opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas. 

- Mt. Reba: four segments (1.02 miles) in the Jelmini and Bear Trap areas access private 

property and popular summer and winter motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Noise 

resulting from motorized use on these routes could affect semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude and increased conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. 

147 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

- Raymond Peak: one segment of FR9090 (0.11 miles) in Poison Canyon off 7N93 (Mt. Reba 

Road) and one segment of 18EV301 (0.05 miles) in the Highway 4 corridor above Lake 

Alpine access popular summer motorized opportunities. Although these are short trails within 

and adjacent to existing developed road corridors, adding motorized trails could affect nonmotorized recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas. 

- Tuolumne River: eight segments (0.52 miles) are all in one small area near the intersection 

of Ferretti and Lumsden roads at the upper reach of the roadless area. Noise resulting from 

motorized use on these routes could affect semi-primitive non-motorized recreation 

opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in the Tuolumne River canyon. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 9.27 miles of NFTS roads including: opening 1.63 miles of 

closed roads; closing to public use 3.53 miles of open roads; and, converting 4.12 miles of roads from 

all vehicles to highway legal only (see Table 3.05-4) with direct or indirect effects as described 

below. 

Vehicle class changes affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless areas: 

- Carson-Iceberg: four NFTS road segments (1.60 miles) change from closed to all vehicles. 

Although these roads are within and adjacent to existing developed road corridors, opening a 

closed road could affect non-motorized recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for 

solitude in nearby areas. 

- North Mountain: one NFTS road segment of FR98580 (0.03 miles) changes from closed to 

highway legal only. Although this is a short route within and adjacent to an existing 

developed road corridor, opening a closed road could affect non-motorized recreation 

opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless 

areas: 

- Dome: three NFTS road segments (3.99 miles) change from all vehicles to highway legal 

only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because they prohibit non-highway 

legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. One NFTS road segment of 

6N36Y (0.75 miles) changes from open to closed (administrative use only), improving 

roadless and wilderness characteristics because it prohibits existing public motorized use. 

- Raymond Peak: three NFTS road segments (0.05 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because they prohibit 

non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- Tuolumne River: one NFTS road segment of 1N09 (2.78 miles) changes from open to 

closed (administrative use only), improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because it 

prohibits existing public motorized use. One NFTS road segment of 1S06B (0.07 miles) 

changes from all vehicles to highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness 

characteristics because it prohibits non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor 

vehicle use and noise, and is a short route within and adjacent to an existing developed road 

corridor. 

Season of Use 

Season of use restrictions and wet weather closures protect roadless and wilderness characteristics for 

undisturbed soil, water and air resources; quality of water resources; and, opportunities for semiprimitive non-motorized recreation opportunities during the closure period. 

148 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect roadless or wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on roadless 

areas. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Alternative 2 (No Action)could reduce roadless and wilderness character in all roadless areas because 

it allows the potential for cross country travel across all 136,100 acres of roadless area outside of 

designated Wilderness. 

Increased noise generated by motor vehicles and more evidence of human activity due to cross 

country travel with continued route proliferation could significantly alter the following roadless 

characteristics: 

- High quality or undisturbed soil, water and air would be degraded 

- Sources of public drinking water would be at higher risk 

- Diversity of plant and animal communities would be diminished 

- Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land would be degraded 

- Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized recreation opportunities would be reduced 

- Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality would be adversely impacted. 

Cross country travel with continued route proliferation could significantly alter the following 

wilderness characteristics: 

- Natural: ecological systems no longer appear substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization and affected primarily by forces of nature due to potential introduction of noxious 

weed species that alter the composition of natural plant communities and pollutants that 

degrade water quality. 

- Undeveloped: increased evidence of human presence, use and occupation due to usercreated trail treads with wheel tracks. 

- Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: 

reduced opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation due to 

evidence of user-created trail treads with wheel tracks and noise generated by motor vehicles. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on roadless areas because no unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on roadless areas because no changes are made to the NFTS or existing 

closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative contributes towards cumulative effects on roadless areas because additional future 

route proliferation will adversely affect roadless and wilderness characteristics. 

149 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on roadless areas because no unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on roadless areas because no changes are made to the NFTS or existing 

closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect roadless or wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on roadless 

areas. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 1.70 miles of NFTS roads including: opening 1.63 miles of 

closed roads; and, converting 0.07 miles of roads from all vehicles to highway legal only (see Table 

3.05-4) with direct or indirect effects as described below. 

Vehicle class changes affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless areas: 

- Carson-Iceberg: four NFTS road segments (1.60 miles) change from closed to all vehicles. 

Although these roads are within and adjacent to existing developed road corridors, opening a 

closed road could affect non-motorized recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for 

solitude in nearby areas. 

- North Mountain: one NFTS road segment of FR98580 (0.03 miles) changes from closed to 

highway legal only. Although this is a short route within and adjacent to an existing 

developed road corridor, opening a closed road could affect non-motorized recreation 

opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless 

areas: 

- Raymond Peak: three NFTS road segments (0.05 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because they prohibit 

non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- Tuolumne River: one NFTS road segment of 1S06B (0.07 miles) changes from all vehicles 

to highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because it prohibits 

150 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise, and is a short route 

within and adjacent to an existing developed road corridor. 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect roadless or wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on roadless 

areas. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 0.23 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails (see 

Table 3.05-3) with direct or indirect effects as described below. 

Additions to the NFTS affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless areas: 

- Carson-Iceberg: one segment of FR9441 (0.18 miles) accesses the North Fork Diversion 

Reservoir off 7N17 (Slick Rock). Although this is a short trail within and adjacent to an 

existing developed road corridor, adding a motorized trail could affect non-motorized 

recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas. 

- Raymond Peak: one segment of 18EV301 (0.05 miles) in the Highway 4 corridor above 

Lake Alpine accesses popular summer motorized opportunities. Although this is a short trail 

within and adjacent to existing developed road corridors, adding a motorized trail could affect 

non-motorized recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 7.81 miles of NFTS roads including: closing to public use 

3.53 miles of open roads; and, converting 4.28 miles of roads from all vehicles to highway legal only 

(see Table 3.05-4) with direct or indirect effects as described below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect roadless and wilderness characteristics in the following roadless 

areas because: 

- Bell Meadow: one NFTS road segment of 3N17Y (0.16 miles) changes from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because it prohibits 

non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- Dome: three NFTS road segments (3.99 miles) change from all vehicles to highway legal 

only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because they prohibit non-highway 

legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. One NFTS road segment of 

6N36Y (0.75 miles) changes from open to closed (administrative use only), improving 

roadless and wilderness characteristics because it prohibits existing public motorized use. 

- Raymond Peak: three NFTS road segments (0.05 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because they prohibit 

non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

151 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

- Tuolumne River: one NFTS road segment of 1N09 (2.78 miles) changes from open to 

closed (administrative use only), improving roadless and wilderness characteristics because it 

prohibits existing public motorized use. One NFTS road segment of 1S06B (0.07 miles) 

changes from all vehicles to highway legal only, improving roadless and wilderness 

characteristics because it prohibits non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor 

vehicle use and noise, and it is a short route within and adjacent to an existing developed road 

corridor. 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect roadless or wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on roadless 

areas. 

Research Natural Areas - Affected Environment 

The following discussions focus on the 4 RNAs, totaling 2,453 acres on the Stanislaus National 

Forest (see Figure 3.05-1). 

Bell Meadow Research Natural Area 

Bell Meadow RNA (490 acres) designated for aspen research is located in the east-central portion of 

the Forest. It contains 110 acres of aspen stands in Bell Meadow along with wet mountain meadow, 

riparian habitat and examples of the aspen-meadow complex on deep soils. 

Clark Fork Candidate Research Natural Area 

Clark Fork Candidate RNA (460 acres) designated for white fir research is located in the northeast 

portion of the Forest near Clark Fork Campground. It includes various mixtures of white fir and other 

conifers at a range of elevations. Part of the area (250 acres) is within the Bald Peak proposed 

addition to the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and the remainder is within the Clark Fork proposed Wild 

and Scenic River. 

Critchfield (Bourland Meadow) Research Natural Area 

Critchfield RNA (1,003 acres) designated for bogs and meadow research is located in the east-central 

portion of the Forest adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness. Vegetation consists of seven major 

associations: red fir, red fir-lodgepole pine, red fir-western white pine-lodgepole pine, red fir-white 

fir-Jeffrey pine, red fir-white fir, and red fir-aspen. Wet and dry meadows are present and the area is 

noted for aquatic bog values. Stages of succession are present in several stands, including meadows. 

Grizzly Mountain Research Natural Area 

Grizzly Mountain RNA (500 acres) designated for black oak research is located in the southern 

portion of the Forests on the northern slopes of Little Grizzly and Big Grizzly Mountains. Black oak 

stands occupy most of the area, interspersed with brush and scattered ponderosa pine. 

152 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Research Natural Areas - Environmental Consequences 

Since unauthorized or NFTS routes do not exist within RNAs the following section describes only the 

effects of cross country travel on RNAs using the following indicator: 

 RNA values 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

The cross country travel prohibition protects the RNA values of each area by preventing route 

proliferation and reducing the area available for motorized use. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect RNA values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on roadless areas. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Alternative 2 (No Action) could reduce RNA values in all RNAs because it allows the potential for 

cross country travel across all 2,453 acres of RNAs. Cross country travel with continued route 

proliferation could significantly reduce botanic, cultural, heritage, historic and scenic values across all 

RNAs. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative contributes towards cumulative effects on RNAs because additional future route 

proliferation will adversely affect RNA values. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

153 
 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Special Interest Areas - Affected Environment 

Five SIAs do not contain NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes: Bourland Creek, Emigrant Road 

and the Big Trees-Carson Valley Road, Pacific Madrone, Sonora-Mono Toll Road and Windeler 

Cave. Table 3.05-5 shows that the remaining six SIAs currently contain 11.71 miles of motorized 

routes (10.94 NFTS and 0.77 unauthorized) of which 10.29 miles are available for public motorized 

use. 

The following discussions focus on the 11 SIAs, totaling 2,468 acres and three historic road corridors 

on the Stanislaus National Forest16 (see Figure 3.05-1). 

Table 3.05-5 Existing Motorized Routes: Special Interest Areas 

Special Interest Area NFTS Roads NFTS Trails NFTS 

total 

UNR 

UNT total 

ADM ALL ML1 HLO total ALL ATV total 

Bull Run 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.00 0.24 

Column of the Giants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 

Jawbone Falls 0.00 0.74 0.01 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 

Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 0.00 4.33 0.38 0.20 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.91 0.77 5.68 

Niagara Creek and Falls 0.00 1.40 0.68 0.00 2.08 0.05 0.00 0.05 2.12 0.00 2.12 

Trumbull Peak 0.00 2.17 0.36 0.00 2.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.53 0.00 2.53 

total 0.00 8.70 1.42 0.59 10.71 0.23 0.00 0.23 10.94 0.77 11.71 

ADM=Administrative Use Only; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; HLO=Highway Legal Only; 

ML1=Maintenance Level 1; NFTS=National Forest Transportation System; UNR=Unauthorized Road; 

UNT=Unauthorized Trail; ADM and ML1 are closed to public motorized use 

Bourland Creek Trestle Historic Area 

The Bourland Creek Trestle SIA (0.5 acres) contains a large, curved, wooden trestle that once 

supported rails for the Westside Railroad logging system. It was built in the early 1920s. It is 315 feet 

long and 76 feet above Bourland Creek. The trestle has 22 bents that are spaced 14 feet on center. It is 

anchored by rough aggregate concrete abutments and piers. This area does not contain any NFTS or 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

Bull Run Scenic and Geologic Area 

The Bull Run SIA (230 acres) consists of a rugged lava-capped ridge of horseshoe shape enclosing a 

forested bowl. It contains a variety of unique rock formations formed through volcanic and glacial 

action. Table 3.05-5 shows that the Bull Run SIA currently contains 0.24 miles of NFTS motorized 

routes of which 0.18 miles are available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

16 Five other SIAs are administratively confidential, in order to protect location information for non-renewable resources subject to 

vandalism. 

154 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Columns of the Giants Scenic and Geologic Area 

Column of the Giants SIA (105 acres) includes a unique formation of columnar basalt. A National 

Recreation Trail accesses the area. It is a miniature “Devil's Postpile” approximately 21 miles 

northeast of Strawberry along Highway 108. Table 3.05-5 shows that the Column of the Giants SIA 

currently contains 0.39 miles of NFTS motorized routes available for public motorized use. This area 

does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Emigrant Road and the Big Trees-Carson Valley Road Historic Areas 

The Emigrant Road and the Big Trees-Carson Valley Road SIA contains segments of two of the 

historic routes over the Sierra from the 1800s. The Emigrant Road runs parallel and south of Highway 

4 from Mosquito Lakes to Lake Alpine. The Big Trees-Carson Valley Road goes from Lake Alpine 

south and west to Alpine Station. This area does not contain any NFTS or unauthorized motorized 

routes. 

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area 

The Jawbone Falls SIA (47 acres) contains special heritage resources on Jawbone Creek, between 

Jawbone Falls and Jawbone Meadow. Table 3.05-5 shows that the Jawbone Falls SIA currently 

contains 0.75 miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 0.74 miles are available for public motorized 

use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Jordan Creek/Bower Cave Cultural and Geologic Area 

The Jordan Creek/Bower Cave SIA (1,600 acres) includes the former Linkletter Ranch property 

which was acquired through a land exchange in December, 1990. It is situated in a botanically diverse 

location due to several geological features. Three prominent drainages cut through the area allowing 

for a wide variety of slope aspects as well as riparian and meadow habitats. Outcrops of 

limestone/marble and areas of differing soil depths contribute to the wide variety of plant life. Six 

plant communities are represented within the SIA: freshwater marsh; mixed-conifer forest; lower 

montane meadow; streamside riparian; foothill woodland; and chaparral. Bower Cave is a unique 

limestone cavern, once a popular recreation attraction in the early 1900s and has Native American 

sacred values. It is located in the southwest portion of the Forest along the North Fork Merced River. 

Table 3.05-5 shows that the Jordan Creek/Bower Cave SIA currently contains 5.68 miles of 

motorized routes (4.91 NFTS and 0.77 unauthorized) of which 5.30 miles are available for public 

motorized use. 

Niagara Creek and Falls Scenic and Geologic Area 

The Niagara Falls SIA (320 acres) is located adjacent to Donnell Reservoir. It includes a "hanging 

valley" waterfall over 900 feet high. It is the highest waterfall on the Forest and is the Forest's only 

true hanging valley waterfall. This portion of Niagara Creek is also a proposed Wild and Scenic 

River. Table 3.05-5 shows that the Niagara Creek and Falls SIA currently contains 2.12 miles of 

NFTS motorized routes of which 1.45 miles are available for public motorized use. This area does not 

contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area 

The Pacific Madrone SIA (15 acres) contains the two southernmost known groves of Pacific Madrone 

(Arbutus menziesii). About 0.1 miles apart, the two groves together contain 20 mature and sapling 

trees and some seedlings surrounded by riparian vegetation. This area does not contain any NFTS or 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

155 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Sonora-Mono Toll Road Historic Area 

The Sonora-Mono Toll Road SIA is an old trans-Sierra road roughly following Highway 108 from 

Sonora Pass to Eagle Meadow Road (5N01). Other segments of the historic road are thought to exist 

west of 5N01, but their exact location is unknown. This area does not contain any NFTS or 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

Trumbull Peak Historic and Botanic Area 

The Trumbull Peak SIA (150 acres) includes the upper slopes of Trumbull Peak, the Trumbull Peak 

Lookout, a railroad spur and two logging inclines. The historical features date back to the 1920s. The 

abandoned inclines total about 1.75 miles. A railroad spur to the longest incline, overlooking the 

Merced River Canyon, is about 4,000 feet long. The Trumbull Peak Lookout is located on a ridge 

south of Trumbull Peak at the end of a 0.25 mile non-motorized trail. The area includes populations 

of three sensitive plants: Allium yosemitense, Eriophyllum congdoni, and Lewisia congdonii. Table 

3.05-5 shows that the Trumbull Peak SIA currently contains 2.53 miles of NFTS motorized routes of 

which 2.17 miles are available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized 

motorized routes. 

Windeler Cave Geologic Area 

The Windelar Cave SIA (0.5 acres) consists of a limestone cave, thought to be over 2,500 feet long, 

containing a variety of stalactite and stalagmite formations. This area does not contain any NFTS or 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

Special Interest Areas - Environmental Consequences 

The following section describes how the alternatives affect SIAs using the following indicator: 

 SIA values 

Table 3.05-6 Additions to the NFTS: Special Interest Areas 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad Special Interest Area SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR10178 GR 0.48 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

FR98486 GR 0.21 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

FR98510 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

total 0.73 

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; GR=Groveland; INV=Inventory; MI=Miles; NAT=Native; RD=Ranger District; 

SRC=Source; SUR=Surface; SYS=System (National Forest System); UNR=Unauthorized Road; UNT=Unauthorized Trail 

Table 3.05-7 Vehicles Class Changes: Special Interest Areas 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad Special Interest Area SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

02S24Y GR 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

FR4898 GR 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

FR4898 GR 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

FR8602 GR 0.23 MAP ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge Jordan Cr/Bower Cave 

total 0.86 

ADM=Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use); ALL=All Vehicles; GIS=Geographic Information System; 

GR=Groveland; HLO=Highway Legal Only; MI=Miles; NAT=Native; RD=Ranger District; SRC=Source; SUR=Surface; 

SYS=System (National Forest System) 

156 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

The cross country travel prohibition protects the SIA values of each area by preventing route 

proliferation and reducing the area available for motorized use. SIA values improve over time as 

unauthorized routes passively restore to natural conditions. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 0.73 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails in 

SIAs (see Table 3.05-6) with direct or indirect effects as described below. All routes are located 

within Forest Plan land allocations allowing motorized use. 

Additions to the NFTS do not affect SIA values in the following SIA because: 

- Jordan Creek/Bower Cave: three segments (0.73 miles) in the Jordan Creek area access 

popular dispersed recreation opportunities, not affecting SIA values because these are short 

trails within and adjacent to existing developed road corridors. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 0.86 miles of NFTS roads including: changing 0.32 miles 

from all vehicles to highway legal only; and, closing 0.54 miles of open roads (see Table 3.05-7) with 

direct or indirect effects as described below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect SIA values in the following SIAs because: 

- Jordan Creek/Bower Cave: three NFTS road segments (0.54 miles) change from open to 

closed (administrative use only), improving SIA values because they eliminate existing 

motorized use. One NFTS road segment of 2S24Y (0.32 miles) changes from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving SIA values because it prohibits non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

Season of Use 

Season of use restrictions and wet weather closures protect the special values of all SIAs by 

prohibiting motorized use during the closure period. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect SIA values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on SIAs. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Alternative 2 (No Action) could reduce values in all SIAs because it allows the potential for cross 

country travel across all 2,468 acres of SIAs and one historic road corridor. Cross country travel with 

continued route proliferation could significantly reduce botanic, cultural, heritage, historic and scenic 

values across all SIAs. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on SIAs without unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. 

157 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on SIAs without changes to the existing NFTS or existing closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative contributes towards cumulative effects on SIAs because additional future route 

proliferation will adversely affect SIA values. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on SIAs without unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized 

trails. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on SIAs without changes to the existing NFTS or existing closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect SIA values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on SIAs. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 0.32 miles of NFTS roads including: changing 0.32 miles 

from all vehicles to highway legal only (see Table 3.05-7) with direct or indirect effects as described 

below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect SIA values in the following SIAs because: 

- Jordan Creek/Bower Cave: one NFTS road segment of 2S24Y (0.32 miles) changes from 

all vehicles to highway legal only, improving SIA values because it prohibits non-highway 

legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1. 

158 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect SIA values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on SIAs. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on SIAs without unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 1.23 miles of NFTS roads including: converting 0.37 miles of 

closed roads to motorized trails open to all vehicles; changing 0.32 miles from all vehicles to highway 

legal only; and, closing 0.54 miles of open roads (see Table 3.05-7) with direct or indirect effects as 

described below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect SIA values in the following SIA because: 

- Jordan Creek/Bower Cave: three NFTS road segments (0.54 miles) change from open to 

closed (administrative use only), improving SIA values because they eliminate existing 

motorized use. One NFTS road segment of 2S24Y (0.32 miles) changes from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving SIA values because it prohibits non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect SIA values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on SIAs. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers - Affected 

Environment 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers are managed to preserve their notable 

values or features as part of, or for eventual inclusion in, the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest this management applies to those National Forest lands within 1/4 

mile on either side of approximately 29 miles of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River; 11 miles of 

the Merced Wild and Scenic River; and, 160 miles of Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

The Stanislaus Proposed Wild and Scenic River does not contain authorized or unauthorized 

motorized routes. Table 3.05-8 shows that the remaining 9 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed 

Wild and Scenic Rivers currently contain 84.29 miles of motorized routes (77.75 NFTS and 6.54 

unauthorized) of which 68.66 miles are available for public motorized use. 

159 
 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Table 3.05-8 Existing Motorized Routes: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Wild and Scenic Rivers NFTS Roads NFTS Trails NFTS 

total 

UNR 

UNT total 

ADM ALL ML1 HLO total ALL ATV total 

Clark Fork 2.00 1.49 1.14 4.32 8.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.95 0.00 8.95 

Clavey 0.00 21.86 1.09 3.59 26.54 0.07 0.00 0.07 26.61 5.44 32.05 

Merced 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 1.58 

Middle Fork Stanislaus 2.16 2.77 3.03 10.92 18.88 0.28 0.00 0.28 19.16 0.00 19.16 

Niagara Creek 0.00 1.40 0.68 0.00 2.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.10 0.00 2.10 

North Fork Mokelumne 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.90 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 1.10 3.12 

North Fork Stanislaus 2.55 3.85 0.25 2.68 9.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.34 0.00 9.34 

South Fork Tuolumne 0.00 0.14 0.99 0.20 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.33 

Stanislaus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tuolumne 0.00 6.06 0.16 0.44 6.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.66 0.00 6.66 

total 8.29 38.70 7.34 23.05 77.38 0.37 0.00 0.37 77.75 6.54 84.29 

ADM=Administrative Use Only; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; HLO=Highway Legal Only; 

ML1=Maintenance Level 1; NFTS=National Forest Transportation System; UNR=Unauthorized Road; 

UNT=Unauthorized Trail; ADM and ML1 are closed to public motorized use 

The following discussions focus on the two Wild and Scenic Rivers and eight Proposed Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, totaling 200 miles on the Stanislaus National Forest (see Figure 3.05-1). Each provides 

a brief description of the river listing their OR values. Detailed information about each river is 

contained in the project record. 

Clark Fork 

This portion of the Clark Fork Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes the 9 mile Recreational 

segment from the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness to the Middle Fork Stanislaus. The 8 mile Wild segment 

within Wilderness is not included. The river is located in the north-central portion of the Forest. OR 

values include recreation and scenic. Table 3.05-8 shows that the Clark Fork Proposed Wild and 

Scenic River currently contains 8.95 miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 5.81 miles are 

available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Clavey River 

The Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes 28 miles of Wild and 14 miles of Scenic 

segments including its tributaries Bell Creek and Lily Creek. The 5 miles of Wild segments within 

Wilderness are not included. OR values include ecologic, fish, recreation, scenic and wildlife. Table 

3.05-8 shows that the Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River currently contains 32.05 miles of 

motorized routes (26.61 NFTS and 5.44 unauthorized) of which 30.96 miles are available for public 

motorized use. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River 

The Stanislaus National Forest portion of the Merced Wild and Scenic River includes the 11 mile 

Recreation segment from Yosemite National Park to the lower National Forest boundary. The 

Stanislaus National Forest portion of the Merced Wild and Scenic River forms the boundary between 

the Stanislaus and Sierra National Forests17. OR values include recreation, scenic and whitewater 

boating. Table 3.05-8 shows that the Merced Wild and Scenic River currently contains 1.58 miles of 

NFTS motorized routes that are not available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

17 By special agreement, the Sierra National Forest manages the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor. 

160 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Middle Fork Stanislaus River 

The Middle Fork Stanislaus Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes 6.5 miles of Wild and 20 miles 

of Recreational segments including its tributary Deadman Creek. The 15 miles of Wild segments 

(Kennedy Creek and Summit Creek) within Wilderness are not included. The river is located in the 

east and central portions of the Forest. OR values include fish, geologic, historic/cultural, recreation, 

wildlife and other. Table 3.05-8 shows that the Middle Fork Stanislaus Proposed Wild and Scenic 

River currently contains 19.16 miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 13.97 miles are available for 

public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

Niagara Creek 

The Niagara Creek Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes the 1 mile eligible Scenic segment from 

Highway 108 to Donnell Reservoir. The creek is located in the north-central portion of the Forest. OR 

values include geologic and scenic. Table 3.05-8 shows that the Niagara Creek Proposed Wild and 

Scenic River currently contains 2.10 miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 1.42 miles are 

available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

North Fork Mokelumne River 

This portion of the North Fork Mokelumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes the 9 mile 

Recreational segment from Highland Lake to the Mokelumne Wilderness boundary. The 18 mile 

Wild segment within Wilderness is not included18. The river is located in the northern portion of the 

Forest and forms part of the boundary between the Stanislaus and Eldorado National Forests. OR 

values include recreation and scenic. Table 3.05-8 shows that the North Fork Mokelumne Proposed 

Wild and Scenic River currently contains 3.12 miles of motorized routes (2.02 NFTS and 1.10 

unauthorized) available for public motorized use. 

North Fork Stanislaus River 

The North Fork Stanislaus Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes 20 miles of Wild and 3 miles of 

Recreational segments from Highland Creek to the Middle Fork Stanislaus. The river is located in the 

west-central portion of the Forest. OR values include recreation, scenic, wildlife and other19. Table 

3.05-8 shows that the North Fork Stanislaus Proposed Wild and Scenic River currently contains 9.34 

miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 6.54 miles are available for public motorized use. This area 

does not contain any unauthorized motorized routes. 

South Fork Tuolumne River 

The South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes the 2 mile Scenic segment from 

the Middle Fork Tuolumne to the Tuolumne. The river is located in the south-central portion of the 

Forest. OR values include scenic and other. Table 3.05-8 shows that the South Fork Tuolumne 

Proposed Wild and Scenic River currently contains 1.33 miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 

0.34 miles are available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized 

motorized routes. 

Stanislaus River 

The Stanislaus Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes the 1.5 mile Wild segment from the North 

Fork/Middle Fork Stanislaus confluence to Clark Flat. The river is located near the western boundary 

of the Forest. OR values include recreation and scenic. This area does not contain any NFTS or 

unauthorized motorized routes. 

18 By special agreement, the Eldorado National Forest manages the North Fork Mokelumne below Salt Springs. 

19 Other: considered sensitive because they are fragile or nonrenewable. 

161 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River 

The Stanislaus National Forest portion of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River includes 24 miles of 

Wild, 4 miles of Scenic and 1 mile of Recreational segments. The river is located in the south-central 

part of the Forest. OR values include fish, geologic, historic/cultural, recreation, scenic, 

scientific/educational, whitewater boating and wilderness characteristics. Table 3.05-8 shows that the 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River currently contains 6.66 miles of NFTS motorized routes of which 

6.06 miles are available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized 

motorized routes. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers - 

Environmental Consequences 

The following section describes how the alternatives affect Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed 

Wild and Scenic Rivers using the following indicator: 

 Wild and Scenic River Values (OR values) 

Table 3.05-9 Additions to the NFTS: Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad Proposed 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name Wild and Scenic River 

17EV299 MW 0.59 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

17EV51 MW 0.69 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

17EV51 MW 0.83 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV270 MW 0.36 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV271 MW 0.34 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV276 MW 0.10 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV278 MW 0.08 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV310 MW 0.56 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ATV 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV63 MW 0.26 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ALL 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

18EV95 MW 0.31 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

31821C MW 0.20 GIS UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N Clavey (Scenic) 

31821H MW 0.10 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

EV681 MW 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

subtotal 4.52 

19EV110 CAL 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

19EV111 CAL 0.32 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

19EV111A CAL 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

19EV112 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR8437 CAL 0.13 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4901 Dardanelles Cone NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR8784 CAL 0.06 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR9438 CAL 0.10 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR9439 CAL 0.16 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR9440 CAL 0.04 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

subtotal 1.08 

total 5.60 

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; ATV=All Terrain Vehicle; CAL=Calaveras; INV=Inventory; MC=Motorcycle; 

MI=Miles; MW=Mi-Wok; NAT=Native; RD=Ranger District; SRC=Source; SUR=Surface; SYS=System (National Forest 

System); UNR=Unauthorized Road; UNT=Unauthorized Trail 

162 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.05-10 Vehicles Class Changes: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad Proposed 

SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name Wild and Scenic River 

06N06C SU 0.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake Clark Fork (Rec) 

subtotal 0.26 

01N01 GR 1.02 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S Clavey (Scenic) 

01S01 GR 1.15 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge Clavey (Scenic) 

02N58 MW 0.80 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

03N01 GR 0.77 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N Clavey (Scenic) 

03N08Y MW 0.25 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ATV t-ATV t-ATV 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

03N17Y MW 0.76 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

03N29A MW 0.70 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

03N29C MW 0.77 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

03N43A MW 0.10 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4744 Hull Creek Clavey (Scenic) 

04N26B SU 0.78 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

04N50Y MW 0.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest Clavey (Scenic) 

FR7856 GR 0.14 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge Clavey (Scenic) 

subtotal 7.72 

06N07Y SU 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N08Y SU 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N09Y SU 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N12 SU 0.33 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N14 SU 0.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N16A SU 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N36Y SU 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N36Y SU 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N36Y SU 0.36 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N37Y SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N39Y SU 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N47Y SU 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

06N82Y SU 0.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

07N13 SU 0.60 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

07N13A SU 0.15 GIS ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

07N30Y SU 0.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

07N30YA SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

07N30YB SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

62127C SU 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

72032C SU 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

FR14823 SU 0.25 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

FR14833 SU 0.09 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone MF Stanislaus (Rec) 

subtotal 3.94 

08N01A CAL 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR5219 CAL 0.03 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR8322 CAL 0.08 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR8323 CAL 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FR9331 CAL 0.33 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

FS83231 CAL 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5064 Ebbetts Pass NF Mokelumne (Rec) 

subtotal 0.67 

04N38 CAL 0.01 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus NF Stanislaus (Rec) 

04N80Y CAL 0.16 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO ML1 4751 Stanislaus NF Stanislaus (Wild) 

05N02B CAL 0.67 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing NF Stanislaus (Rec) 

05N02B CAL 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing NF Stanislaus (Rec) 

05N02R CAL 1.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO ML1 4913 Boards Crossing NF Stanislaus (Wild) 

05N53Y CAL 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing NF Stanislaus (Rec) 

subtotal 2.62 

01N10 GR 2.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt Tuolumne (Scenic) 

01N10 GR 3.60 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne (Scenic) 

01S52 GR 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge Tuolumne (Scenic) 

subtotal 6.06 

total 21.26 

ADM=Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use); ALL=All Vehicles; CAL=Calaveras; GIS=Geographic 

Information System; GR=Groveland; HLO=Highway Legal Only; MI=Miles; ML1=Maintenance Level 1; MW=Mi-Wok; 

NAT=Native; RD=Ranger District; SRC=Source; SU=Summit; SUR=Surface; SYS=System (National Forest System); tALL=NFTS road converted to All Vehicles trail; t-ATV=NFTS road converted to ATV trail 

163 
 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

The cross country travel prohibition protects the OR values of each river by preventing route 

proliferation and reducing the area available for motorized use. OR values improve over time as 

unauthorized routes passively restore to natural conditions. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 4.68 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails in 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers (see Table 3.05-9) with direct or indirect effects as described 

below. All routes are located within Forest Plan land allocations allowing motorized use. 

Additions to the NFTS do not affect OR values on the following Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers 

because: 

- Clavey: eleven segments (3.60 miles) access popular dispersed recreation opportunities in 

the Scenic segment between the Bell/Lily confluence and Cottonwood Road, not affecting 

OR values because they are short trails within and adjacent to existing developed road 

corridors. 

- North Fork Mokelumne: nine segments (1.08 miles) provide highway legal only access to 

popular dispersed recreation opportunities in the Recreational segment along Highland Lakes 

Road, not affecting OR values because they are short trails within and adjacent to existing 

developed road corridors. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 17.31 miles of NFTS roads in Wild and Scenic Rivers 

including: converting 0.25 miles of closed to an ATV trail; closing 0.80 miles of open roads; 

changing 1.79 miles from highway legal only to all vehicles; and, changing 14.57 miles from all 

vehicles to highway legal only (see Table 3.05-10) with direct or indirect effects as described below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect OR values on the following Wild and Scenic Rivers because: 

- Clark Fork: one segment of 6N06C (0.26 miles) changes from all vehicles to highway legal 

only, improving OR values because it prohibits non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall 

motor vehicle use and noise. 

- Clavey: one NFTS road segment of 3N08Y (0.25 miles) converts from a closed road to an 

ATV trail, not affecting OR values because it is a short trail within and adjacent to an existing 

developed road corridor. One NFTS road segment of 2N58 (0.80 miles) changes from open to 

closed, improving OR values because it prohibits existing public motorized use. Two NFTS 

road segments (1.79 miles) change from highway legal only to all vehicles, not affecting OR 

values because they are main Forest roads in existing developed road corridors. Two NFTS 

road segments (0.92 miles) change from all vehicles to highway legal only, improving OR 

values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use 

and noise. 

- Middle Fork Stanislaus: twenty-two NFTS road segments (3.94 miles) change from all 

vehicles to highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway 

legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- North Fork Mokelumne: six NFTS road segments (0.67 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

164 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

- North Fork Stanislaus: four NFTS road segments (0.98 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. One NFTS road segment of 4N80Y (0.16 

miles) and one NFTS road segment of 5N02R (1.48 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise, and are located within or adjacent to existing 

road corridors and developed areas; although these two roads are located within proposed 

Wild River corridors, continued highway legal only use will not preclude future Wild and 

Scenic River designation of these segments of North Fork Stanislaus. 

- Toulumne: Three NFTS road segments (6.06 miles) change from all vehicles to highway 

legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, reducing 

overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

Season of Use 

Season of use restrictions and wet weather closures protect OR values by prohibiting motorized use 

during the closure period. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect OR values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Alternative 2 (No Action) could degrade OR values in all Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild 

and Scenic Rivers because it allows the potential for cross country travel across all 154 miles of Wild 

and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers outside of designated Wilderness. Cross 

country travel with continued route proliferation could significantly reduce cultural, historic, 

recreation and scenic OR values across all Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers without unauthorized routes added 

to the NFTS. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers without changes to the NFTS or existing 

closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative contributes towards cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild 

and Scenic Rivers because additional future route proliferation will adversely affect OR values. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

165 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers without unauthorized routes added 

to the NFTS. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

No direct or indirect effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers without changes to the NFTS or existing 

closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect OR values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 5.60 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails in 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers (see Table 3.05-9) with direct or indirect effects as described 

below. All routes are located within Forest Plan land allocations allowing motorized use. 

Additions to the NFTS do not affect OR values on the following Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers 

because: 

- Clavey: thirteen segments (4.52 miles) access popular dispersed recreation opportunities in 

the Scenic segment between the Bell/Lily confluence and Cottonwood Road, not affecting 

OR values because they are short trails within and adjacent to existing developed road 

corridors. 

- North Fork Mokelumne: nine segments (1.08 miles) provide highway legal only access to 

popular dispersed recreation opportunities in the Recreational segment along Highland Lakes 

Road, not affecting OR values because they are short trails within and adjacent to existing 

developed road corridors. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 13.13 miles of NFTS roads in Wild and Scenic Rivers 

including: converting 1.50 miles of closed to motorized trails; changing 1.79 miles from highway 

legal only to all vehicles; and, changing 9.83 miles from all vehicles to highway legal only (see Table 

3.05-10) with direct or indirect effects as described below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect OR values on the following Wild and Scenic Rivers because: 

- Clavey: three NFTS road segments (1.50 miles) convert from closed roads to motorized 

trails, not affecting OR values because they are short trails within and adjacent to existing 

developed road corridors. Two NFTS road segments (1.79 miles) change from highway legal 

only to all vehicles, not affecting OR values because they are main Forest roads in existing 

developed road corridors. One NFTS road segment of FR7856 (0.14 miles) changes from all 

vehicles to highway legal only, improving OR values because it prohibits non-highway legal 

vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

166 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

- Middle Fork Stanislaus: two NFTS road segments (0.34 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- North Fork Mokelumne: six NFTS road segments (0.67 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- North Fork Stanislaus: four NFTS road segments (0.98 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. One NFTS road segment of 4N80Y (0.16 

miles) and one NFTS road segment of 5N02R (1.48 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise, and are located within or adjacent to existing 

road corridors and developed areas; although these two roads are located within proposed 

Wild River corridors, continued highway legal only use will not preclude future Wild and 

Scenic River designation of these segments of North Fork Stanislaus. 

- Toulumne: Three NFTS road segments (6.06 miles) change from all vehicles to highway 

legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, reducing 

overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect OR values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 1.45 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails in 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers (see Table 3.05-9) with direct or indirect effects as described 

below. All routes are located within Forest Plan land allocations allowing motorized use. 

Additions to the NFTS do not affect OR values on the following Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers 

because: 

- Clavey: one segment (0.69 miles) provides access to popular dispersed recreation 

opportunities in the Scenic segment between the Bell/Lily confluence and Cottonwood Road, 

not affecting OR values because it is a short trail within and adjacent to an existing developed 

road corridor. 

- North Fork Mokelumne: eight segments (0.76 miles) provide highway legal only access to 

popular dispersed recreation opportunities in the Recreational segment along Highland Lakes 

Road, not affecting OR values because they are short trails within and adjacent to existing 

developed road corridors. 

167 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 18.22 miles of NFTS roads in Wild and Scenic Rivers 

including: converting 0.25 miles of closed to an ATV trail; closing 2.44 miles of open roads; and, 

changing 15.53 miles from all vehicles to highway legal only (see Table 3.05-10) with direct or 

indirect effects as described below. 

Vehicle class changes do not affect OR values on the following Wild and Scenic Rivers because: 

- Clark Fork: one segment of 6N06C (0.26 miles) changes from all vehicles to highway legal 

only, improving OR values because it prohibits non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall 

motor vehicle use and noise. 

- Clavey: one NFTS road segment of 3N08Y (0.25 miles) converts from a closed road to an 

ATV trail, not affecting OR values because it is a short trail within and adjacent to an existing 

developed road corridor. One NFTS road segment of 2N58 (0.80 miles) changes from open to 

closed, improving OR values because it prohibits existing public motorized use. Six NFTS 

road segments (3.61 miles) change from all vehicles to highway legal only, improving OR 

values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use 

and noise. 

- Middle Fork Stanislaus: twenty-two NFTS road segments (3.94 miles) change from all 

vehicles to highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway 

legal vehicles, reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- North Fork Mokelumne: six NFTS road segments (0.67 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

- North Fork Stanislaus: four NFTS road segments (0.98 miles) change from all vehicles to 

highway legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, 

reducing overall motor vehicle use and noise. One NFTS road segment of 4N80Y (0.16 

miles) and one NFTS road segment of 5N02R (1.48 miles) change from all vehicles to closed, 

improving OR values because they eliminate existing motorized use. 

- Toulumne: Three NFTS road segments (6.06 miles) change from all vehicles to highway 

legal only, improving OR values because they prohibit non-highway legal vehicles, reducing 

overall motor vehicle use and noise. 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect OR values. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness - Affected Environment 

The Stanislaus National Forest recommended Wilderness designation for the Bald Peak and Tryon 

Peak “further planning areas” through the land management planning process (USDA 1991b). The 

following discussions focus on those two Proposed Wilderness additions, totaling 23,900 acres (see 

Figure 3.05-1). 

168 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Bald Peak Proposed Wilderness 

The Bald Peak Proposed Wilderness (20,500 acres), a recommended addition to the Carson-Iceberg 

Wilderness, is located within a triangle formed by Clark Fork Road, Highway 108 and the CarsonIceberg Wilderness between Iceberg Meadow and Sonora Peak. Elevations range from 6,000 to 

11,462 feet. The area is typified by mountain peaks, steep slopes, scattered pockets of timber and 

meadows, and considerable granite rock. The Pacific Crest Trail crosses a corner of the area near 

Sonora Pass. One other hiking trail along Douglas Creek receives only light use. Soils between 

extensive rock outcrops are generally shallow to moderately deep, stony coarse sandy loams 

developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Meadows have deep, organic, sandy 

loams developed from alluvium. Red fir and lodgepole pine are the predominant tree species, with 

Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, and white fir common associates. Hunters use the area in pursuit of deer, 

grouse and quail. Spotted owl, goshawk, fisher, pine marten, wolverine and red fox inhabit this area. 

The area is also important as summer range for the Stanislaus Deer Herd. Table 3.05-2 shows that 

Bald Peak Proposed Wilderness currently contains one NFTS road segment of 07N76A (0.02 miles) 

that is not available for public motorized use. This area does not contain any unauthorized motorized 

routes. 

Tryon Peak Proposed Wilderness 

The Tryon Peak Proposed Wilderness (3,400 acres), a recommended addition to the Carson-Iceberg 

Wilderness, is located in the northeast corner of the Forest between the Sierra Nevada crest and 

Highland Lakes Road. Elevations range from 8,100 to 9,970 feet. Mountain peaks, glaciated valleys 

with large meadows, and scattered timber characterize the area. Recreation use, primarily hikers from 

the Highland Lakes area and along the Pacific Crest Trail, is moderate while hunters use the area in 

the fall. Soils between extensive rock outcrops in the uplands are generally shallow to moderately 

deep, stony coarse sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. The 

meadows have deep, organic, sandy loams developed from alluvium. Red fir and lodgepole pine are 

the predominant tree species with Jeffrey pine and mountain hemlock. This area does not contain any 

NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes. 

Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness - Environmental Consequences 

Since designated Wilderness is not affected by the proposed action or any alternative and 

unauthorized or NFTS routes open to public motorized use do not exist within Proposed Wilderness 

the following section describes only the effects of cross country travel on Proposed Wilderness using 

the following indicator: 

 Wilderness Characteristics (wilderness) 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

The cross country travel prohibition protects the wilderness characteristics of each area by preventing 

route proliferation and reducing the area available for motorized use. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative 

Effects Analysis) do not include any actions likely to affect wilderness characteristics. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects on Proposed Wilderness. 

169 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Alternative 2 (No Action) could affect wilderness characteristics in all Proposed Wilderness because 

it allows the potential for cross country travel across all 23,900 acres of Proposed Wilderness. Cross 

country travel with continued route proliferation could significantly alter the following wilderness 

characteristics: 

- Natural: ecological systems no longer appear substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization and affected primarily by forces of nature due to potential introduction of noxious 

weed species that alter the composition of natural plant communities and pollutants that 

degrade water quality. 

- Undeveloped: increased evidence of human presence, use and occupation due to usercreated trail treads with wheel tracks. 

- Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: 

reduced opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation due to 

evidence of user-create trail treads with wheel tracks and noise generated by motor vehicles. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative contributes towards cumulative effects on Proposed Wilderness because additional 

future route proliferation will adversely affect wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

170 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

Table 3.05-11 provides a brief summary of effects on roadless and wilderness characteristics in 

roadless areas; Table 3.05-12 provides a brief summary of effects across all alternatives for roadless 

and special areas; and, Table 3.05-13 provides a summary of effects by roadless and special area 

indicators. 

Table 3.05-11 Effects on Roadless and Wilderness Characteristics in Roadless Areas 

Roadless Area Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

Arnot Creek none Increased noise 

generated by motor 

vehicles and more 

evidence of human 

activity due to cross 

country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation could 

significantly alter: 

high quality or 

undisturbed soil, 

water, and air; 

sources of public 

drinking water; 

diversity of plant and 

animal communities; 

habitat for 

threatened, 

endangered, 

proposed, candidate, 

and sensitive 

species and for 

those species 

dependent on large, 

undisturbed areas of 

land; primitive and 

semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities; natural 

appearing 

landscapes with high 

scenic quality 

roadless and 

wilderness 

characteristics 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions 

none none 

Bald Peak none none none 

Bell Meadow none none none 

Carson-Iceberg roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as unauthorized 

routes passively restore to 

natural conditions; adding 

routes and opening a 

closed road could affect 

SPNM by reducing 

opportunities for solitude 

same as Alternative 1 adding a route could 

affect SPNM by reducing 

opportunities for solitude 

Cherry Lake none none none 

Dome none none none 

Eagle none none none 

Mt. Reba roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as unauthorized 

routes passively restore to 

natural conditions; adding 

routes could affect SPNM 

by reducing opportunities 

for solitude and increased 

conflicts between users 

same as Alternative 1 roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions 

Night none none none 

North Mountain roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as unauthorized 

routes passively restore to 

natural conditions; opening 

a closed road could affect 

SPNM by reducing 

opportunities for solitude 

same as Alternative 1 roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions 

Pacific Valley none none none 

Raymond Peak roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as unauthorized 

routes passively restore to 

natural conditions; adding 

routes could affect SPNM 

by reducing opportunities 

for solitude 

same as Alternative 1 roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

adding a route could 

affect SPNM by reducing 

opportunities for solitude 

Trumbull Peak none none none 

Tryon Peak none none none 

Tuolumne River roadless and wilderness 

characteristics improve 

over time as unauthorized 

routes passively restore to 

natural conditions; adding 

routes could affect SPNM 

by reducing opportunities 

for solitude in the 

Tuolumne River canyon 

none none 

Waterhouse none none none 

Wheats Meadow none none none 

171 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest 

Table 3.05-12 Summary of Effects across All Alternatives: Roadless and Special Areas 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 

(No Action) 

Alternative 3 

(X-C Prohibited) 

Alternative 4 

(Recreation) 

Alternative 5 

(Resources) 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to natural 

conditions; additions to the 

NFTS and opening closed 

roads reduce opportunities 

for solitude in the CarsonIceberg, Mt. Reba, North 

Mountain, Raymond Peak 

and Tuolumne River 

roadless areas 

noise and more 

evidence of human 

activity due to cross 

country travel with 

continued route 

proliferation reduce 

roadless character in 

all roadless areas; 

cross country travel 

with continued route 

proliferation could 

reduce values in all 

Special Areas 

(Proposed 

Wilderness, SIAs, 

RNAs, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers and 

Proposed Wild and 

Scenic Rivers) 

outside of 

Wilderness 

roadless 

characteristics and 

special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

and opening closed 

roads reduce 

opportunities for solitude 

in the Carson-Iceberg, 

Mt. Reba, North 

Mountain, Raymond 

Peak and Tuolumne 

River roadless areas 

roadless characteristics 

and special area values 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively restore to 

natural conditions; 

additions to the NFTS 

reduce opportunities for 

solitude in the CarsonIceberg and Raymond 

Peak roadless areas 

Table 3.05-13 Summary of Effects: Roadless and Special Areas 

Indicators – Roadless and Special Areas Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Roadless Area and Wilderness Characteristics (Roadless Areas) 3 1 5 2 4 

Research Natural Area Values 5 1 5 5 5 

Special Interest Area Values 3 1 5 2 4 

Wild and Scenic River Values 3 1 5 2 4 

Wilderness Characteristics (Proposed Wilderness) 5 1 5 5 5 

total 19 5 25 16 23 

Average for Roadless and Special Areas 3.8 1.0 5.0 3.2 4.6 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact on this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most 

impact. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 meet Forest Plan S&Gs. Alternative 2 does not meet Forest Plan Direction 

to prohibit cross county travel. Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 implement 36 CFR 212 while Alternative 2 

does not. 

172 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3.05-1 Roadless and Special Area Map 

173 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus 

Roadless and Special Areas National Forest
 

174 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.06 SOCIETY, CULTURE AND ECONOMY
 

This section presents information useful to understand and analyze the economic effects in the 

surrounding area and the potential social effects. In addition to economic impacts, the assessment of 

environmental justice and impacts to communities provide measures of success used to assess how 

effectively the proposed activities meet the project’s purpose and need. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Multiple statutes, regulations and executive orders identify the general requirement for the application 

of economic and social evaluation in support of Forest Service planning and decision making. These 

include, but are not limited to, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 215: 16 USC 

528-531), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852; 42 USC 4321, 4331-4335, 4341­

4347), and the Planning Act of 1974. In addition, the following guidance also applies. 

Executive Order 12898 issued in 1994 orders federal agencies to identify and address any adverse 

human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority 

and low-income populations. The Order also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence 

hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides for nondiscrimination in voting, public accommodations, 

public facilities, public education, federally assisted programs, and equal employment opportunity. 

Title VI of the Act, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d 

through 2000d-6) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Assumptions Specific to Society, Culture and Economy 

1.	 The Environmental Justice analysis will report what effects might occur to minority and lowincome populations. Of particular concern is whether job or income discrimination might occur to 

these groups in the area during or resulting from the proposed project. 

Data Sources 

1.	 IMPLAN - Pro input-output modeling system and 2006 IMPLAN data. 

2.	 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) 

Society, Culture and Economy Indicators 

Indicators used in the analysis of economic effects (Table 3.06-1) include jobs and labor income in 

the economic impact analysis. Non-market values, such as the value of recreation experiences and 

ecological services, by their nature are difficult to quantify. Direction provided in 40 CFR 1502.23 

and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, (7/6/04) and 22.35 (01/14/05) provides for the use of 

qualitative analysis to evaluate the effects of these non-market values. The non-market aspects of 

each proposed activity will be described in other resource sections and specialist reports. 

Table 3.06-1 Indicators and Methods 

Measures of Success Analysis Method Analysis Tool 

Employment & Labor Income Impacts Input-Output Analysis IMPLAN, 2006 

Impacts to area communities Assess Impacts to area Lifestyle, Attitudes, Values and Beliefs Discussion in text 

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Examination of area trends and current characteristics Discussion in text 

175 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Society, Culture and Economy Methodology 

Economic Effects 

Economic effects can be categorized as direct, indirect and induced. Direct effects are changes 

directly associated with spending by a recreation visitor. Indirect and induced effects are the 

multiplier effects resulting from subsequent rounds of spending in the local economy. 

Input-output analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect and induced employment and labor 

income effects stemming from motorized and non-motorized use. Input-output analysis is a means of 

examining relationships within an economy both between businesses as well as between businesses 

and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time 

period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one 

or several economic activities on an entire economy. This examination is called impact analysis. 

Input-output analysis requires the identification of an economic impact area. The economic area that 

surrounds the Stanislaus National Forest used for this jobs and income analysis was four counties in 

Central California surrounding the Stanislaus National Forest. Mono County to the east was omitted 

because it would distort the findings. The counties included are Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa and 

Tuolumne. 

The IMPLAN Pro input-output modeling system and 2006 IMPLAN data (the most recent data 

available) were used to develop the input-output model for this analysis (IMPLAN Professional 

2004). IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes in 

economic effects, such as labor income and employment of the affected area’s economy. For the 

economic impact area, employment and labor income estimates were generated that were attributable 

to all current recreation use (wildlife and non-wildlife activities), motorized, non-motorized and other 

activities for the Stanislaus National Forest. 

The expenditure and use information collected by the NVUM survey are crucial elements in the 

economic analysis. As reported earlier, the NVUM survey collects use and expenditure information 

for various activity types. The expenditure information is collected by twelve activity groups within 

four trip segments (non-local overnight trips, non-local day trips, local day trips and local overnight 

trips) (Stynes and White 2005; Stynes and White 2006). The reported spending for each of the 

spending categories is allocated to the appropriate industry within the IMPLAN model (the allocation 

process, also referred to as “bridging,” was conducted by the USDA Forest Service, Planning 

Analysis Group in Fort Collins, CO). The bridged IMPLAN files were used to estimate economic 

effects (e.g., employment and labor income) related to changes in spending (i.e., changes in spending; 

technically referred to as changes in final demand are caused by changes in use). 

Estimated economic effects (full and part-time jobs and labor income) are presented. Estimated 

economic effects are displayed in the following ways: 

1.	 Direct, and indirect and induced employment and labor income response coefficients by activity 

type (jobs and labor income per 1,000 visits); and 

2.	 Estimated employment and labor income by motorized and non-motorized activity types. 

Jobs and Labor Income 

The economic impacts to the local economy affected by the treatments proposed are measured by 

estimating the employment (full and part-time jobs) and labor income generated by the alternatives. 

The direct employment and labor income benefit employees and their families and therefore directly 

affect the local economy. Additional indirect and induced multiplier effects (ripple effects) are 

generated by the direct activities. Together the direct and multiplier effects comprise the total 

economic impacts to the local economy. 

176 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

The assessment of economic impacts attempts to identify potential effects that Forest Service 

management decisions may have on local, county, and regional economic systems and on people 

using the natural resources that the Stanislaus provides. In particular, would changes in the use of the 

National Forest for recreation and the amount of change in the designation of Forest roads and trails 

be large enough or significant enough to cause measurable economic changes? Is the economy of the 

local area diverse enough and robust enough that the proposed changes will be insignificant or will 

they be felt in very specific segments of the local economy? 

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Values and Beliefs 

The description of Lifestyles, Attitudes, Values and Beliefs provides further context to evaluate the 

alternatives based on concerns and issues held by communities. People may also be interested in or 

concerned with management issues for reasons other than income or recreational opportunities. 

Research indicates that people may hold a variety of values towards forests, and that these values may 

play a critical role in identifying ecosystem management goals, setting the context for decision 

making, and guiding our choices. A variety of forest values exist and include aesthetic value, cultural 

value, economic value, historic value, recreational value, and spiritual value. Examination of these 

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Values and Beliefs may suggest why people value the Stanislaus and why 

potential conflict may exist over travel management related decisions. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) 

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides reliable information about 

recreation visitors to National Forest system managed lands at the national, regional, and forest level. 

Information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for National Forest plans, 

Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National 

Recreation Agenda. To improve public service, the agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans 

require measuring trends in visitor satisfaction and use levels. NVUM information assists Congress, 

Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public 

and protect valuable natural resources by providing science based, reliable information about the type, 

quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public lands. The information collected is also 

important to external customers including state agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology 

and analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled Forest Service National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Process (English 2002). 

The Stanislaus participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 

2002 through September 2003 and again from October 2006 to September 2007. Approximately 

1,800,000 National Forest visits occur on the Stanislaus during each survey period (USDA 2004b, 

USDA 2008b). 

Affected Environment 

Located between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park, the Stanislaus National Forest includes 

portions of four central California counties: Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa and Tuolumne. These 

counties are the Stanislaus National Forest study area as referred to in the following sections. Table 

3.06-2 reports the total county size in acres and the proportion of land base that is in the Stanislaus 

National Forest. 

In relation to some of the metropolitan counties in California, the study area counties have low 

population densities but are growing faster than the state average. The interactions between the Forest 

and local communities are important for the social and economic well-being of the area. Alpine 

county is the least populated county in the state with more than 91% of its land base being National 

Forest lands. The Stanislaus portion includes mostly high elevation lands, much of it within 

designated Wilderness. The other three counties (Tuolumne, Mariposa and Calaveras) are within the 

heart of California’s historic Mother Lode. The nearby foothill communities date back to the Gold 

177 
 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Rush era. All four counties rely on tourism as a primary source of jobs, and the Forest contributes to 

the available opportunities along with the following choices: Yosemite National Park, Bureau of 

Land Management, New Melones Recreation Area, Don Pedro Recreation Area, Calaveras Big Trees 

State Park, Columbia State Historic Park, Railtown 1897 State Historic Park, and many private 

providers. 

Table 3.06-2 Stanislaus National Forest Lands by County 

County Total Acres Forest Acres Percent of County 

Alpine 465,030 124,285 27 

Calaveras 663,290 75,072 11 

Mariposa 934,690 84,456 9 

Tuolumne 1,467,300 611,395 42 

Although this discussion focuses on the above four local counties, it is important to mention that a 

significant amount of the visitation on the Forest is by residents of the California Central Valley and 

the greater San Francisco Bay Area. These visitors travel a greater distance and stay longer, once they 

have arrived. Many have second homes or cabins and live in the area for a part of the year. During 

scoping for the Proposed Action, the local community was interested in this project from a variety of 

perspectives. Actions that restrict access, as it relates to use of the National Forest, are considered 

negative by some members of the public, while others strongly feel the need to protect environmental 

values. Some individuals desire to maintain existing access while also caring about natural resources. 

Many share the Forest Service concern about effectively managing the increasing recreational use. 

Background 

People have lived in this area for thousands of years. Paleo-Indians were the original inhabitants of 

the Forest and lived 10,000 to 11,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. Since that time, the 

various native cultures that have lived in this area specialized in their adaptation to locally available 

resources. Native Americans still collect various plant resources and use certain locations for 

traditional cultural and religious practices. 

The first Euro-American explorers in the area arrived in the early 1800s. The cultural values of the 

Euro-Americans differed considerably from those of the Indian Americans, and the ecological 

impacts to the land were often severe. Settlement of the area rapidly increased following the 

discovery of gold in 1849. Mining operations (and related services), sawmills, and ranching activities 

transformed the area. Today people in the region derive their livelihood in diverse ways. Ranching is 

still a component of the community, and many of the families that are ranching today have historic 

roots in the area. Many of the Native American families are also descended from historic families. 

The Forest supports employment opportunities from which local residents may generate income. This 

includes direct employment for the federal agencies, harvest of products from the forest, or 

employment in the tourism service industry. Residents of the local area identify with the Forest for 

both recreational and personal values. For example, some recreation cabins have been in the family 

for generations, and the local ranching communities have historical ties with the forest’s resources for 

production purposes. Many people outside of the local area also have strong ties with the Forest, 

returning throughout their lives to campsites, hunting areas, and other special places. 

Current Population, Growth Trends and Demographics 

Population, age and racial distributions of counties are important socioeconomic considerations in 

land management planning. The following sections highlight demographic trends in the study area. 

Population forecasts provide a projection of future population levels, which may help to indicate the 

potential for increased pressures for uses and recreational opportunities on the Stanislaus National 

Forest. Age distributions provide insights into the socioeconomic dynamic in the local area in terms 

of assessing the proportion of individuals in the working age group versus retirees and minors who 

178 
1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

1970 

1973 

1976 

1979 

1982 

1985 

1988 

1991 

1994 

1997 

2000 

2003 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

typically use local services in different ways. Similarly, the racial composition of the local area may 

affect the cultural uses of public lands. Over the last 35 years, population growth in the study area has 

outpaced that of the state and the nation. From 1970 to 2005 the population grew by 80,208 people, a 

188% increase (Figure 3.06-1). The lower graph is indexed to1970 being 100. A value of 100 

indicates that it has not changed since 1970. Population growth is not generally impacted by national 

recessions. 

Figure 3.06-1 Population Trends and Comparisons 

Population Trends 

122,873 

0.0 

20.0 

40.0 

60.0 

80.0 

100.0 

120.0 

140.0 

Thousands of Peopl 

Population Comparison 

-

288 

181 

145 

-

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

Population (Index 1970=10 

Recession Bars 

Stanislaus NF - 4 County Aggregation-Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Toulumne 

State 

United States 

179 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

The total population in 2000 was 113,393 people, up 18% from 95,869 in 1990 (Table 3.06-3). The 

median age of the population has gotten older since 1990. The median age in 2000 is 43.5 years, up 

from 38.1 years in 1990. The California median age is 33.3 years, significantly lower than the study 

area. The largest age category is 45 to 49 years old (9,743 people or 8.6% of the total). The age group 

that has grown the fastest, as a share of total, is 50 to 54 years, up 4,149 people. Their share of total 

rose by 2.9%. The trend has been towards an increase in average age. 

Table 3.06-3 Population Demographics 

Totals Under 20 years 40 – 54 years 

(Baby Boom in 2000) 65 years and over Median 

Age 

Density 

(pop/mi2 

Number Share Number Share Number Share )

Total Population 

2000 113,393 27,119 24% 28,041 25% 20,500 18% 43.5 21 

1990 95,869 24,189 25% 17,907 19% 16,261 17% 38.1 18 

10 Yr. Change 17,524 2,930 -1% 10,134 6% 4,239 1% 5.4 3 

10 Yr Change (%) 18% 12% 57% 26% 14% 18% 

2000 Gender Breakout 

Male 58,257 14,232 24% 14,331 25% 9,695 17% 42.1 

Female 55,136 12,887 23% 13,710 25% 10,805 20% 44.9 

Male/Female Split 51%/49% 52% / 48% 51% / 49% 47% / 53% 

Minority composition in the study area is lower than that of California with the exception of 

American Indian which is almost 4 times the state average (Table 3.06-4). 

Table 3.06-4 Racial Composition 

Total Population by Race % of Total California 

White 101,856 89.8% 44.4% 

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 8,633 7.6% 34.9% 

African American 1,571 1.4% 6.4% 

American Indian & Alaska Native 2,527 2.2% .6% 

Asian 866 0.8% 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 152 0.1% 13.3% 

Some other race 2,890 2.5% 

Two or more races 3,531 3.1% 

Household and personal income of the study area increased over the past several decades. It is likely 

that this trend will continue, but this does not necessarily mean that income will grow faster than cost 

of living. During the last 10 years, housing costs have increased more rapidly than income. 

In 1999, for every household that made over $100K, 4.3 households made under $30K. 10 years 

earlier, for every household that made over $100K, 19.2 households made under $30K. The lower 

income categories have grown more slowly than the higher income. 

Since total personal income includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income 

sources like transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita income to rise, even if 

the average wage per job declines over time. In other words, non-labor sources of income can cause 

per capita income to rise, even if people are earning less per job. The opposite can also occur. The 

recent economic downturn has reversed this trend to some extent but this is not reflected in the data 

presented here. Per capita income, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $19,406 in 1970 to $28,598 in 

2005. In 2005, per capita income was lower than the state ($36,936) and the nation ($34,471) (Figure 

3.06-3). 

180 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3.06-2 Household Income 

Figure 3.06-3 Income (per capita) 

-

28,598 

0.0 

5.0 

10.0 

15.0 

20.0 

25.0 

30.0 

35.0 

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 

Thousands of 2005 $ 

Recession Bars 

Stanislaus NF - 4 County Aggregation-Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Tuolumne 

Household Income Distribution (Not adjusted for inflation) 

5,252 

4,046 

3,620 

3,856 

3,451 

2,876 

2,552 

2,036 

1,756 

2,459 

2,414 

1,247 

524 

209 

321 

4,377 

2,976 

3,266 

3,273 

3,129 

2,750 

2,980 

2,828 

2,347 

4,245 

4,375 

3,975 

1,872 

780 

1,349 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 

Less than $10,000 

$10,000 to $14,999 

$15,000 to $19,999 

$20,000 to $24,999 

$25,000 to $29,999 

$30,000 to $34,999 

$35,000 to $39,999 

$40,000 to $44,999 

$45,000 to $49,999 

$50,000 to $59,999 

$60,000 to $74,999 

$75,000 to $99,999 

$100,000 to $124,999 

$125,000 to $149,999 

$150,000 or more 

Thousands of Households 

1989 

1999 

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values 

While local communities are most affected economically by changes as a result of implementing a 

decision on motorized use, many visitors of the Forest, seeking a variety of benefits, could be 

affected. These benefits are both direct and indirect and often difficult to predict or measure. 

Individuals potentially affected may live locally, but often they are not, as previously discussed in the 

NVUM results. 

Lifestyles encompass the way people live and their relationship with the Forest. The Forest Plan used 

the following categories to discuss lifestyle differences and social impacts (USDA 1991d): 

181 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

 Native Americans (local tribes) 

 Long Time Residents (ranchers, working families). 

 Newcomers and Second Home Residents (retirees) 

 Regional Recreationists: Developed Site and Motorized Dispersed (activity oriented). 

 Local, Regional and Global Environmentalists 

The plan made the following characterizations: 

 Native Americans and Long Time residents share values, supporting commodity production/local 

jobs, hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering. Newcomers and Second home residents value the 

aesthetic backdrop, amenity values, and recreation opportunities of the Forest. 

 Regional Recreationists have similar interests as Newcomers but are less connected to local 

community life, since they may live far away from the Forest. They come to the Forest setting for 

a specific activity or set of activities. 

 Environmentalists value the integrity of ecosystems and oppose human activities that may impact 

natural systems. 

Comments received as part of public scoping and public comment for this project is a reflection of the 

above categories, covering many points of view and perspectives. 

Attitudes, belief and values shape the way people think about the Forest, including perceptions and 

opinions. The following discussion explores attitudes, beliefs, and values of the individual. People 

may seek basic and direct utilitarian benefits (gathering firewood/hunting game) at the basic level, or 

seek spiritual renewal and healing in the grandeur of the high Sierra (self actualization). Most 

recreation activities occur between these extremes or in combinations. Aesthetics may be based upon 

the success of the hunt alone, but usually involves factors such as beauty of the setting, 

companionship, challenge, etc. These secondary setting factors may be more important than the 

primary motivation, especially if the hunt is not successful. A popular local saying is; “If you’re lucky 

enough to be in the Mountains, you’re lucky enough!” The spectacular setting of the Forest adds 

value to any activity, but almost always a set of several activities are part of the recreation experience, 

which includes both motorized and non-motorized forms. It is usually not exclusively one or the 

other. 

Quality of life influences: Many people are attracted to the beauty of the mountains and the 

recreation opportunities that the Stanislaus National Forest provides. Access to the forest is important 

for everyone and polarized views exist about where and what type of access should be provided. 

Freedom to ride or drive a motorized vehicle on historically open but unauthorized routes is important 

to many. Others wish to enjoy the Forest without the noise of motors, especially loud dirt bikes. Many 

feel motor sports cause damage to the environment and are an inappropriate use on public lands. 

Changes relating to these beliefs may be viewed as a threat. 

Place Attachment: Family traditions and memories are often developed while spending time in the 

mountains. The discovery of “special places” and attachment to them occurs with familiarity. Kaplan 

(1993) suggests individuals in modern society need wild places to maintain health and balance. Once 

a place has meaning to an individual, family, or group, change is not welcome. Access to these places 

is an important consideration. 

Geo-Touring: The ability to move through the landscape in a motorized vehicle can be an 

experience unto itself. Tours or trail rides may have qualities similar to places described above. 

Freedom and Entitlement: Access to these places and travel through the landscape gives a sense of 

freedom, which is important in the West and an expression of the Forest Service recreation niche. 

Motorized access to dispersed recreation activities is uniquely Forest Service. Implementation of 

access restrictions has been controversial in the past. The Sagebrush Rebellion and Home Rule 

Movement were partly a response to perceived loss of freedom and independence. 

182 
Los Angeles and Los 

Angeles County

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3.06-4 Visitor Origin Maps 

RS-FMP focus 

San Joaquin 

County 

Alameda County 

Tuolumne 

County 

Mariposa County 

Stanislaus National Forest Visitor Market Zones

(from NVUM)

Stanislaus National Forest Visitor Market Zones 

(from NVUM) 

Sacramento 

Santa Clara 

County 

Contra Costa County 

Calaveras County 

Stanislaus 

County 

Alpine County 

San Francisco 

Yosemite 

National Park 

183 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Intrinsic values and environmentalism: As scientific knowledge and understanding of the 

environment has become more common, an appreciation for the interactions and interdependencies in 

nature has gained support. Gobster (1999) and others refer to this as an ecological aesthetic, meaning 

that pleasure is derived by knowing that natural systems are healthy and fit. The deep ecology 

movement and mother earth “Gaia” beliefs have blended science-based biodiversity and “web of life” 

knowledge with spiritual and symbolic value. This belief system may be intolerant of motor sports, 

viewing them as destructive and out of place in pristine wild landscapes. 

Sustainable Benefits: The above discussion points out that these benefits derived from recreation 

activities in the Forest depend on the belief system of the participant. Some people may be intimately 

familiar with the Forest while others feel strongly on issues without direct familiarity. Differing 

“world views” will lead to a different response to any proposed changes through implementation of a 

decision on motorized use. Due to increasing population, leading to more demand, it will be a 

challenge to maintain a range of quality opportunities for all visitors. Ideally, management strategies 

are targeted at maintaining maximum choices and minimum conflict between uses while protecting 

the resource. 

Recreation Use 

The following economic analysis uses the four county study area to model the impact of activities, 

since this is where economic effects of management changes will be felt the most. In contrast, social 

effects may be felt by visitors that are from the market zone, which is much larger than the study area. 

In Figure 3.06-4 on the previous page, the red counties account for 50% of the visitation. All of the 

study area falls within the red zone. The blue counties account for an additional 25%. The remaining 

25% is scattered around the country as illustrated in the lower map. The following information is 

derived from the NVUM surveys and census data. 

Figure 3.06-5 breaks down visitation into categories of local (less than 50 miles), which roughly 

conforms with the study zone, and non-local visitors that come from outside the zone. The Stanislaus 

National Forest has a very high participation by non-locals for day use and overnight visits. 

Figure 3.06-5 Visitor Characteristics: Segmentation of Visitors 

Stanislaus NF Segmentation of Visitors- Local/Non-local and Day/Overnight 

Stanislaus All Forests 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

21% 

24% 

26% 

4% 

18% 

0% 

8% 

45% 

7% 

5% 

20% 

8% 

NL-Day Local-Day NL-Overnight-NF Local-Overnight-NF NL-Overnight Local-Overnight 

184 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Figure 3.06-6 compares the ethnic makeup of the market zone to actual National Forest visitors. 

Forest visitors are very close in ethnicity to the make up of the study area. Similar to other National 

Forests, men participate at a higher rate (68.4%) than women (31.6%). 

Figure 3.06-6 Visitor Characteristics: Ethnicity 

Stanislaus and Market Zone Comparison 

Stanislaus Market Zone 

5% 

1% 

7% 

1% 2% 2% 

14% 

23% 

0% 1% 

12% 

87% 

7% 

61% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

White Asian African American Spanish, Hispanic Native Hawaiian American Indian/ Other 

or Latino Pacific Islander Alaska Native 

Figure 3.06-7 Visitor Characteristics: Age Distribution 

Age Groups of Visitors 

Stanislaus R5 Average National Average 

0.0% 

5.0% 

10.0% 

15.0% 

20.0% 

25.0% 

30.0% 

Under 16 16 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 Over 70 

The Stanislaus National Forest has a very high participation rate by children, almost double the 

national average. 

185 
 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Activity Types 

Table 3.06-5 presents participation rates by activity during the NVUM survey period. The Total 

Activity Participation (%) column of the table presents the percent of participation for all recreation 

activities during the 2006/2007 study period. Participation rates will exceed 100% since visitors can 

participate in multiple activities. The Percent as Main Activity column displays the participation rates 

in terms of primary or main activity. Each person interviewed was asked to select one activity as their 

#1 reason for visiting the Forest. 

Table 3.06-5 Activity Participation 

Activity 

Activity Emphasis 

for Road & Trail 

Use 

Total Activity 

Participation (%) 1 

Percent as Main (Primary) 

Activity (%) 2 

Snowmobiling Motorized 1.8 1.5 

Driving for Pleasure Motorized 19.9 1.9 

OHV Use Motorized 22.1 8.1 

Other Motorized Activity Motorized .1 .1 

Motorized Subtotal 11.6 

Hiking / Walking Non-motorized 36.2 7.7 

Bicycling Non-motorized 3.2 0.6 

Other Non-motorized Non-motorized 18.7 3.2 

Cross-country Skiing Non-motorized 1.8 1.1 

Backpacking Non-motorized 2.2 0.3 

Horseback Riding Non-motorized 1.8 0.9 

Non-motorized Subtotal 13.8 

Downhill Skiing Other 11.4 10.9 

Fishing Other 18.7 8.0 

Viewing Natural Features Other 75.3 42.0 

Relaxing Other 35.2 8.2 

Motorized Water Activities Other 2.3 0.1 

Hunting Other 9.0 7.7 

Non-motorized Water Other 7.9 3.5 

Developed Camping Other 16.2 3.5 

Primitive Camping Other 5.7 0.4 

Picnicking Other 20.5 2.3 

Viewing Wildlife Other 32.0 0.7 

Sightseeing Other 0.0 0.0 

No Activity Reported Other 9.1 9.1 

Resort Use Other 6.6 0.9 

Visiting Historic Sites Other 2.5 0.0 

Nature Study Other 1.9 0.0 

Gathering Forest 

Products Other 4.1 0.0 

Nature Center Activities Other 1.3 0.0 

Other activities Subtotal 97.3 

Total 122.7 

1 Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%. The number in this 

column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity. 

2 Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit.
 

Some respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%. The number in this column 

is the percent of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity. 

Note- Motorized trail use is combined with OHV Use rather than the Other Motorized category. 

The primary activity participation rates (Percent as Main Activity) displayed in Table 3.06-5 and 

Figure 3.06-8 were used to estimate use by the activity. The emphasis areas were grouped into 

motorized, non-motorized, and other activities. Motorized activities use motor vehicles on Forest 

Service roads and trails. Non-motorized activities still use Forest roads and trails to access their 

destination, but then travel by foot or by non-motorized transportation such as cross country skis or 

bicycles. All other activities are the Forest based activities measured by the NVUM survey that didn’t 

utilize roads or trails to pursue their primary activity. Examples of “other” are downhill skiing, 

186 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

motorized water activities, etc. Motor vehicles may have been used to reach a destination or 

participate in the activity, but it was not the primary emphasis of the visit. 

Figure 3.06-8 National Forest Recreation Visits (in thousands) by Activity Group. 

Primary vs. Participation: Stanislaus NF 

Primary Visits Participation Visits 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Table 3.06-6 displays the number of party trips for these activities. During the NVUM survey the 

number of people in their group or “party” was identified. Since transportation costs, etc. are affected 

by the number of people traveling together, the individual use data has been translated into “parties”. 

A Party-Trip is equal to the number of visits divided by the average party size. This data is stratified 

by the origin of the visitor. The number of visits is based on the primary purpose for the visit (Percent 

as Main Activity) displayed in Table 3.06-5 and the total number of visits of 1,817,200 reported in 

NVUM (USDA 2004b, USDA 2008b). Visitors were determined to be either local or non-local based 

on the miles from the visitor’s residence to the Forest boundary. If the visitor reported living within 

50 miles of the Forest boundary, they are considered local; if over 50 miles, they are considered nonlocal. It is critically important to distinguish between local and non-local spending as only non-locals 

bring new money and new economic stimulus into the local community. Local spending is already 

accounted for in the study area base data. It is currently not possible to predict how locals would have 

spent money if they didn’t have local recreation opportunities on the National Forest, but it’s a safe 

estimate that much of that money would not have been lost to the local economy. People tend to 

substitute other local recreation activities or change the time or place for continuing the same activity 

rather than traveling long distances and incurring high costs to do the same activity. Recreation visits 

to the Stanislaus National Forest are divided into local and non-local visitors. If the visitor reported 

living within 50 miles of the forest boundary, they are considered local; if over 50 miles, they are 

considered non-local. Results indicated that approximately 28% of recreation visitors were from the 

local area while 60% were non-locals. The remaining 12% are classified as non-primary visitors, or 

those who indicated that recreating on the National Forest was not their primary purpose. Local and 

NonMotorized Motorized Wildlife Nature Related All Other 

Activity Group 

187 
 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

non-local visitors were further divided by those staying overnight on and off the forest and those on 

day trips. Thus the seven trip type segments are listed below: 

1.	 Visitors who reside greater than 50 miles from visited Forest: Non-local residents on day trips, 

Non-local residents staying overnight on the Forest, and Non-local residents staying overnight off 

the Forest. 

2.	 Visitors who live within 50 miles of the Forest: Local residents on day trips, Local residents 

staying overnight on the Forest, Local residents staying overnight off the Forest, and Nonprimary visitors. 

Table 3.06-6 Party Trips by Activity 

Activity Use (Party Trips) 

Non-local Day Use Non-local Overnight Local Day use Local Overnight Non-Primary 

Non-motorized 

Hiking/Walking 4,344 8,429 39,913 3,110 2,534 

Bicycling 339 657 3,110 242 197 

Other Non-motorized 1,805 3,503 16,587 1,293 1,053 

Cross-country Skiing 582 1,804 3,825 283 65 

Backpacking 0 803 0 872 39 

Horseback Riding 508 985 4,665 364 296 

Motorized 

Snowmobiling 707 1,155 5,505 1,031 926 

Driving for Pleasure 804 974 11,099 384 1,290 

OHV Use 1,396 2,453 6,398 1,866 410 

Other Motorized Activity 4,965 8,720 22,748 6,635 1,458 

Other 

Fishing 6,516 12,363 28,210 5,213 2,257 

Hunting 2,715 12,004 33,541 13,204 1,711 

Viewing Wildlife 415 960 1,742 302 614 

Motorized Water Activities 78 136 355 104 23 

Non-motorized Water 1,975 3,831 18,142 1,414 1,152 

Downhill Skiing 5,381 12,684 32,286 10,332 2,783 

Developed Camping 1,728 4,073 10,367 3,317 894 

Primitive Camping 0 1,071 0 1,162 52 

Resort Use 444 1,047 2,666 853 230 

Picnicking 1,135 2,676 6,813 2,180 587 

Viewing Natural Features 24,881 57,595 104,500 18,142 36,861 

Visiting Historic Sites 0 0 0 0 0 

Nature Center Activities 0 0 0 0 0 

Nature Study 0 0 0 0 0 

Relaxing 4,048 9,542 24,289 7,772 2,094 

Gathering Forest Products 0 0 0 0 0 

Sightseeing 0 0 0 0 0 

No Activity Reported 4,492 10,589 26,954 8,625 2,324 

Note: Motorized Trail use is included in the Other Motorized activity category in this table. 

Table 3.06-6 indicates the most popular non-motorized use category is hiking and walking, followed 

by other Non-motorized (which is primarily swimming). The most popular motorized use is driving 

for pleasure, followed by OHV use (if motorized trails are included). Hunting is categorized as 

“other” meaning it is neither motorized nor non-motorized in the following tables. Evidence suggests 

that hunting activities are conducted with motorized vehicles and therefore could have been added to 

the motorized grouping. Hunting has about the same economic influence as snowmobiling. Many of 

the activities listed under Non Motorized and Other are dependant upon motorized access. Almost all 

visitors drive to the location of their activity in a motor vehicle. Many use AWD or 4WD vehicles to 

get to their destination or activity location which may use unauthorized routes. Without this access 

the activity would likely not occur at many locations. If this motorized use were included, motorized 

activity would have significantly higher values overall. 

Table 3.06-7 indicates that snowmobilers spend the most per visit and backpackers and primitive 

campers the least. With the exception of snomobiling and backpacking, non-motorized spending is 

188 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

much higher than motorized for non-locals. Visitors that travel a longer distance to the Forest spend 

more per visit than local visitors, primarily because of overnight lodging expenditures. Motorized day 

use expenditures are generally higher than for non-motorized activities. Non-local overnight visitors 

engaged in non-motorized activities generally expend more than non-local motorized visitors (except 

for snowmobiling). 

Table 3.06-7 Expenditures by Activity 

Activity Expenditures ($ per visit) 

Non-local Day Use Non-local Overnight Local Day use Local Overnight Non-Primary 

Non-motorized 

Hiking/Walking 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41 

Bicycling 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41 

Other Non-motorized 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41 

Cross-country Skiing 18.93 119.64 14.78 87.39 13.60 

Backpacking 0.00 40.38 0.00 36.15 0.00 

Horseback Riding 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41 

Motorized 

Snowmobiling 49.09 128.80 29.57 68.93 28.33 

Driving for Pleasure 17.62 66.54 13.33 42.73 10.00 

OHV Use 28.57 64.80 19.00 48.50 14.62 

Other Motorized Activity 28.57 64.80 19.00 48.50 14.62 

Other 

Fishing 21.00 95.65 20.00 48.00 20.00 

Hunting 38.10 116.32 30.00 79.47 25.50 

Viewing Wildlife 20.80 82.59 10.80 53.75 10.00 

Motorized Water Activities 28.57 64.80 19.00 48.50 14.62 

Non-motorized Water 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41 

Downhill Skiing 36.36 117.93 25.24 89.13 27.89 

Developed Camping 0.00 50.36 0.00 41.29 0.00 

Primitive Camping 0.00 40.38 0.00 36.15 0.00 

Resort Use 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41 

Picnicking 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41 

Viewing Natural Features 20.80 82.59 10.80 53.75 10.00 

Visiting Historic Sites 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41 

Nature Center Activities 20.80 82.59 10.80 53.75 10.00 

Nature Study 20.80 82.59 10.80 53.75 10.00 

Relaxing 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41 

Gathering Forest Products 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41 

Sightseeing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

No Activity Reported 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41 

Note: Motorized Trail use is placed in the Other Motorized activity. Since the expenditures are the same, this does not distort the results 

by group. 

Table 3.06-8 displays the estimated employment and labor income response coefficients (employment 

and labor income per 1,000 visits) by local and non-local activity types. The response coefficients 

indicate the number of full and part-time jobs and dollars of labor income per thousand visits by 

activity type. The response coefficients are useful in: 1) understanding the economic effects tied to a 

given use level; 2) understanding projected employment effects for various use scenarios (sensitivity 

analysis); and 3) understanding the differences in employment effects by activity type. The response 

coefficients in Table 3.06-8 along with the visits presented in Table 3.06-6 were used to estimate the 

economic effects for local and non-local use by activity type. 

Table 3.06-8 indicates the following: First, economic effects tied to local visitation generate lower 

employment and labor income effects. This is a result of local visitors spending less per visit in 

comparison to non-local visitors (Table 3.06-7). Second, economic effects vary widely by motorized 

and non-motorized activity types. The lowest employment effect is tied to local hiking/walking, 

bicycling, and other non-motorized and horseback riding activities (Note: the economic effects are 

identical for these categories since they share the same spending profile). Third, the largest economic 

effect is associated with non-local cross-country skiing, but is followed fairly closely by non-local 

189 
 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

snowmobiling. In general, economic effects vary by the amount of spending and by the type of 

activity, but it can not be generalized that motorized or non-motorized activities contribute more or 

less to the local economy on a per visit basis. It is also important to be careful with the use of 

response coefficients. They reflect an economic structure that is a snapshot in time, that is, they are 

not applicable to visitation numbers that are dramatically different from current recreation levels. If 

recreation activities and/or visits changed radically, the economy would shift as spending patterns 

changed and these response coefficients would no longer reflect underlying economic processes. 

Table 3.06-8 Employment and Labor Income Response Coefficients by Activity Type 

Activity Type 

Employment 

(Jobs per 1,000 Party-Trips) 

Labor Income (2006 dollars) 

($ per 1,000 Party-Trips) 

Direct Effects Indirect 

Effects Direct Effects Indirect Effects 

Non-motorized Use 

Hiking/ Walking, 

Bicycling, Horseback 

Riding, Other Nonmotorized 

Local Day 0 0 $4,409 $1,549 

Local OVN 1 0 $20,561 $7,896 

Non Local Day 0 0 $9,462 $3,105 

Non Local OVN 3 1 $64,356 $24,578 

NP 0 0 $4,409 $1,549 

Backpacking 

Local Day 0 0 $0 $0 

Local OVN 1 0 $19,671 $7,600 

Non Local Day 0 0 $0 $0 

Non Local OVN 1 0 $25,302 $8,847 

NP 1 0 $19,671 $7,600 

Motorized Use 

OHV Use 

Local Day 0 0 $7,921 $2,765 

Local OVN 1 0 $21,197 $8,018 

Non Local Day 0 0 $12,451 $4,347 

Non Local OVN 1 0 $35,329 $13,363 

NP 0 0 $7,921 $2,765 

Driving 

Local Day 0 0 $4,964 $1,650 

Local OVN 1 0 $26,852 $10,241 

Non Local Day 0 0 $7,806 $2,594 

Non Local OVN 2 1 $44,761 $17,072 

NP 0 0 $0 $0 

Snowmobile 

Local Day 1 0 $14,292 $4,866 

Local OVN 2 1 $49,206 $19,230 

Non Local Day 1 0 $23,666 $8,332 

Non Local OVN 4 1 $82,015 $32,051 

NP 1 0 $14,292 $4,866 

Cross Country Ski 

Local Day 0 0 $7,880 $2,963 

Local OVN 2 1 $53,510 $21,178 

Non Local Day 1 0 $12,378 $4,655 

Non Local OVN 4 1 $89,189 $35,299 

NP 0 0 $4,964 $1,650 

All Other Use 

All Other Activities 

Local Day 0 0 $8,347 $2,858 

Local OVN 1 0 $33,917 $10,756 

Non Local Day 1 0 $13,973 $4,561 

Non Local OVN 2 1 $65,147 $19,943 

NP 0 0 $8,347 $2,858 

All Other Activities includes Developed Camping, Primitive Camping, Resort Use, Picnicking, 

Viewing Natural Features, Visiting Historic Sites, Nature Center Activities, Nature Study, Relaxing, 

Fishing, Hunting, Motorized Water Activities, Non-motorized Water, Downhill Skiing, Gathering 

Forest Products, Viewing Wildlife, Sightseeing, and No Activity Reported. 

Motorized activities were responsible for approximately 46 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) 

and $1.3 million total labor income (direct, indirect and induced). The two largest motorized uses are 

OHV Use and snowmobiling. These two activities contribute about 6.4% of the jobs from the 

190 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

activities in the table, and provide about 6.0% of the labor income. Together these two activities 

contribute 37 jobs and provide about $1.0 million in labor income to the area. 

Motorized and Non-motorized Use 

Table 3.06-9 displays the estimated employment and labor income effects for current use levels 

reported by NVUM for local and non-local non-motorized and motorized activities. Table 3.06-10 

expresses these employment and labor income effects as a percent of total employment and income 

for each activity. In general, the estimated economic effects are a function of the number of visits and 

the dollars spent locally by the visitors. Activities that draw more visitors will be responsible for more 

economic activity in comparison to activities that draw fewer visitors, holding constant spending per 

visit. Given that the analysis is dependent on visitation and expenditure estimates, any changes to 

these estimates affect the estimated jobs and labor income. 

Table 3.06-9 Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type 

Activity 

Employment 

(full & part-time jobs) 

Labor Income 

(2008 dollars) 

Direct Indirect & Induced Direct Indirect & Induced 

Non-Motorized use 

Backpacking - Local 1 0 $17,746 $6,856 

Non-local 1 0 $21,036 $7,355 

Hiking/Walking - Local 10 3 $248,347 $89,432 

Non-local 25 7 $604,069 $228,415 

Horseback Riding - Local 1 0 $29,028 $10,453 

Non-local 3 1 $70,605 $26,698 

Bicycling - Local 1 0 $19,352 $6,969 

Non-local 2 1 $47,070 $17,799 

Cross-country Skiing - Local 2 1 $46,892 $17,942 

Non-local 7 2 $173,978 $68,708 

Other Non-motorized - Local 4 1 $103,209 $37,167 

Non-local 10 3 $251,042 $94,926 

Total Non-motorized 67 18 $1,632,374 $612,719 

Subtotal 86 $2,245,093 

Motorized Use 

OHV Use - Local 4 1 $93,404 $33,803 

Non-local 4 1 $107,691 $40,210 

Driving for Pleasure - Local 3 1 $67,699 $23,020 

Non-local 2 1 $51,629 $19,372 

Snowmobiling - Local 5 1 $133,988 $48,261 

Non-local 5 1 $115,390 $44,424 

Other Motorized Activity - Local 13 4 $332,103 $120,188 

Non-local 15 4 $382,901 $142,968 

Total Motorized 51 14 $1,284,805 $472,245 

Subtotal 65 $1,757,050 

All Other Uses 

All Other Activities - Local 157 47 $4,484,967 $1,520,782 

Non-local 358 101 $9,435,660 $3,299,322 

Total Other 515 148 $13,920,627 $4,820,103 

Subtotal 664 $18,740,731 

Grand Total 633 181 $16,837,806 $5,905,068 

Grand Subtotal 814 $22,742,874 

Note: Motorized Trail use is placed in the Other Motorized activity in the above table. 

Non motorized activities generate approximately 85 total average annual jobs in the 4 county area 

(direct, indirect and induced, full-time, temporary, and part-time) and $2.2 million total labor income 

(direct, indirect and induced). The two largest activities among those in the table are hiking/walking 

and other non-motorized. Together these account for about 11.2% of the jobs and 10.3% of the 

income generated from the activities analyzed, accounting for about 65 jobs and $1.7 million in labor 

income to the four county areas. 

191 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Motorized activities were responsible for approximately 65 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) 

and $1.8 million in total labor income (direct, indirect and induced). The two largest motorized uses 

are OHV Use (including the motorized trail component of other motorized) and snowmobiling. These 

two activities contribute 46 jobs and provide about $1.2 million in labor income to the area. 

“All Other Activities” (see Table 3.06-7) are significant economic contributors for the activities 

studied. They provide 515 jobs, or 63% of the jobs from the activities analyzed. Labor income is 

about $18.74 million, or 83% of the income generated by all activities. Many of these activities are 

dependant upon motorized access and could be affected by changes. 

Table 3.06-10 shows that about 10.5% of the jobs provided from all activities are from non-motorized 

use, 7.9% from motorized use and 81.5% from “Other Activities.” The contributions to labor income 

are 9.9% non-motorized use, 7.7% motorized use and 82.4% from “Other Activities.” 

Table 3.06-10 Percent of Total Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type 

Activity 

Employment 

(% of full & part-time jobs) 

Labor Income - 2008 dollars 

(% of total income) 

Direct Indirect & Induced Direct Indirect & Induced 

Non-Motorized Use 

Backpacking - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

Backpacking - Non-local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

Hiking/Walking - Local 1.2% 0.3% 1.1% 0.4% 

Hiking/Walking - Non-local 3.1% 0.8% 2.7% 1.0% 

Horseback Riding - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

Horseback Riding - Non-local 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 

Bicycling - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

Bicycling - Non-local 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 

Cross-country Skiing - Local 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 

Cross country Skiing - Non-local 0.9% 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% 

Other Non-motorized - Local 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 

Other Non-motorized - Non-local 1.3% 0.3% 1.1% 0.4% 

Total Non-motorized 8.3% 2.3% 7.2% 2.7% 

Motorized Use 

OHV Use - Local 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 

OHV Use - Non-local 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 

Driving for Pleasure - Local 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 

Driving for Pleasure - Non-local 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 

Snowmobiling - Local 0.7% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 

Snowmobiling - Non-local 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 

Other Motorized Activity - Local 1.6% 0.4% 1.5% 0.5% 

Other Motorized Activity - Non-local 1.8% 0.5% 1.7% 0.6% 

Total Motorized 6.2% 1.7% 5.6% 2.1% 

All Other Use 

All Other Use - Local 19.3% 5.8% 19.7% 6.7% 

All Other Use - Non-local 44.0% 12.4% 41.5% 14.5% 

Total Other 63.3% 18.2% 61.2% 21.2% 

Totals 77.8% 22.2% 74.0% 26.0% 

100.0% 100.0% 

Table 3.06-11 summarizes effects by the various categories previously discussed. Local motorized 

use has 31 jobs associated with it. This is more than the 24 local jobs associated with non motorized 

use. The opposite is the case with non local category. Recreation on the Stanislaus National Forest is 

responsible for a total of 814 jobs in the four county area. 

192 
Non-Motorized L 

Non-Motorized NL 

Motorized L 

Motorized NL 

Wildlife Related L 

Wildlife Related NL 

Nature Related L 

Nature Related NL 

All Other L 

All Other NL 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.06-11 Employment and Labor Income Effects 

Activity Type Employment Effects 

(full and part time jobs) 

Labor Income 

(2008 dollars) 

Non-Motorized Use Local 24 633,392 

Non Local 62 1,611,701 

Motorized Use Local 31 852,466 

Non Local 34 904,585 

All Other Use Local 204 6,005,749 

Non Local 459 12,734,982 

Grand Total Local 259 7,491,607 

Non Local 555 15,251,267 

Total for Area 814 22,742,874 

Figure 3.06-9 Employment and Labor Income by Activity 

500 

Travel Management Impacts of Employment 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

Employment

Employment Direct 

Employment Indirect 

Employment Induced 

50 

0 

Figure3.06-9 distributes the employment and labor income values activities. 

Table 3.06-12 shows the current role of Forest Service recreation and related contributions to the area 

economy. The other primary industries are included for comparison. 

Table 3.06-13 shows the relationship of jobs and income generated from all recreation activities 

studied, compared to total jobs and income in the 4 county areas. All of the recreation related jobs 

together only account for about 1.83% of the total jobs in the area, and the income generated is about 

1.27% of the total labor income in the area studied. Since only a fraction of the overall recreation use 

on the Forest is affected, the differences between alternatives are too small for comparison of effects. 

Predictions about changes in the study area economy from recreational use on the Forest are difficult 

to make and would be highly speculative. The Forest Service believes that under all action 

alternatives, levels of use would be relatively static, although the use patterns may change. For 

example, even though the overall number of available roads and trails is reduced in all of the action 

alternatives, the same levels of motorized use would concentrate in the remaining areas. At some 

193 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

point some visitors would no longer attain the experience they desire and would likely seek other 

areas, off-forest, or not participate in the activity. 

Table 3.06-12 Role of Forest Service Recreation and Related Contributions to the Area Economy 

Industry Employment (jobs) Labor Income (millions of dollars) 

Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related 

Agriculture 575 7 $17 $0.145 

Mining 126 4 $11 $0.561 

Utilities 154 1 $15 $0.136 

Construction 5,035 5 $269 $0.261 

Manufacturing 1,607 20 $86 $0.714 

Wholesale Trade 468 36 $25 $1.957 

Transportation & Warehousing 1,070 26 $39 $0.959 

Retail Trade 4,805 88 $153 $2.966 

Information 493 10 $28 $0.463 

Finance & Insurance 1,021 7 $41 $0.309 

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 2,780 37 $66 $0.850 

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services 2,022 19 $105 $0.691 

Management of Companies 197 4 $11 $0.229 

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem Serv 1,282 11 $32 $0.256 

Educational Services 438 4 $6 $0.057 

Health Care & Social Assistance 3,754 18 $175 $0.840 

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 1,390 102 $21 $2.000 

Accommodation & Food Services 5,648 381 $131 $7.093 

Other Services 3,380 20 $75 $0.431 

Government 9,933 45 $550 $2.691 

Total 46,179 845 $1,856 $23.609 

FS as Percent of Total --- 1.83% --- 1.27% 

Table 3.06-13 Employment and Labor Income Effects 

Activity Type Employment Effects 

(%full and part time jobs) 

Labor Income - 2008 dollars 

(% of total labor income) 

Non-Motorized 

All Non-Motorized Local 0.062% 0.043% 

Non Local 0.148% 0.099% 

Total Non-Motorized 1 0.213% 0.144% 

Motorized 

All Motorized Local 0.049% 0.034% 

Non Local 0.051% 0.035% 

Total Motorized1 0.103% 0.071% 

Nature Related 

Fishing Local 0.056% 0.040% 

Non Local 0.108% 0.075% 

Hunting Local 0.012% 0.008% 

Non Local 0.010% 0.007% 

Nature Related Local 0.013% 0.009% 

Non Local 0.084% 0.055% 

Total Nature Related1 0.290% 0.200% 

All Other 

All Other Local 0.253% 0.203% 

Non Local 0.378% 0.296% 

Total All Other1 0.641% 0.507% 

Study Area Total 46,179 1,792,717,000 

1 Percent calculations for Totals included Non-Primary, NP. 

Although the Forestwide effect is minor, there may be substantial impacts to particular segments. The 

season of use and wet weather restrictions have the potential to disrupt established activities. Tourism 

related businesses experience low use during the early spring and late fall (between main recreation 

season and winter skiing). Loss of revenue during this time could have consequences greater than the 

prior numbers suggest. Lodging, resorts, and outfitter guide services could result in lost revenues if 

the Forest is closed during opening weeks of fishing season and for the late fall hunting season, as 

proposed in alternatives 1 and 5. Firewood cutting and gathering of forest products could also be 

194 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

affected. The wet weather closure could disrupt many endeavors dependant upon access during the 

season of use. This could affect planned events in the backcountry such as weddings, reunions, group 

rides, etc., resulting in a loss of revenue. Any of the above impacts could force seasonal business 

closures, or even bankruptcy for those businesses relying on the National Forest to be an available 

recreational resource. The effect on overall economics would be speculative and the point in time 

when this would occur is also speculative. Qualitative factors are discussed in more detail in the 

lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, and values section. 

Roads and Trails Budget Projections 

The road system was largely constructed and maintained in the past as a component of timber sales. 

The significant reduction in timber harvest has left much of the system without needed maintenance. 

The current emphasis on fuel reduction will result in limited maintenance in some areas. The roads on 

the Forest are gradually deteriorating due to surfacing being worn out and/or storm damage. Some of 

the roads are being encroached upon by brush; and unless the brush is cleared, the roads will 

eventually become impassable. In some cases vegetation encroachment may result in less sight 

distance for drivers, which may result in a safety concern over time. 

Table 3-06-14 Road and Trail Construction and Maintenance Budget 

Fiscal Year Roads Total Road Maintenance 4 Trails Total OHV Trails Maintenance 

FY04 $575,000 $345,000 $117,094 $16,500 2 

FY05 $932,336 $559,400 $187,000 $13,000 1 

$30,900 2 

FY06 $735,000 $441,000 $177,227 $30,000 3 

$50,334 2 

FY07 $842,000 $505,000 $71,000 $53,942 2 

FY08 $777,000 $466,200 $162,000 $50,000 (est.) 2 

1

 OHV State of California grant funding for Operations and Maintenance, included Enforcement and trail maintenance 2

 A number of trails have been adopted by OHV clubs who provide trail maintenance. This is the annual volunteer dollar value 

contributed 

3

 Appropriated amount 

4

 Approximately 40/60 split of funds between planning and road maintenance activities 

In the past, trail funding has been used primarily to maintain Wilderness trails. Non-motorized trails 

outside of the Wilderness have received maintenance by several volunteer groups. The value of this 

service was not available to be reflected in Table 3.06-14. OHV trail maintenance was funded through 

the California OHV grant program at a higher level prior to 2004. The lack of funding has contributed 

to an increase in deferred maintenance similar to roads. The Forest will be seeking volunteer 

assistance and grants in the future for trail maintenance funding. The Forest continues to be 

competitive in receiving law enforcement funding through the California State OHV Cooperative 

Agreements program. 

Appropriated funding has been uneven over the past five years and no prediction or trend is apparent. 

Appropriated funding alone is not adequate to sustain the system in the long run. If this funding does 

not increase in the future, the Forest will need to rely on outside funding sources, partnerships, and 

volunteers to accomplish this work. 

Environmental Consequences 

The following descriptions by alternative focus on the amount of change that is proposed under each 

alternative. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative seeks a balance between quality OHV riding opportunity and protection of resources. 

Compared to Alternative 2, major changes would be felt by some individuals since continued cross 

195 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

country motorized use will be eliminated forestwide but less of a change than in Alternatives 3 or 5. 

Additions of trails and changes to the existing road system would occur. Season of use limitations 

would close the high country during early spring, same as alternative 5, but would remain open longer 

in November. Some established patterns of backcountry travel would be affected. Motorized access to 

dispersed recreation sites would be reduced significantly but less than Alternative 3 and 5. New 

campsites would proliferate over time, impacting land and the driving experience. Social effects will 

vary by location and the values/preferences of individuals. At the forest scale, opportunities remain 

for all visitors. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

An examination of the past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B 

(Cumulative Effects Analysis) shows that opportunities for jobs and income to the counties will 

continue indefinitely. Forest projects such as thinning, shredding, fuels reduction, vegetation 

management, and grazing will continue into the future. Jobs related to those projects will also be 

available. Forest Service recreation associated businesses (permitted) such as resorts and their 

associated services of lodging, restaurants and boat rentals; ski areas; organization camps; and, 

concessionaire managed campgrounds are examples of where jobs would be available to the local 

community. The additional Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools Act funding 

continues to support jobs and spending locally. No actions in this project would jeopardize these 

funding programs. Future consideration of dispersed recreation access routes (not included in this 

analysis) would increase the number of NFTS routes available for motorized access and restore 

motorized use to many popular locations. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative would have the least change, but over time would have undesirable effects. Route 

proliferation, impacts to private land, and inability to enforce/restrict inappropriate use would 

continue and increase over time. Motorized recreation opportunities and travel for other reasons 

(firewood gathering, prospecting, etc.) would continue. Since human activities are dispersed, fairly 

low levels of motorized use occur over expansive areas. Motorized freedom would have few 

limitations, resulting in conflict with non motorized uses and private land. Enforcement would be 

ineffective and monitoring of trail conditions difficult. Resource impacts at some locations would not 

be acceptable. This is the only alternative that would not significantly reduce motorized access to 

dispersed recreation sites. Season of use would not change. 

Although this alternative presents little or no short-term change, this approach is not sustainable given 

our mission. The quality of the recreation setting and the ability to manage the resource will degrade 

over time. Conflicts between uses will increase. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

An examination of the past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B 

(Cumulative Effects Analysis) shows that opportunities for jobs and income to the counties will 

continue indefinitely. Forest projects such as thinning, shredding, fuels reduction, vegetation 

management and grazing will continue into the future. Jobs related to those projects will also be 

available. Forest Service recreation associated businesses (permitted) such as resorts and their 

associated services of lodging, restaurants and boat rentals; ski areas; organization camps; and, 

concessionaire managed campgrounds are examples of where jobs would be available to the local 

community. The additional Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools Act funding 

continues to support jobs and spending locally. No actions in this project would jeopardize these 

funding programs. Existing dispersed recreation use would continue and expand. 

196 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative would eliminate cross country travel resulting in the least amount of motorized 

opportunities and the greatest increase in non-motorized opportunities. This alternative has the 

greatest degree of change for affecting uses (contrasting with alternative 2). It will affect the most 

people. Under this alternative, non-street-legal vehicle use would be limited to the current NFTS 

OHV trails and roads which allow all motorized traffic, resulting in concentrated use at the existing 

NFTS opportunities. Desirable additions or changes to the existing road system would not occur. 

Season of use would not change, but established patterns of backcountry travel would be affected. 

Motorized access to dispersed recreation sites would not continue, except along existing NFTS routes. 

The implementation of this alternative would have an immediate impact on motorized capacity which 

will become more severe over time. Since demand would not be met on many areas of the Forest, use 

would have to go to other locations on the Forest, to other locations off the Forest (if available), or 

abandon the activity. Dispersed camping sites along NFTS routes would likely proliferate over time, 

impacting land and the driving experience. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative would emphasize quality OHV riding opportunity while also protecting the resource. 

Compared to Alternative 2, major changes would be felt by motorized users but fewer than 

Alternatives 1, 3 or 5. Demand would be met for off-road OHV use without concentrations of use that 

would significantly change the experience. Some desirable additions or changes to the existing road 

system would occur. Season of use would be longer than Alternatives 1 or 5. Zones 1 and 2 are 

available for opening day of fishing season and all of December. Some established patterns of 

backcountry travel would be affected, but many route and loop opportunities would continue. Some 

non- motorized (quiet recreation) activities will benefit from the closures, but not as many as in 

Alternative 1 or 5. Motorized access to dispersed recreation sites would be reduced, but not as much 

as Alternative 1, 3 or 5. New campsites would proliferate over time, impacting land and the driving 

experience. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative emphasizes the protection of resource values over recreational opportunities, 

including dispersed camping access and OHV trails. Season of use is shorter than alternatives 1 and 4. 

Zone 3 is closed for opening of fishing season and late November. Many established patterns of 

backcountry travel would be affected since many proposed routes fail to create motorized loop 

opportunities. Motorized access to dispersed recreation sites would be limited, and less than 

Alternatives 1 or 4. 

The implementation of this alternative would have an immediate impact on capacity for motorized 

use which will become more severe over time. Since demand would not be met on many areas of the 

Forest, use would have to go to other locations on the Forest, to other locations off the Forest (if 

197 
 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

available), or abandon the activity. Dispersed camping sites along NFTS routes would likely 

proliferate over time, impacting land and the driving experience. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

While many opportunities on other public lands for non-motorized activities exist, the Stanislaus 

National Forest is the major public provider in the area for OHV use and the primary provider of 

motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. Since theses types of use are not allowed or can not be 

accommodated by the other recreation providers, OHV advocates are justifiably concerned about a 

potential loss of opportunity. The significance of OHV use on the Forest is discussed in more detail in 

Chapter 3.04 (Recreation). The surge in demand and reduction of capacity in all of the action 

alternatives would potentially translate into one or more of the following change scenarios: 

 Higher concentrations of OHV motorized use will occur where allowed, resulting in displacement 

of non-motorized activities to other areas. Negative impacts could occur to resources at those 

concentrated locations in Alternatives 3 and 5, but this will reduce impacts elsewhere. 

 Many areas will become free of OHV motorized trail use in Alternatives 3 and 5, less so in 1 and 

4. This will have a beneficial effect for visitors that do not want to be near OHVs, or hear the 

sound of them at a distance. 

 Long distance touring opportunities for non street legal vehicles will be reduced as some current 

loops and interconnected routes lose continuity, especially in Alternatives 3 and 5. 

 Degradation in the recreation experience for many off-highway users (more traffic, more dust, 

more noise and fumes) would occur in Alternatives 3 and 5. During peak use periods, the 

experience will become more like an OHV park and less like a motorized ride in a natural 

landscape. Alternatives 1 and 4 would spread out use and reduce congestion. Alternatives 3 and 5 

concentrate OHV use. 

 Many familiar routes and special places will not have motorized access in the future. Some routes 

will have limitations on the type of motorized use. 

 The above effect will be felt more significantly by users of non highway legal vehicles (dirt bikes, 

ATVs, rock crawlers, etc.). 

 The experience of driving for pleasure on forest roads that have mixed uses of ATVs, dirt bikes, 

rock crawlers and high clearance vehicles such as SUVs, varies between alternatives. Alternatives 

1 and 4 have the most mixed use, while Alternatives 3 and 5 have the least amount of mixed use. 

 The access to motorized camping in undeveloped areas will be concentrated at the designated 

routes that were able to be analyzed in this project or be relocated along NFTS roadsides. Where 

this displacement occurs it will degrade both the dispersed camping activity and driving 

experience for road travelers because of close proximity to the routes. 

 Season of use changes within zones 2 and 3 would have a significant impact on many individuals, 

primarily during the early spring and late fall. Zone 3 would be closed for opening of fishing 

season in alternatives 1 and 5. Late fall hunting is also affected. The closures will affect all 

motorized and many non motorized activities, dependant upon vehicle access. The wet weather 

closure would introduce a variable of uncertainty that would make planning difficult. Back 

country access would be disrupted during the closures. 

Motorized access to dispersed recreation sites varies by alternative similar to OHV use, so the two 

different activities can be lumped together for summary purposes. With the exception of Alternative 

2, all alternatives would implement the Travel Management Rule and prepare an MVUM. These 

actions will result in better understanding of types of use allowed and locations for the opportunity. 

This will direct motorized activity to specific locations. OHV and non-motorized users will benefit 

from the clarity and make better choices on where to recreate. Conflicts between the two uses would 

198 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

be less likely, since visitors can plan non-motorized (quiet recreation) activities away from OHV use. 

These visitors will have more areas available for quiet recreation. Enforcement of unauthorized 

activity would be easier. Alternative 2 has the most expansive opportunities for motorized use (the 

least for quiet recreation) followed by 4, 5, 1 and 3. 

Economic Effects 

The employment and labor income effects stemming from current motorized and non-motorized 

activities occurring on the Stanislaus National Forest were estimated. The economic effects of all 

other types of recreation combined on the Stanislaus NF have also been reported for comparison 

purposes. Economic effects tied to motorized and non-motorized activities were estimated to address 

the economic impact issues tied directly to proposed actions associated with motorized use. Also, the 

marginal economic effects (employment and labor income effects per 1,000 visits) of motorized and 

non-motorized use are provided. The marginal effects (also called “response coefficients”) are useful 

for performing sensitivity analyses of various management alternatives. 

All of the recreation related jobs together only account for about 1.83% of the total jobs in the area, 

and the income generated is about 1.272% of the total labor income in the area studied. Since only a 

fraction of the overall recreation use on the Forest is affected, the differences between alternatives are 

too small for accurate comparison of effects. This does not mean that specific sectors of the economy 

would not be affected. Tourism related businesses such as resorts, outfitter guides, pack stations, etc. 

would be directly affected by closures which vary by alternative. The greatest impact would be 

noticed at a low-use time of the year when restaurants, lodging, and other tourist dependant 

businesses are most in need of business. Seasonal closures for the beginning of fishing season and late 

fall hunting will have a noticeable effect. 

Social Effects 

The changes resulting from any of the alternatives, except 2, have the potential to impact the quality 

of life for some individuals that may be positive or negative. Alternatives with the most change 

(Alternatives.3 and 5) compared to current management would affect the most people. Nearby 

residents that live adjacent to the Stanislaus National Forest or that visit the Forest frequently, are 

most likely to be affected. This depends on their location, their values, and the activities that they 

participate in. Following are predictable effects of implementing the action alternatives compared 

with the existing situation: 

1.	 Individuals that own vehicles that are not highway legal would be affected most by a reduction in 

riding opportunity. OHV use would be reduced to specific areas and routes, which would have 

more use. The MVUM will clearly identify these locations. Enforcement would be more 

effective. 

2.	 Many displaced recreation activities dependant upon motorized access would be relocated to 

developed campgrounds, other locations, along NFTS roads, or would cease. Individuals, 

families, and small groups would be impacted, but many will adapt to this change. The effect 

forest-wide is difficult to predict. 

3.	 The footprint of non street legal vehicle use is reduced and many areas of the forest will become 

non motorized and identifiable on the MVUM. Quiet recreation opportunities will expand. 

4.	 Areas adjacent to private land and public land managed by other agencies will have less OHV 

use. Trespass and conflicts with private land owners would be reduced. 

5.	 Season of Use restrictions will affect most of the Stanislaus National Forest changing access in 

early spring and late fall. Wet weather closures would apply to all of the forest during the season 

of use on native surface roads. This introduces an element of uncertainty that can not be planned 

for. These restrictions would create a significant change for many individuals and groups 

requiring an assurance of access. 

199 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Much of the Forest Plan direction for Recreation (see Appendix C) is intended to sustain high quality 

recreation opportunities that result in quality recreation experiences. Minimizing conflict between 

visitors is a primary goal. It is also a goal to make opportunities available to all types of visitors. 

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

Environmental Justice (EJ) is an executive order (EO 12898) which requires, in brief, that each 

Federal Agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations. 

USDA Civil Rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, 

actions, or decisions that will affect federally conducted and federally assisted programs and 

activities. A civil rights impact analysis (CRIA) facilitates the identification of the effects of 

eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may 

adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their 

membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons 

who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetics, 

political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. 

Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. 

However, some groups could be impacted more than others. This assessment addresses such 

concerns. 

Public Involvement and Scoping 

Public involvement concerning this proposal began with travel analysis that focused on the 

identification of unauthorized routes and assessing the effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized 

travel on forest users. Public involvement occurred during three key periods: first, in 2003 when a 

group of concerned publics held a community forum in to discuss OHV recreation on the Stanislaus 

National Forest. Over 150 individuals attended to identify issues and possible management solutions 

for OHV recreation. As a result of the forum, a group called the Stanislaus Recreation Stakeholders 

(SRS) formed with the Forest Service as an ad hoc member to discuss OHV and associated 

recreational issues; second, a broadened public collaboration process for Travel Management that 

began in 2005, and third, during the 60-day public scoping period for the proposed action. 

In 2005, the Forest Service requested the SRS, with the assistance of the Center for Collaborative 

Policy, Sacramento State University, to serve as a design team to help develop the process for public 

involvement, identification of key stakeholders, and act as a sounding board for critical issues 

associated with motorized recreation. In 2007, they assisted in designing all the workshops for the 

development of the Proposed Action, and designing the workshops for rolling out the Notice of 

Intent. In late 2005, the Forest held three public meetings in Sonora, Greeley Hill and Arnold, sharing 

the route designation process developed with the State of California MOI and OHV inventory process 

with 240 attendees. The Forest completed the OHV inventory (step 1) in June 2006, with CD copies 

of the OHV Inventory mailed to 500 individuals. 

In late 2006 and early 2007, the Forest held seven meetings and three open houses in Sonora, Greeley 

Hill, Arnold, and West Point presenting a series of “discussion proposals” to 340 attendees. Rather 

than start with a “blank palette”, the Forest presented an initial look at what the transportation system 

changes and additions might be and sought public feedback on those ideas. District personnel also 

met with individuals and OHV clubs, identifying important trails that were needed for the OHV 

200 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

recreational experience. Informal briefings were also held with the Tuolumne Band of Mi-Wuk 

Indians. 

The Forest Service first listed the Motorized Travel Management project in the January 2007 issue of 

the Stanislaus National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The Forest distributes the 

SOPA to about 160 parties and it is available on the internet 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/sopa]. 

Public Scoping Period (60-days) for the Notice of Intent 

On November 13, 2007 the Forest sent a scoping letter to 950 individuals, permittees, organizations, 

agencies, and Tribes interested in this project. The letter requested comments on the Proposed Action. 

The Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) that asked for public comment on the proposal 

between November 19, 2007 and January 18, 2008 (72 Federal Register 222, November 19, 2007; p. 

64988-64991). In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency held five public 

meetings attended by 237 individuals and four open houses attended by fourteen individuals. In April, 

2008, the Forest sent an informational mailing to the public, containing information on how to obtain 

a copy of the Scoping report. The SRS was instrumental in helping design the public meeting format, 

suggesting communication strategies, key stakeholder contacts, and meeting locations. 

Public Comment Period (75-days) for the DEIS 

On February 27, 2009 the Forest released the Motorized Travel Management DEIS by mailing over 

1,115 CDs to individuals, 90 CDs to organizations, county governments, and other agencies and 72 

hard copies and CDs to organizations, county governments and tribes. The information was also 

posted on the Forest’s Website on February 27, 2009. 

The Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS in the 

Federal Register (Volume 74, Number 43; Page 9817-9818) on March 6, 2009 with a 60-day public 

comment period. On May 1, 2009 the Forest Supervisor extended the public comment period until 

May 20, 2009. The Forest held six workshops, five open houses and hosted one pilot Webinar where 

the public was invited to attend an Internet/Phone In meeting as part of the public involvement 

process. Approximately 175 persons attended these sessions. The Forest continued tribal consultation 

and briefed four County Boards of Supervisors or individual County supervisors. Congressional 

briefings were also conducted. The Forest sent out three additional post card mailings to notify the 

public of the comment period, additional meeting locations and times, and extension of the comment 

period. 

Public Comment Summary 

In response to the Forest’s request for comments during the DEIS comment period, 927 interested 

parties submitted 841 letters. Of those letters submitted, 296 different individuals sent an email, 228 

individuals sent letters by mail, 344 individuals faxed letters, 41 individuals hand-delivered letters, 

and 19 individuals telephoned. 

The Forest documented, analyzed, and summarized public comments using a process called content 

analysis. This is a systematic method of compiling and categorizing the full range of public 

viewpoints and concerns regarding a plan or project. Content analysis ensures that every comment is 

considered. Content analysis is intended to facilitate good decision-making by helping the IDT to 

clarify, adjust, or incorporate technical information into the FEIS. The process facilitates the Forest’s 

response to comments. 

In the content analysis process, each letter receives a unique identifying number. All letters are 

analyzed and each comment is categorized by specific topics, concerns, or routes. These categorized 

comments are then given a unique number, which allows analysts to link specific comments back to 

the original letter. The comments are then entered into the database. 

201 
 

Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

Respondent names and addresses are also entered into a database, enabling the creation of a complete 

mailing list of all respondents. The database is also used to track pertinent demographic information 

such as responses from special interest groups or federal, state, tribal, county, and local governments. 

The DEIS comments raised concerns and issues regarding topics such as the alternatives, the 

proposed action, the NEPA process, the transportation system, recreation opportunities, society, 

culture and the economy, cultural resources, and natural resources. The IDT will review and respond 

to comments as categorized in the database. Those comments that follow a specific theme can be 

grouped and responded to collectively. Unique comments will be responded to individually. 

Concerns and Mitigations Related to Potential Civil Rights Impacts 

Through these public involvement efforts and interdisciplinary discussions, several concerns were 

raised and are addressed below: 

1.	 Impacts on People with Disabilities and the Elderly. Throughout scoping, concerns have been 

raised about the impact of this travel management proposal on people with disabilities and the 

elderly. Commenter’s have asserted that the proposal unfairly discriminates against these groups 

because they are more dependent on motor vehicles to access and enjoy our National Forests. 

Comments from people with disabilities and the elderly, including references to specific sites or 

locations, were considered in the development of alternatives. Recreation opportunities and 

access needs for all users are some of the criteria used in the process of developing the selected 

alternative. 

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, including the prohibition of cross 

country travel, is forest-wide and applies to all forest users equally. Changes to the National 

Forest Transportation System are largely limited to changes in vehicle class and season of use. 

Motorized access on NFS routes is expected to be enhanced by the addition of unauthorized 

routes and the addition of vehicle classes on routes where such use has been prohibited. 

There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, on 

trails, and in areas that are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are 

applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from 

designations for people with disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and 

other management objectives of travel management and would fundamentally alter the nature of 

the Forest Service's travel management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103). 

Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. Consistent with 36 CFR 212.1, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, Section 507(c), of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and mobility devices, including those that are 

battery-powered, that are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion 

and that are suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on all NFS lands that are 

open to foot travel. 

2.	 Access by Native Americans. Concerns were raised Native Americans and tribal representatives 

that this proposal would unduly restrict access to sacred sites or traditional gathering areas that 

are accessed via motorized cross-country travel, including unauthorized routes. Elderly or infirm 

tribal members may be prevented from participating in tribal activities if motor vehicle access is 

denied. Such access has been traditionally granted as long as resource damage can be prevented. 

Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under 

Federal law or regulations is exempt from route designations (36 CFR 212.51 (8)). Therefore, 

motor vehicle access to sacred sites or gathering areas may be authorized by the Forest Service 

and will not be affected by this proposal. 

202 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Further, access during hunting season in the late fall and early winter was raised as a concern 

during the public comment period. Seasonal closures and loss of 400 miles of roads currently 

identified as all motorized use allowed could negatively impact traditional hunting activities. 

OHV use was identified in some traditional use areas as having a potential negative affect on 

hunting and gathering and other traditional uses. 

The only routes the Tribe endorsed were routes accessing dispersed camping sites. 

3.	 Impacts on People with Limited English Proficiency. In California, people of Hispanic origin 

comprise a large part of the population and enjoy access to the National Forests for a variety of 

recreation and business pursuits. Many of these users speak English as a second language and 

therefore may have limited ability to read maps or other publications pertaining to travel 

management. In particular, the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) is a concern since the 

MVUM will be the basis for enforcing vehicle restrictions. NFTS routes that are open for public 

use will be designated on the MVUM and users that leave designated routes will be subject to 

fines. There is a concern that people with limited English proficiency will be more vulnerable to 

citation if they are unable to read or understand the MVUM. 

MVUMs could be printed in other languages to increase communication about changed access. 

Outreach and education will be a key compact in implementing this project and all modes of 

communication and outreach will be utilized. 

4.	 General Forest Access (dispersed camping access). Many people commented that the Forest 

would be shutting down access to dispersed camping access by not adding routes to the system. 

An estimate of over 1,000 sites have been inventoried but not analyzed for dispersed camping 

access. This may have a negative effect on those individuals who enjoy a different recreational 

experience that is: less costly, less crowded, more freedom, and more natural than those 

opportunities offered in Forest Service developed or private campgrounds. Some have gone so far 

as to suggest their American freedom to access public lands in any way they want has been 

infringed upon by travel management decisions. There is no ready resolution to this perception of 

lost freedom of rights to unrestrained access to the National Forest. The Forest will continue to 

evaluate and add dispersed recreation access when budget and program priorities permit the 

analysis to occur. 

Monitoring Recommendations 

Develop a system to track comments by individuals as proposed changes are implemented. If 

evidence appears that the decision is unduly impacting a segment of society, further analysis would 

be conducted. If warranted, actions may be adjusted to reduce impact to affected individuals or 

groups. Monitor for the impacts caused by proliferation of campsites along NFTS routes. 

203 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus 

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest
 

204 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.07 SOIL RESOURCE
 

A healthy and functional watershed relies on an equilibrium, or balance, in the soil productivity, soil 

quality, water quantity, and water quality. The soil resource provides many essential functions for 

National Forest lands. It sustains plant growth that provides forage, fiber, wildlife habitat, and 

watershed protection. It absorbs precipitation, stores water for plant growth, and gradually releases 

surplus water which attenuates runoff rates. It sustains microorganisms which recycle nutrients for 

continued plant growth. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other acts recognized the 

fundamental need to protect, and where appropriate improve, the quality of soil. 

Protection of soil resource is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service. Management 

activities on National Forest lands must be planned and implemented to protect soil quality and the 

hydrologic functions of forest watersheds. The use of roads, trails, and other areas on National Forests 

for public operation of motor vehicles has potential to affect the soil resource through interception of 

runoff, compaction of soils, and detachment of sediment (Foltz 2006). Management decisions to 

eliminate cross-county motorized travel, add new routes to the NFTS, and make changes to the 

existing NFTS must consider effects on soils and watersheds. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects the soil resource includes the following: 

National Forest Management Act of 1976: Renewable Resource Program. “(c) Recognize the 

fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air 

resources.” 

National Soil Management Handbook: The Soil Management Handbook (USDA 1991a) is a national 

soils handbook that defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, establishes 

guidance for measuring soil productivity, and establishes thresholds to assist in forest planning. 

Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement: The Forest Service Region 5 Soil Management 

Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1) establishes regional soil quality analysis 

standards. The analysis standards address three basic elements for the soil resource: (1) soil 

productivity (including soil loss, porosity and organic matter), (2) soil hydrologic function, and (3) 

soil buffering capacity. The analysis standards are used for areas dedicated to growing vegetation. 

They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses, such as developed campgrounds, 

administrative facilities, or in this case, the actual land surface authorized for travel by the public 

using various kinds of vehicles. 

Regional Forester’s Letter (February 5, 2007): This letter provided clarification to Forest Supervisors 

on the appropriate use of the R5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 

2509.18-95-1). It states in part: 

Analysis or evaluation of soil condition is the intended use of the thresholds and indicators in R5 FSH 

Supplement 2509.18-95-1.They are not a set of mandatory standards or requirements. They should 

not be referred to as binding or mandatory requirements in NEPA documents. Forest Plan S&Gs 

provide the relevant substantive standards to comply with NFMA. The thresholds and indicators 

represent desired conditions for the soil resource. Use of the thresholds and indicators provides a 

consistent method to analyze, describe, and report on soil condition throughout the region. 

The Forest Plan provides S&Gs for management areas (USDA 2005a) that include: 

1.	 Maintain soil productivity by applying guidelines to areas where management prescriptions are 

applied. 

205 
 

Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

2.	 Monitor for implementation and effectiveness. Areas not meeting guidelines will be rehabilitated. 

As a minimum, 85 percent of areas affected by soil disturbing activities will not exceed soil 

property thresholds. 

3.	 Soil porosity is at least 90 percent of its natural conditions. 

4.	 The organic matter in the upper 12 inches of soil should be at least 85 percent of its natural 

conditions. 

5.	 Design management activities not to exceed an R5 Erosion Hazard Rating of moderate. 

6.	 During project planning, verify areas where soil productivity has been degraded. 

7.	 Field verify the Order 3 SRI during the planning phase of each site disturbing or vegetation 

manipulating project. (SRI order describes the level of intensity of a soil survey). Develop 

specific soil mitigation measures and soil conservation management practice for each project site 

as needed. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Soil quality effects analysis was based on identifying areas of risk on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

This analysis used GIS and the published Order 3 SRI to rank proposed routes by erosion potential. 

Overlaying the proposed routes from the Alternatives 1 through 5 over GIS coverage layers, a general 

soil erosion risk assessment was completed. The risk assessment was used to prioritize field review. 

The following is a description of the methodology: 

1.	 From the Order 3 SRI the Maximum Erosion Hazard Rating (MEHR) was tabulated. When the 

MEHR for a soil was low or moderate only minimal field checking was completed. 

2.	 When the MEHR was high or very high, then the route was screened by GIS to determine the 

gradient of the proposed route. From the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), GIS calculated the 

gradient of proposed routes. The methodology applies to additions to the NFTS, which are 

unauthorized routes proposed for public use as a motorized trail under one of the alternatives. 

3.	 Steep routes (>15% grade) were systematically field checked to develop a correlation between 

soil type, gradient, and condition. The green/yellow/red monitoring criteria was used to judge the 

observed trail condition and to validate the initial office GIS risk assessment. 

4.	 Routes with lower gradients and moderate MEHR were considered low risk, assuming routine 

maintenance. These routes were randomly checked in the field to observe trail condition and 

validate the assumption. 

5.	 Routes with higher gradients and high or very high MEHR were considered high risk. These 

routes were further evaluated by GIS and field work to determine potential for adverse effects 

such as loss of water control on roads and trails. A secondary indicator, Hydrologic Function 

Class (HFC) was used to predict where some roads may be sensitive to damage and loss of 

hydrologic function. HFC was used as a tool for prioritizing field work and as an indicator to 

compare alternatives. 

6.	 Trails that were found to be in poor condition during field work or having a high potential for 

adverse effects (surface erosion and loss of water control) were considered for mitigation or 

closure. Mitigation was documented by route. Recommendations for closure were based on field 

review of trail condition, soil type, and gradient of the route. 

Assumptions Specific to the Soil Resource 

Four assumptions are specific to the soil resource analysis: 

1.	 Route Proliferation: Routes will continue to increase without prohibition of cross country 

motorized travel. This applies only to Alternative 2 (No Action) since cross country travel would 

continue. The rate of proliferation is estimated to be 2.25 miles per year across the forest based on 

utilizing the same proliferation rate that has occurred during the past 20 years. For purposes of the 

water resources analysis the route proliferation in Alternative 2 was assumed to occur in the 

206 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

concentrated use watersheds since these are expected to continue to be the locations of demand 

for off-highway motorized travel. 

2.	 New Construction: While no new route construction occurs in the proposed action or 

alternatives, about five miles are expected to be built in the next 10 years, under new NEPA. 

These are primarily segments that would connect existing routes to enhance motorized travel 

opportunities. These routes exist in, and the effects are accounted for, in the CWE analysis of 

concentrated use watersheds. 

3.	 Passive Recovery: Existing routes not added to the NFTS are assumed to passively recover; that 

is, heal over in time as forest litter (e.g., pine needles, twigs, branches) and vegetation re-occupies 

the route surface. The rate of recovery will vary by location, type of route (i.e., motorcycle or 

ATV trail, road), and by soil type and route gradient. The range of time is expected to be from 

about two to ten years; trails in forested areas that have been closed have been observed to 

accumulate an acceptable amount of ground cover within two years while trail segments in forest 

openings may take up to a decade to recover. 

4.	 Wheeled Over Snow (WOS) use does not affect the soil resource since the use is on existing 

NFTS routes that are open to public motorized use during the normal summer driving season. 

Data Sources 

1.	 Route-specific data collected in the field using established protocols for road erosion inventories 

and OHV green/yellow/red inventories. 

2.	 Route inventories collected as a part of Step 1 of R5 Route Designation Guidebook (2004) and 

associated tabular data sets. 

3.	 Forest soil survey and associated GIS layers. 

4.	 Field observations or anecdotal information documenting the time required for passive recovery 

of routes closed to motor vehicle traffic. 

Soil Resource Indicators 

1.	 Miles of authorized and unauthorized routes displayed by MEHR (as defined by the R-5 

Maximum Erosion Hazard Rating). 

2.	 Miles of authorized and unauthorized routes displayed by Hydrologic Function Class (HFC). 

HFC is a soil hazard interpretation that predicts where roads and trails are prone to failure of drainage 

structures and loss of water control. Some roads are more sensitive to damage and loss of hydrologic 

function. In extreme cases a loss of the facility is possible. HFC is based on soil properties that 

determine how a native surface road or trail will mechanically rut and erode with traffic. Hydrologic 

Function Classes are adapted from R5 Soil Interpretations (USDA 1999). HFC is a filter or method to 

predict weak areas in the trail system that may require a higher level of maintenance, mitigation, and 

in some cases a recommendation to close the trail. 

Classes and soils are described below: 

 Mechanical Rutting and High Erosion - Granitic Holland soil is an example of a soil type in this 

risk category that is known to rut and erode easily. Holland and Holland-like soils have clay loam 

subsoils that rut deeply when wet and once rutted have a tendency to form gullies. 

 Mechanical Rutting (wet) - Metamorphic soil types such as Jocal (Josephine) and Sites are 

examples of soils that have clay or clay loam subsoils that are prone to mechanical rutting under 

wet conditions. 

 Mechanical Rutting (dry) - Volcanic McCarthy soil is an example of a soil type prone to 

mechanical rutting under dry summer conditions, although this is not a problem on strongly 

compacted surfaces such as a designed road. McCarthy soils lose their natural structure and the 

motorcycle and ATV trail turns to powder, hence they are rated as having a high mechanical 

rutting potential. This is particularly noticeable on steep and very steep grades. GIS assessed the 

207 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

gradient of routes (unauthorized and additions to NFTS) and grouped routes into gradient classes. 

Gradients were field checked and found accurate. Where the R/Y/G trail condition rating was 

completed, a rating of red or yellow matched up well with soil types and steeper gradients. Steep 

gradients are 16-25% and very steep gradients are 26% and higher. Gradients of 20% are difficult 

to hold on McCarthy soils because of the dry rutting problem. 

Soil types (or soil map units) across the Forest were rated based upon the above general risk 

categories and then GIS was used to sort route segments that have mechanical rutting and erosion 

concerns based on the above hazard classes. The hazard classes were verified by field observation. 

Soil Resource Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel 

The prohibition of cross-country travel is focused on the effects from unauthorized use. 

Considerations and the indicators of effects are given below: 

Indicator(s): Miles of unauthorized routes displayed by (1) MEHR and (2) Hydrologic Function 

Class. Both indicators are a soil hazard interpretation that ranks miles of route by potential for 

erosion and loss of water control. The assumption is that effects are related to the miles of 

unauthorized routes to remain open under current use with no maintenance. 

Direct Effects from unauthorized use: Generally for the existing unauthorized routes, direct 

effects have already occurred. The direct effects were: physical displacement of soil caused by 

unauthorized motorized vehicle traffic; loss of soil productivity from the displacement and loss of 

soil depth; loss in soil hydrologic function due to loss of soil and loss of soil cover. 

Indirect Effects from unauthorized use: The removal of vegetation and exposure of soil in 

unauthorized routes will result in erosion. These unauthorized use areas were not designed and 

have no runoff water control to protect the soil resource. Further loss of productivity will occur 

and diminish hydrologic function. A loss of water control on and off of the un-maintained trail is 

an indirect effect. 

Methodology: Unauthorized routes open for motor vehicle use are compared to GIS layers 

displaying MEHR and HFC. 

Short-term time frame: The 1 year time frame looks at routes over the short-term. It does not 

provide time for passive recovery on closed routes. 

Long-term time frame: The 10 year time frame looks at routes over the longer term. It provides 

time for passive recovery on closed routes. Passive recovery is an assumed benefit. Factors such 

as soil type, precipitation and length of the growing season at different elevations affect rates of 

vegetative recovery. An addition of 2.2 miles of route proliferation per year is assumed for the 

“no action” alternative. The same time frame is used for Cumulative Watershed Effects. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Rationale: General guidelines in the National Soil Management Handbook and Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class 

The effects of adding facilities are focused on presently unauthorized roads and trails that would 

be added to the system routes. This is a change from unauthorized and un-maintained to NFTS 

status. Considerations and the indicators of effects are given below: 

Indicators: Miles of unauthorized routes added to the system displayed by MEHR and 

Hydrologic Function Class. 

208 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Direct Effects: Generally direct affects have already occurred from the soil displacement caused 

by the unauthorized use. The effects were a loss of soil productivity from the displacement and 

loss of soil depth and a loss in soil hydrologic function due to loss of soil and loss of soil cover. 

The assumption is that effects are related to total miles of route converted from unauthorized to 

authorized status. 

Indirect Effects: The indirect effects that will occur from the addition of a previously 

unauthorized use route to the designated system will be dependent upon a number of factors: (1) 

what soil type it is located on; (2) its erosion potential; (3) slope or gradient of the route; and (4) 

the assumption that necessary runoff water control work will be accomplished before the 

previously unauthorized route will be open for legitimate use. 

Methodology: Unauthorized routes added to the system are compared to GIS layers displaying 

MEHR and Hydrologic Function Class. Routes are compared with zones of varying erosion 

potential risk. Field observations of soil type response are used to formulate the expected direct, 

indirect and cumulative soil effects for each alternative. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 10 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Rationale: Analysis guidelines in the National Soil Management Handbook and Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class 

Changes to existing NFTS include (1) roads closed to roads open; (2) roads open to roads closed; 

(3) changes in vehicle class and season of use. Considerations and the indicators of effects are 

given below: 

Indicator(s): Miles of NFTS routes (closed to open/open to closed) displayed by (1) MEHR and 

(2) Hydrologic Function Class. The indicators are a soil hazard interpretation that ranks miles of 

route by potential for erosion and loss of water control. 

Direct Effects: Opening level 1 roads is considered as having the larger soil impact compared 

with the effects of closing routes or the effects of changing vehicle class. Routes that are closed 

and put to bed produce less sediment and require less maintenance than high use routes, 

particularly on soil types that are prone to erosion or loss of hydrologic function. The effects of 

changing vehicle class are mostly a road width issue. The assumption is that a change in vehicle 

class will either keep the existing road width the same or the road will eventually narrow if used 

by ATVs or motorcycles. A change in vehicle class only would represent no increase of soil or 

land area for routes. 

Indirect Effects: An action alternative may place control on the season of use for an area. This 

will generally have a positive indirect effect because it will reduce damage to the facility tread 

and its erosion control structures and therefore reduce the risk of erosion to soil downslope. 

Methodology: GIS analysis is done to compare the location of the trail/roads in each alternative 

with the zones of varying erosion potential risk. Field observations of soil type response 

formulate the discussion of expected effects for each alternative. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year 

Long-term timeframe: 10 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

209 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

Rationale: Analysis guidelines in the National Soil Management Handbook and Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement. 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Soil cumulative effects parallel the water cumulative effects. The common ground is the 

Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) concept. All ground disturbances in the watershed is given a 

coefficient value. Roads, mechanical thinning operations, prescribed fire, wildfire, etc. are 

accounted for relative to past, present and expected future management activity levels. The 

USDA Forest Service Region 5 methodology is used to determine the overall disturbed footprint. 

The disturbed footprint is a semi-quantitative measure of acres of detrimental soil disturbance and 

hence an approximation of change in Soil Quality as defined by the R5 Soil Quality Standards 

(USDA 1995b). 

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame. 

Long-term timeframe: The period used for long-term effects analysis is 20 years. It is the same 

recovery period as for the Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis. 

Spatial boundary: The analysis area is the National Forest. 

Indicator(s): (1) Cumulative effects on soil productivity from unauthorized use (No Action); (2) 

Cumulative effects on soil productivity in unauthorized areas that are expected to recovery (in the 

given long term analysis time period) after a cross country closure is implemented; (3) 

Cumulative effects on soil productivity in areas that are not expected to recover passively (in the 

given long term analysis period) after a cross country closure is implemented; (4) Cumulative 

effects on soil productivity from implementation of the particular travel system for each 

alternative. 

Methodology: Utilize observations and understanding of short term effects to soil productivity to 

estimate long term expected cumulative effects on soil productivity. Utilize the ERA analysis as a 

semi-quantitative measure of acres of detrimental soil disturbance and hence an approximation of 

change in Soil Quality. 

Rationale: Analysis guidelines in the National Soil Management Handbook and Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement. 

Affected Environment 

The Stanislaus National Forest has a high diversity of soil types. Soils are broadly zoned based on 

differences in geology and elevation. Four zones or subsections (USDA 1997) are present in the 

analysis area: Lower Foothills Metamorphic Belt; Batholith and Flows; Upper Batholith and Flows; 

and the Glaciated Batholith and Flows. Elevations range from below 3,000 feet to over 8,000 feet 

within the footprint of the proposed actions. Soils are formed from granitic, volcanic, and metasedimentary parent materials. 

At the lowest elevation are soils of the Lower Foothills Metamorphic Belt. The Groveland District 

south of highway 120 is the type location for this area. The general landform is that of a highly 

dissected block of land that is crossed by major river canyons such as the Tuolumne and Merced 

Rivers. The upland surface generally slopes to the west. Major rivers have downcut their channels as 

much as 2,000 feet. Rocky, thin soils are found on the canyon slopes. Weathered red colored soils 

with high clay content are found on the more stable upland surface. Mariposa and Jocal soils are the 

most common. Soils are weathered from very old metamorphic rock and support chaparral, 

hardwoods, hardwood-conifer, and conifer vegetation. Coniferous forests are dominated by ponderosa 

pine. 

210 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

At somewhat higher elevations are soils of the Batholith and Flows subsection. These soils are 

derived from granitic and volcanic rock within an elevation range of 3,500 feet to 6,000 feet. The 

Deer Creek area north of Twain Harte is in this zone. This land is a tilted, uplifted block with major 

river channels dissecting the block into long ridges and sideslopes. Ridges trend in a westerly 

direction. The volcanic Mehrton formation caps the ridge tops and upper sideslopes. Lower 

sideslopes, canyons and basins are often granitic lands. Soils are generally medium textured 

productive soils. Holland soils are common on granite lands and McCarthy and Holland, dark surface 

soils are common on the upper sideslopes of volcanic lands. Shallow unproductive soils are found on 

the lava caps. Soils within this broad zone support forests of mixed coniferous species known as the 

Sierra Nevada mixed conifer type. 

The Upper Batholith and Flows subsection is a higher elevation version of the Batholith and Flows. 

The transition to “Upper” Batholith and Flows occurs at about 6,000 feet as white fir becomes a 

significant component of mixed conifer forests. Most of the soils in this zone have a frigid 

temperature regime, range in elevation from 6,000 to 8,000 feet and are covered with snow throughout the winter. Soils in the Pinecrest area and Dodge Ridge are typical of the zone. Windy soils are 

common on volcanic flows and Gerle, Tallac, and Wintoner soils occur on granitic lands. These soils 

support upper montane forests generally characterized by the presence of red fir, lodgepole pine, and 

Jeffery pine. Jeffery pine types are common on rocky or droughty soils, often on ridges or south 

facing slopes. 

Soils of the Glaciated Batholith and Flows subsection occur at elevations of 8,000 feet to over 11,000 

feet at the top of the Sierras. The Carson Iceberg wilderness (although outside the analysis area) and 

Bear Valley are examples of this landscape. The transition from “Upper” to “Glaciated” Batholith and 

Flows occurs when a combination of factors change. Soil temperatures are colder. Most of the soils 

have a cryic temperature regime and snow persists into June in most years. Mountain Hemlock or 

Western White Pine becomes a component in red fir stands on north facing slopes. Glacial eroded 

landforms become more prominent, hence shallow soils and rock outcrop can dominate the landscape. 

Soils are weakly developed (sandy soils, rocky, with little clay). In general the soils support a sparsely 

vegetated landscape of open red fir and mixed subalpine forests. Wet meadow soils are relatively 

common. A dry forb habitat known as dry volcanic meadow is extensive on high elevation volcanic 

soils. Few routes are found in this zone. 

Many soils exist on the Forest; however key soils can be used as examples. In fact, the soil affected 

environment can be simplified by rating soils (or soil map units) across the Forest based upon 

engineering properties important to roads and trails. Soils were grouped into general risk categories 

known as HFC. HFC or Hydrologic Function Class is a soil hazard interpretation that predicts where 

roads and trails are prone to failure of drainage structures and loss of water control. HFC organizes 

the soil environment into useful information; and it is an indicator to compare the five alternatives in 

the Environmental Consequences section. 

GIS was used to sort routes based on the following classes: 

 High rut and erosion potential. The granitic Holland soil is an example of a soil type in the high 

rut and erosion potential category that is known to rut and erode easily. 

 Mechanical rutting potential (dry). The volcanic McCarthy soil is an example of soils prone to 

mechanical rutting under dry summer conditions, although it is not a problem on strongly 

compacted surfaces such as a designed road. 

 Mechanical rutting potential (wet). Metamorphic soil types such as Jocal and Sites are examples 

of soils that have clay or clay loam subsoils that are prone to mechanical rutting under wet 

conditions. 

211 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

 Other soils - Lava cap soils and other shallow soils. Thin, rocky lava cap soils can be difficult to 

re-vegetate once disturbed, although they will provide a hard stable running surface once eroded 

down to bedrock. 

Existing Condition Methodology: GIS analysis of steep gradients, soil hazard classification (HFC), 

and R/Y/G survey results were used to construct the existing soil condition. The same tools were used 

to determine problem areas and prescribe mitigation. 

Figure 3.07-1 shows 246 miles of unauthorized routes displayed by soil hazard classification or HFC. 

As such, it is an approximation of the existing condition and the No Action, Alternative 2. About 35% 

of the existing unauthorized routes occur on soils with high rutting and erosion potential. About 12% 

of existing unauthorized routes occur on steep grades (>15%). 

The concentrated use areas of Deer Creek, Hull Creek, and Trout Creek (note routes located south of 

Strawberry) have a concentration of lava cap soils and soils with a potential for rutting and high 

erosion. Thin, rocky lava cap soils can be difficult to re-vegetate once disturbed, although they will 

provide a hard stable running surface once eroded down to bedrock. Routes in the Groveland area 

south of highway 120, generally have clay subsoils that rut easily when wet. Soils in the Bear Valley 

area are rocky and are generally more stable relative to rutting and erosion. 

Red/Yellow/Green Condition Survey (see project record): Approximately 246 miles of routes were 

surveyed in 2008. Most of the routes were motorcycle and ATV routes. The survey showed 55 miles 

of red or yellow routes, and 190 miles of green routes. The red and yellow routes were commonly 

found on steep grades or on soils susceptible to mechanical rutting and erosion (as predicted by HFC). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Cross Country Travel: Cross-Country travel is prohibited in Alternative 1. Unauthorized routes are 

converted to system routes or closed. Proliferation of unauthorized routes is assumed zero or minor. 

Use will be discontinued on 84 miles of unauthorized routes. The routes will be closed to use and 

allowed to passively recover. Passive recovery and re-vegetation is expected within a 10 year period. 

Disturbed areas on shallow soils, particularly above 8,000 feet elevation (cold temperature), will 

recover more slowly. The cross country travel closure will eliminate further disturbance of soils and 

have an overall positive effect on soil conditions as compared to Alternative 2 (No Action). 

Additions to the NFTS: Alternative 1 will add 151 miles of unauthorized roads and trails to the 

present NFTS. These routes already exist on the ground. An indicator of soil effects is the Maximum 

Erosion Hazard Rating (MEHR). GIS analysis was used to overlay routes and erosion hazard. 

MEHR: About 128 miles of additions to the NFTS occur on high MEHR soils. This suggests that 

“off trail” accelerated erosion is more likely to occur where concentrated flow of water is directed off 

the trail. The planned mitigation measures will lower the actual EHR to low or moderate. Definitions 

of maintenance and mitigation treatments (see Appendix F, Mitigations) are described and the route 

cards specify site specific treatments. 

Approximately 17% (26 miles) of all additions to the NFTS included in Alternative 1 have segments 

with gradients greater than 15%. (Table 3.07-4). The steeper gradients imply higher maintenance 

needs and costs for some segments. This does not imply that the routes should not be added to the 

system, only that the routes are prone to tread loss and need mitigation, particularly on steep grades. 

Soil condition is expected to improve compared to the Alternative 2 because 151 miles of 

unauthorized routes will now be subject to mitigation and brought up to standards before the routes 

are added to the NFTS. 

212 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Figure 3.07-1 Existing Condition: All Unauthorized Routes with Soil Hazard Classification 

213 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

Changes to the Existing NFTS: Change would occur on a total of 616 miles of NFTS roads. All 

existing seasonal closures are replaced by winter closures of all routes based on elevation and wet 

weather closures on native surfaced routes. The alternative opens 67 miles of roads and closes 46 

miles. Other changes in vehicle class include converting 62 miles of road to trail. Opening 67 miles of 

closed roads is the larger change relative to soil effects. The change from closed to open status will 

increase use of the route; and erosion and sedimentation rates will increase on some route segments 

(prone to a loss of road hydrologic function and water control). The season of use requirements in 

zone 2 and 3 along with required maintenance and erosion control measures are expected to mitigate 

both on/off trail loss of water control concerns. 

Other minor changes in vehicle class on existing NFTS routes will have minimal effect relative to soil 

erosion, because these roads where constructed to traditional road standards of compaction and 

drainage control. For example, a change from Highway Legal Only (HLO) to All Vehicles is 

expected to have a minimal effect on surface erosion and life of the facility. The effect would be 

limited in scope, with winter and wet weather requirements. 

Soil Effects: Soil effects are based on a GIS analysis of routes and HFC. The Hydrologic Function 

Class sorts route segments that are more prone to loss of water control and eventual loss of facility 

(the trail itself). The rating is simply a soil hazard classification or method to predict weak areas in 

the trail system that may rut and erode easily and require a higher level of mitigation. 

Table 3.07-3 summarizes miles of route or “footprint” occurring on soils that are sensitive to 

mechanical rutting and erosion. Alternative 1 proposes 151 miles of additions to the NFTS to NFTS; 

of which 55 miles are prone to failure of drainage structures and loss of water control. Alternative 1 

will open 67 miles of NFTS routes that are presently closed to the public; of which 29 miles have a 

high rutting and erosion potential. The alternative proposes to close 92 miles of unauthorized routes, 

of which 31 miles are considered as sensitive to gully erosion as passive recovery slowly stabilizes 

the closed routes. 

The “net footprint” (see bottom of Table 3.07-3) considered the collective result of closing or opening 

routes looking at a time frame of 1 year and 10 years into the future. Some routes will continue to be 

sensitive to a loss of road hydrologic function by virtue of soil type, gradient, and amount of use. No 

proliferation of routes is assumed for Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. Passive recovery is assumed to be 

gradual over 10 years. Erosion control on closed NFTS routes is assumed to be effective in year 1. 

The net footprint of routes on sensitive soils is estimated to be 84 miles after 10 years for Alternative 

1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Soil cumulative effects parallel the water cumulative effects. The common ground is the Equivalent 

Roaded Acre (ERA) concept. All ground disturbances in the watershed is given a coefficient value. 

Roads, mechanical thinning operations, prescribed fire, wildfire, etc. are accounted for relative to 

past, present and expected future management activity levels. The USDA Forest Service Region 5 

methodology is used to determine the overall disturbed footprint. The disturbed footprint is a semiquantitative measure of acres of detrimental soil disturbance and hence an approximation of change in 

Soil Quality as defined by the R5 Soil Quality Standards (USDA 1995b). 

The CWE analysis considered the 88 HUC 7 watersheds on the forest that contain one or more 

proposed additions to the NFTS. Of these, the largest concentration of use occurs in the 10 

watersheds that coincide with the three principal off-highway vehicle activity areas on the forest. 

These are the watersheds for which detailed CWE analysis was conducted. The total ERA values in 

the 10 concentrated watersheds are summarized as follows: 

The total ERA ranges from 2.75% to 8.10%. The additions to the NFTS account for less than 0.20% 

ERA in all of the watersheds, a very small fraction of the total ERA value. 

214 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Figure 3.07-2 Soil Analysis: Unauthorized Routes with Soil Erosion Hazard Rating 

215 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

The highest ERA was determined in Lyons Reservoir-Lower South Fork watershed. The ERA was 

8.01%. This level of compaction and detrimental disturbance is substantially below the Stanislaus 

Forest Plan S&G to avoid compacting more than 15% of a treatment area (USDA 2005a). 

The remaining watersheds outnumber the concentrated use watersheds but have substantially less 

motorized travel and generally less other use. For example, fifty eight of these dispersed use 

watersheds have less than 1 mile of route addition proposed, usually in scattered segments, in 

watersheds each averaging about 6,000 acres in size. The past, present and expected future 

management activity level (Appendix C) is not anticipated to exceed, and is likely less than, that in 

the concentrated use watersheds based upon review of the list of activities in the Cumulative Effects 

Analysis (Appendix B). 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Cross Country Travel: Cross-Country travel is allowed in Alternative 2. Continued use will occur 

on 246 miles of unauthorized routes. 

MEHR: GIS was used to overlay existing unauthorized routes with classes of erosion hazard. Figure 

3.07-2 displays the maximum soil erosion hazard rating (MEHR). Approximately 80% of the routes 

cross high or very high MEHR soils. 

Routes occur on 204 miles of high MEHR soils. Proliferation is expected to add 22 miles onto similar 

high MEHR soils over 10 years. Assuming no maintenance and continued cross-country travel, a high 

erosion hazard condition could occur on 247 miles of unauthorized routes (Table 3.07-2). 

Soil Productivity: The 246 miles of unauthorized routes plus 2.2 miles of assumed route proliferation 

annually represent a loss of soil productivity under Alternative 2. The 246 miles include some access 

routes to undeveloped campsites, but the bulk of the miles are ATV and motorcycle width trails (<50 

inches wide). This is a loss of soil productivity on 158 acres, most of which has already occurred. 

About 101 miles are susceptible to rutting and gully erosion (Table 3.07-3), and the assumption is that 

these routes will continue to degrade without proper maintenance. 

Additions to the NFTS: no additions to the NFTS. 

Changes to the Existing NFTS: no changes to the vehicle class or season of use. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Soil cumulative effects parallel the water cumulative effects determined during the CWE analysis. 

The CWE analysis considered the 88 HUC 7 watersheds on the forest that contain one or more 

unauthorized routes. Of these, the largest concentration of use occurs in the 10 watersheds that 

coincide with the three principal off-highway vehicle activity areas on the forest. These are the 

watersheds for which detailed CWE analysis was conducted. The total ERA values in the 10 

concentrated watersheds are summarized by alternative as follows: 

The total ERA ranges from 2.91% to 8.40%. Route proliferation raises the ERA in the alternatives 

less than 0.10%. 

The highest ERA was determined in Lyons Reservoir-Lower South Fork watershed. The ERA was 

8.40%. This level of compaction and detrimental disturbance is substantially below the Stanislaus 

Forest Plan standard and guideline to avoid compacting more than 15% of a treatment area (USDA 

2005a). 

The remaining watersheds outnumber the concentrated use watersheds but have substantially less 

motorized travel and generally less other use. For example, fifty eight of these dispersed use 

watersheds have less than 1 mile of route addition proposed, usually in scattered segments, in 

216 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

watersheds each averaging about 6,000 acres in size. The past, present and expected future 

management activity level is not anticipated to exceed, and is likely less than, that in the concentrated 

use watersheds based upon review of the list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

(Appendix B). 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Cross Country Travel: Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Alternative 3 will not add 246 miles of 

unauthorized routes. The time frame of 10 years allows for most of the routes to grow vegetation and 

stabilize to background erosion rates. Recovery will be slower where soils are less productive 

(shallow, rocky soils) or where much of the original soil profile is lost to mechanical erosion. 

Additions to the NFTS: No unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS. 

Changes to the Existing NFTS: No changes are made to the NFTS or existing seasonal closures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Soil cumulative effects parallel the water cumulative effects determined during the CWE analysis. 

The largest concentration of use occurs in the 10 watersheds that coincide with the three principal offhighway vehicle activity areas on the forest. These are the watersheds for which detailed CWE 

analysis was conducted. The total ERA values in the 10 concentrated watersheds are summarized by 

alternative as follows: 

The total ERA ranges from 2.59% to 7.93% with no additions to the NFTS. 

The highest ERA was determined in Lyons Reservoir-Lower South Fork watershed. The ERA was 

7.93%. This level of compaction and detrimental disturbance is substantially below the Stanislaus 

Forest Plan standard and guideline to avoid compacting more than 15% of a treatment area (USDA 

2005a). 

The remaining watersheds outnumber the concentrated use watersheds but have substantially less 

motorized travel and generally less other use. For example, fifty eight of these dispersed use 

watersheds have less than 1 mile of route addition proposed, usually in scattered segments, in 

watersheds each averaging about 6,000 acres in size. The past, present and expected future 

management activity level is not anticipated to exceed, and is likely less than, that in the concentrated 

use watersheds based upon review of the list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

(Appendix B). 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Cross Country Travel: Cross-Country travel is prohibited in Alternative 4. Unauthorized routes are 

converted to system routes or closed. Proliferation of unauthorized routes is assumed zero or minor. 

Use will be discontinued on 70 miles of unauthorized routes. The routes will be closed to use and 

allowed to passively recover. Passive recovery and re-vegetation is expected within a 10 year period. 

Disturbed areas on shallow soils, particularly above 8,000 feet elevation (cold temperature), will 

recover more slowly. These changes will have a positive effect on soil conditions as compared to the 

No-action Alternative. 

Additions to the NFTS: Alternative 4 will add 175 miles of unauthorized roads and trails to the 

present NFTS. These already exist on the ground. Indicators for effects analysis are MEHR and 

Hydrologic Function Class, HFC 

217 
 

Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

MEHR: About 151 miles of additions to the NFTS occur on high MEHR soils. This suggests that 

“off trail” accelerated erosion is more likely to occur where concentrated flow of water is directed off 

the trail. Mitigation will lower the actual EHR to low or moderate. Definitions of maintenance and 

mitigation treatments are described and the route cards specify site specific treatments. 

About 31 miles of additions to the NFTS have steep gradients (Table 3.07-4). This implies higher 

maintenance needs and costs for some segments. This does not imply that the routes should not be 

added to the system, only that the routes are prone to tread loss and need mitigated. 

Soil condition is expected to improve compared to Alternative 2 because 175 miles of unauthorized 

routes will now be subject to mitigation and brought up to standards before the routes are added to the 

NFTS. 

Changes to the Existing NFTS: Change would occur on a total of 368 miles of NFTS roads. All 

existing seasonal closures are replaced by winter closures of all routes based on elevation and wet 

weather closures on native surfaced routes. The alternative opens 101 miles of roads and closes 11 

miles. Other changes in vehicle class include converting 99 miles of road to trail. Opening 101 miles 

of closed roads is the larger change relative to soil effects. The HFC shows that 45 miles of route 

segments are prone to loss of hydrologic function and water control. The season of use requirements 

in zone 2 and 3 along with required maintenance and mitigation are expected to mitigate both on/off 

trail loss of water control concerns. Appendix I lists mitigation measures by route. 

Other minor changes in vehicle class on existing NFTS routes will have minimal effect relative to soil 

erosion, because these roads where constructed to traditional road standards of compaction and 

drainage control. The effect would be limited in scope, with winter and wet weather requirements. 

Soil Effects: Soil effects are based on a GIS analysis of routes and HFC. The Hydrologic Function 

Class sorts route segments that are more prone to loss of water control and eventual loss of facility 

(the trail itself). The rating is simply a soil hazard classification or method to predict weak areas in 

the trail system that may rut and erode easily and require a higher level of mitigation. 

Table 3.07-3 summarizes miles of route or “footprint” occurring on soils that are sensitive to 

mechanical rutting and erosion. Alternative 4 proposes 175 miles of additions to the NFTS; of which 

68 miles are prone to failure of drainage structures and loss of water control. Alternative 4 will open 

101 miles of NFTS routes that are presently closed to the public; of which 45 miles have a high 

rutting and erosion potential. The alternative proposes to close 65 miles of unauthorized routes, of 

which 22 miles are considered as sensitive to gully erosion as passive recovery slowly stabilizes the 

closed routes. Alternative 4 adds the maximum miles of authorized routes, and the maximum miles of 

routes subject to rutting and erosion or loss of hydrologic function. Figure 3.07-3 illustrates the 

concept. 

The “net footprint” (see bottom of Table 3.07-3) considered the collective result of closing or opening 

routes looking at a time frame of 1 year and 10 years into the future. Some routes will continue to be 

sensitive to a loss of road hydrologic function by virtue of soil type, gradient, and amount of use. No 

proliferation of routes is assumed for Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. Passive recovery is assumed to be 

gradual over 10 years. Erosion control on closed NFTS routes is assumed to be effective in year 1. 

The net footprint of routes on sensitive soils is estimated at 113 miles after 10 years for Alternative 4. 

218 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Figure 3.07-3 Soil Analysis: Route Additions and Close-to-Open with Soil Hazard Classification 

219 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Soil cumulative effects parallel the water cumulative effects determined during the CWE analysis. 

The largest concentration of use occurs in the 10 watersheds that coincide with the three principal offhighway vehicle activity areas on the forest. These are the watersheds for which detailed CWE 

analysis was conducted. The total ERA values in the 10 concentrated watersheds are summarized by 

alternative as follows: 

The total ERA ranges from 2.77% to 8.13%. The additions to the NFTS account for less than 0.31% 

ERA in these watersheds, a very small fraction of the total ERA value. 

The highest ERA was determined in Lyons Reservoir-Lower South Fork watershed. The ERA was 

8.13%. This level of compaction and detrimental disturbance is substantially below the Stanislaus 

Forest Plan S&G to avoid compacting more than 15% of a treatment area (USDA 2005a). 

The remaining watersheds outnumber the concentrated use watersheds but have substantially less 

motorized travel and generally less other use. For example, fifty eight of these dispersed use 

watersheds have less than 1 mile of route addition proposed, usually in scattered segments, in 

watersheds each averaging about 6,000 acres in size. The past, present and expected future 

management activity level is not anticipated to exceed, and is likely less than, that in the concentrated 

use watersheds based upon review of the list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

(Appendix B). 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Cross Country Travel: Cross-Country travel is prohibited in Alternative 5. Unauthorized routes are 

converted to system routes or closed. Proliferation of unauthorized routes is assumed zero or minor. 

Current use will be discontinued on 215 miles of unauthorized routes. The routes will not be added to 

the NFTS and allowed to passively recover. Passive recovery and re-vegetation is expected within a 

10 year period. Disturbed areas on shallow soils, particularly above 8,000 feet elevation (cold 

temperature), will recover more slowly. These changes will have a positive effect on soil conditions 

as compared to the No-action Alternative. 

Additions to the NFTS: Alternative 5 will add 28 miles of unauthorized roads and trails to the 

present NFTS. These already exist on the ground. Indicators for effects analysis are MEHR and 

Hydrologic Function Class, HFC 

MEHR: About 24 miles of additions to the NFTS occur on high MEHR soils. This suggests that “off 

trail” accelerated erosion is more likely to occur where concentrated flow of water is directed off the 

trail. Mitigation will lower the actual EHR to low or moderate. Definitions of maintenance and 

mitigation treatments are described and the route cards specify site specific treatments. 

HFC: Soils that rut and erode easily are prone to loss of hydrologic function. The hydrologic function 

class sorts route segments that are more prone to loss of water control and eventual loss of facility 

(the trail itself). About 8.6 miles of additions to the NFTS occur on soils with this concern. This 

implies higher maintenance needs and costs for some segments. This does not imply that the routes 

should not be added to the system, only that the routes are prone to tread loss and need mitigation. 

Soil condition is expected to improve compared to the no- action Alternative because 175 miles of 

unauthorized routes will now be subject to mitigation and brought up to standards before the routes 

are added to the NFTS. 

Changes to the Existing NFTS: Change would occur on a total of 525 miles of NFTS roads. All 

existing seasonal closures are replaced by winter closures of all routes based on elevation and wet 

weather closures on native surfaced routes. The alternative opens 12 miles of roads and closes 59 

220 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

miles. Other changes in vehicle class include converting 21 miles of road to trail. Opening 12 miles of 

closed roads is the larger change relative to soil effects because the native surface road will be 

exposed to higher traffic use and soil loss (as compared to a closed road, put to bed and partially revegetated). The HFC shows that 1.8 miles of route segments are prone to loss of hydrologic function 

and water control. The season of use requirements in zone 2 and 3 along with required maintenance 

and mitigation are expected to mitigate both on/off trail loss of water control concerns. Appendix I 

lists mitigation measures by route. 

Other minor changes in vehicle class on existing NFTS routes will have minimal effect relative to soil 

erosion, because these roads where constructed to traditional road standards of compaction and 

drainage control. The effect would be limited in scope, with winter and wet weather requirements. 

Soil Effects: The net footprint of routes on sensitive soils is estimated to be 11 miles after 10 years 

for Alternative 5. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Soil cumulative effects parallel the water cumulative effects determined during the CWE analysis. 

The largest concentration of use occurs in the 10 watersheds that coincide with the three principal offhighway vehicle activity areas on the forest. These are the watersheds for which detailed CWE 

analysis was conducted. The total ERA values in the 10 concentrated watersheds are summarized by 

alternative as follows: 

The total ERA ranges from 2.59% to 8.01%. The additions to the NFTS account for 0.04% of the 

ERA in these watersheds, a very small fraction of the total ERA value. 

The highest ERA was determined in Lyons Reservoir-Lower South Fork watershed. The ERA was 

8.01%. This level of compaction and detrimental disturbance is substantially below the Stanislaus 

Forest Plan standard and guideline to avoid compacting more than 15% of a treatment area (USDA 

2005a). 

The remaining watersheds outnumber the concentrated use watersheds but have substantially less 

motorized travel and generally less other use. For example, fifty eight of these dispersed use 

watersheds have less than 1 mile of route addition proposed, usually in scattered segments, in 

watersheds each averaging about 6,000 acres in size. The past, present and expected future 

management activity level is not anticipated to exceed, and is likely less than, that in the concentrated 

use watersheds based upon review of the list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

(Appendix B). 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

The following shows: (1) the miles of routes by action; (2) the miles of routes displayed by the 

indicator MEHR; and (3) the miles of routes displayed by the indicator HFC. The intent is to present a 

summary of data used to evaluate the alternatives, so the reader can quickly compare the alternatives. 

A brief discussion of soil productivity and season of use requirements is given to provide background 

for the effects analysis. 

Soil Productivity 

The erosion that may occur from the authorized trail or road surfaces is a concern regarding loss or 

degradation of the facility, but not a particular concern for the soil resource, because the route surface 

is a dedicated use and no longer dedicated to growing vegetation. An unauthorized route that is 

converted to a system route has already incurred a significant reduction in soil productivity from 

topsoil displacement, compaction and erosion. The closure of an unauthorized route is a long term 

improvement to soil productivity as it becomes naturally re-vegetated and stabilized. However, the 

original productivity, before disturbance, may not be recovered entirely. 

221 
 

Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

Routes by Actions 

Table 3.07-1 sorts the routes analyzed by three actions: (1) Adding Facilities (those routes that are 

proposed additions to the NFTS); (2) Unauthorized Use (trails that are not part of the NFTS; and (3) 

Changes to the Existing NFTS (mostly changes in vehicle class). Collectively, the routes establish a 

footprint to compare direct and indirect effects. Table 3.07-2 uses the MEHR to display miles of high 

erosion potential by alternative. Table 3.07-3 uses the indicator Hydrologic Function Class to display 

miles where road hydrologic function may be a concern. 

Table 3.07-1 Routes by Action 

Route Type Miles of Route by Action 

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 

Adding Facilities 

Additions to NFTS 151.64 0 0 175.97 28.91 

Unauthorized Use 

Open Unauthorized 0 246 0 0 0 

Closed Unauthorized (passive recovery) 84 0 246 70 215 

Access to campsites 31 

Proliferation (10yrs) 0 22 0 0 0 

Changes to Existing NFTS 

Roads Closed to Open 67 0 0 101 12 

Roads Open to Closed 46 0 0 11 59 

Changes in Vehicle class 1 616 0 0 368 525 

1 Includes conversion from road to trail status, conversion to administrative use only, changes in type of vehicle. 

Routes by MEHR 

Table 3.07-2 is the product of a soil erosion assessment using the indicator MEHR. The MEHR 

values were taken from the Stanislaus Order 3 Soil Survey Report (USDA 1995a). The table displays 

miles of motorized route found on high and very high MEHR soils by alternative. The MEHR is the 

benchmark indicator used to rank soils by low, moderate, high, and very high erosion hazard. It is 

designed to appraise the relative risk of accelerated sheet and rill erosion when protective ground 

cover is removed from a slope. Although the MEHR is a good indicator of relative risk it will over 

estimate the actual erosion hazard under most naturally vegetated conditions. Slopes immediately 

above and below a trail are typically vegetated and provide considerably more ground cover than 

what the maximum erosion hazard rating assumes as a benchmark condition. 

The table is simplified in one respect: (1) Motorized routes where the only change is from one 

vehicle use to another vehicle use is excluded from this table. “Other Changes in Vehicle Class” is 

not considered part of the “net footprint” described below. Minor changes in vehicle class are not 

expected to result in a significant change in soil erosion or hydrologic function on most soils, 

assuming proper maintenance. 

NFTS roads previously closed and now proposed opened under Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 have some 

additional considerations. The roads are engineered roads and the assumption is that they are 

compacted, have functioning drainage structures, and are not built on steep or very steep grades. This 

is not to say that NFTS roads contribute less sediment on a per mile basis than motorcycle and ATV 

routes. These roads need to be considered as part of the net foot print because an increase in on-off 

road erosion is expected to increase somewhat over the non-use condition. 

Three of the five alternatives add unauthorized routes to the NFTS. The routes not added to the NFTS 

will passively re-vegetate. The time frame of 10 years allows for most of the routes to grow 

vegetation and stabilize to background erosion rates. Shallow soils such as lava caps and shallow soils 

at higher elevations above 8,000 feet will recover slowly and possibly to a lesser degree. The closed 

and re-vegetated routes are considered “out of play” after 10 years (not part of the Net Footprint). 

222 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.07-2 Routes by Action and MEHR 

Route Type Miles of high and very high MEHR 

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 

Adding Facilities 

Proposed Additions to NFTS 128 0 0 151 24 

Unauthorized Use 

Open Unauthorized 0 204 0 0 0 

Closed Unauthorized (passive recovery) 1

 75 0 204 53 180 

Access to campsites 25 

Proliferation (10yrs) 0 18 0 0 0 

Changes to Existing NFTS 

Road Closed to Open 60 0 82 2 

Road Open to Closed 37 0 0 9 48 

Other Changes in Vehicle Class 1

 Not Included 1 

Net Footprint 2 (1yr) 226 231 204 277 158 

Net Footprint 2 (10yr) 188 247 0 233 26 

1 Minor vehicle class changes are not expected to result in a change in soil erosion or hydrologic function. 

2 Net Footprint is the net change of unauthorized use, changes in use, and adding facilities. The time frame is 10 years and 1 year.
 

Assumes that closure of existing NFTS and unauthorized routes is a net benefit relative to soil erosion. The benefit is greater after 10
 

years of passive vegetative recovery. 

Routes by HFC 

The indicator, HFC is a soil hazard interpretation that predicts where roads and trails may be prone to 

failure of drainage structures and loss of water control without proper maintenance or mitigation. In 

extreme cases a loss of the facility is possible. Table 3.07-3 displays miles of routes with a higher 

potential for rutting and erosion based on the hazard interpretation, HFC. 

Table 3.07-3 Routes with High Rutting and Erosion Potential (HFC) 

Route Type Miles of high rutting and erosion potential 

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 

Adding Facilities 

Proposed Additions to NFTS 54.7 0 0 67.9 8.6 

Unauthorized Use 

Open Unauthorized 0 81 0 0 0 

Closed Unauthorized (passive recovery) 1 31 0 81 22 75 

Access to campsites 11 

Proliferation (10yrs) 0 9 0 0 0 

Changes to Existing NFTS 

Closed to Open 28.9 0 0 45 2.9 

Open to Closed 16 0 0 3.7 20 

Other Changes in Vehicle Class Not Included 1 

Net Footprint 2 (1yr) 99 92 81 131 66 

Net Footprint 2

 (10yr) 84 101 03 113 11 

1 Minor vehicle class changes are not expected to result in a change in soil erosion or hydrologic function. 

2 Net Footprint is the net change of unauthorized use, changes in use, and adding facilities. The time frame is 10 years and 1 year.
 

Assumes that closure of existing NFTS and unauthorized routes is a net benefit relative to soil erosion. The benefit is greater after 10
 

years of passive vegetative recovery. 

3 Zero is equivalent to the existing NFTS. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Initially the differences between the alternatives are not great. The net footprint (net impact) using a 

one year time frame is somewhat similar, with Alternative 5 ranking the best (most protective) 

relative to the soil resource and Alternative 4 least protective (greatest risk to soil resource) . The net 

footprint using a 10 year time frame shows a similar ranking, but Alternative 3 and Alternative 5 now 

have a much lower net impact. Alternatives 3 and 5 are essentially the existing NFTS (maximum 

miles of closure and passive recovery). Note that over the longer time frame, Alternative 1 is a lower 

impact than Alternative 2 and 4 although the differences are not great. 

223 
 

Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus 

Soil Resource National Forest
 

Additions to the NFTS 

Table 3.07-4 shows a comparison of the two indicators and gradient class by alternative for proposed 

additions to NFTS. The factor or indicator displays different ways of looking at routes and soil 

concerns related to the routes. The focus here is on additions to the NFTS because they represent the 

bulk of non-engineered facilities being added to the existing NFTS system. 

Table 3.07-4 Additions to the NFTS: MEHR, Hydrologic Function Class and Gradient Class 

Factor or Indicator Route Addition Miles 

ALT 1 ALT 21 ALT 31 ALT 4 ALT 5 

MEHR-high and very high 128.2 0 0 151.0 24.0 

HFC 54.7 0 0 68.0 8.6 

Gradients-steep and very steep 26.1 0 0 31.4 5.9 

Additions Forest-wide 151.64 0 0 175.97 28.37 1

 Alt 2 and Alt 3 have no additions to the NFTS proposed 

Gradient class was not a formal indicator to weigh alternatives by, but it proved especially useful for 

1) sorting routes to look at in the field; and 2) applying mitigation in a uniform manner. 

Table 3.07-5 Summary of Effects: Soil Resource 

Indicators Ranking of Alternative for each Indicator 1 

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 

Miles of unauthorized routes displayed by miles in each of the R5 HER 

ratings. 3 1 5 2 4 

Miles of authorized roads and trails displayed by miles in each of the 

R5 HER ratings. 3 1 5 2 4 

Average 3 1 5 2 4 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the least impact for this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative is the most impact. 

Compared with the existing condition, represented by Alternative 2 (no action), all other alternatives 

result in a reduction of direct, and indirect and cumulative soil effects. Table 3.07-5 gives a ranking of 

alternatives comparing authorized and unauthorized routes. A ranking of 5 is best (most protective) 

for the soil resource and 1 is the least protective. The ranking is based on the miles of analysis routes 

on high and very high MEHR soils shown in Table 3.07-2 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 comply with applicable S&Gs (USDA 2005a). If any of those alternatives 

are implemented, or a combination thereof, applicable soil standards and guidelines would be 

followed. Alternative 2 would not comply with the intent of the plan standards because unregulated 

cross country motorized travel would continue to occur and negatively impact the soil resource. 

224 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.08 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
 

This section examines the extent to which alternatives respond to transportation facilities direction 

established in the Forest Plan under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) and the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA). The National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) on the Stanislaus consists of roads and trails. The NFTS provides for 

protection, development, management, and utilization of resources on the National Forests. Other 

routes on the Forest are not currently part of the NFTS. Transportation facilities considered in this 

analysis include roads and trails that are suitable for public motor vehicle use. This analysis considers 

changes needed to the NFTS to meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Decisions regarding 

changes in the transportation facilities must consider: 1) providing for adequate public safety, and 2) 

providing adequate maintenance of the roads and trails that will be designated for public use. This 

analysis focuses primarily on these two aspects of the NFTS. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects transportation facilities includes: 

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 212 (36 CFR 212) is the implementing regulation for the 

FRTA and includes portions of the Travel Management Rule published in the Federal Register on 

November 9, 2005. Part 212, Subpart B provides criteria for designation of roads and trails. Providing 

safe transportation facilities and considering the affordability of maintaining the transportation 

facilities are two of the criteria used in this analysis. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) sections 2350 and 7700 contain agency policy for management of the 

NFTS. The policy requires the development of trail management objectives (TMOs) and road 

management objectives (RMOs). The TMOs and RMOs document the purpose of each trail or road. 

The purpose for the trail or road sets the parameters for maintenance standards needed to meet user 

needs, resource protection and public safety. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.59 describes the 

maintenance management system the Forest Service uses and the maintenance standards needed to 

meet road management objectives (RMOs) for the road system and include considerations for public 

safety. 

Regional Forester’s letters, file code 7700/2350, dated 08/26/06, 06/20/07, and 1/30/09 contain 

procedures National Forests in Pacific Southwest Region will use to evaluate safety aspects of public 

travel on roads when proposed changes to the NFTS will allow both highway Legal and non-highway 

Legal traffic on a road (motorized mixed use). 

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) regulates the use of motor vehicles in California, including 

motor vehicles used on the National Forests. The CVC sets safety standards for motor vehicles and 

vehicle operators. It defines the safety equipment needed for highway Legal and non-highway Legal 

vehicles. It also defines the roads and trails where non-highway Legal motor vehicles may be 

operated. 

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295): The alternatives in this EIS are designed 

specifically to implement the requirements of the November 5, 2005, rule for travel management; 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. In particular, it addresses the requirements of 

36 CFR 212, Subpart B, Designation of roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas which states in 

part, “Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in 

areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time 

of year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National Forest 

System.” 

225 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

The Forest Plan provides Motor Vehicle Travel Management direction for all motorized travel 

(Appendix C). Every acre of the Stanislaus National Forest treated by the Forest Plan fits into either 

the Closed or Restricted categories (USDA 2005a). 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Public Safety – 36 CFR 212.55 requires public safety be considered when designating roads, trails 

and areas for motor vehicle use. The proposed additions and changes to the NFTS are evaluated for 

the effects on public safety. Where changes in vehicle class use on roads results in highway and nonhighway legal use on the same road, a Motorized Mixed Use/Combined Use analysis was conducted 

(project record). Motorized Mixed Use is defined as the “designation of an NFS road for use by both 

highway-Legal and non-highway Legal vehicles” (FSM 7705). Combined Use is defined as “In 

addition to Section 38025 and after complying with subdivision (c) of this section, if a local authority, 

an agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and Recreation finds that a highway, 

or a portion thereof, under the jurisdiction of the authority, agency, or the director, as the case may 

be, is located in a manner that provides a connecting link between off-highway motor vehicle trail 

segments, between an off-highway motor vehicle recreational use area and necessary service 

facilities, or between lodging facilities and an off-highway motor vehicle recreational facility and if it 

is found that the highway is designed and constructed so as to safely permit the use of regular 

vehicular traffic and also the driving of off-highway motor vehicles on that highway, the local 

authority, by resolution or ordinance, agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and 

Recreation, as the case may be, may designate that highway, or a portion thereof, for combined use 

and shall prescribe rules and regulations therefore (California Vehicle Code, Division 16.5, Chapter 

1, Section 38026). Refer to the project record for specific mixed use and combined use analysis on 

each road or trail reviewed. 

Motorized mixed use (MMU) on passenger car roads was evaluated under Combined Use standards, 

as defined under the California Vehicle Code (Division 16.5, Chapter 1, and Section 38026). The 

Combined Use evaluations required a more thorough analysis of issues. Mitigation options for each 

road were determined from existing factors and identifying those items that would be detrimental to 

public safety from the mixed motorized traffic. 

All high clearance routes considered for new OHV use designations underwent a mixed use analysis. 

Each analysis evaluated current use, past crash histories, right-of-way issues, road maintenance 

practices and general topography. These issues were combined to determine the probability and 

severity of crashes between highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the particular route. 

Existing unauthorized routes were identified for continued use where no resource conflicts or 

mitigations were needed, where they provided loop opportunities, reduced user conflicts, or provided 

access to destination sites. These routes would be added to the trails system for continued 

management. 

Affordability – 36 CFR 212.55 requires consideration of the need for maintenance and 

administration of the designated NFTS. Costs for the NFTS include costs for needed maintenance 

work that has not been completed for various reasons (deferred maintenance) and costs of 

maintenance that should be performed routinely to maintain the facility to its current standard (annual 

maintenance). Additional costs may be associated with proposed changes to the NFTS 

(implementation costs). These costs may be for improving unauthorized routes that will be added to 

the NFTS, proposed safety and resource improvements, changing maintenance levels, bringing trails 

up to standard, and closing routes to use by motor vehicles. 

226 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Assumptions Specific to Transportation Facilities 

1.	 Changing roads maintained for passenger cars to roads maintained for high clearance vehicles 

does not present a safety risk when motorized mixed use is not allowed. 

2.	 Roads maintained for high clearance vehicles would remain in the same maintenance category 

whether or not the vehicle class changes. Maintenance needs for these roads would remain the 

same, regardless of vehicle use. 

3.	 Public safety will be enhanced by eliminating mixed traffic on roads that are no longer needed 

and converting them to trails. Motorized trail eligible vehicle classes are high clearance vehicles 

(4WD, etc), ATV and motorcycles. Low clearance highway legal vehicles are not prohibited on 

trails but generally do not use trails. 

4.	 The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires motor vehicles operated on maintenance level (ML) 

3, 4 and 5 roads to be highway legal and be operated by licensed drivers. When roads are 

designated for combined use, the following additional items are required by CVC for Offhighway vehicles: drivers must be licensed; drivers must have liability insurance; only operate 

during daytime; have an operational stop light; and have rubber tires. The CVC allows the 

operation of non-highway Legal vehicles operated by unlicensed drivers on roughly graded roads 

(ML 2). The Stanislaus National Forest considers roads maintained for high clearance vehicles as 

roughly graded and considers operation of OHVs on these roads to be consistent with state law. 

Roads maintained for passenger cars are considered highways by CVC, and operation of OHVs 

on those roads is not consistent with state law. Short stretches of these roads may be designated 

for combined use where an engineering analysis determines no threat to public safety from this 

combined use or a line officer determines that safety issues will be mitigated prior to allowing 

combined use. 

5.	 Motor vehicle use authorized by state law occurs on the NFTS unless Forest specific prohibitions 

are in effect. 

6.	 Motor vehicle use by special use permit (fuelwood gathering, motorized SUP event, recreation 

residences, mining activities) or other permitted activities such as hydropower licensed road 

facilities (FERC) and Raker Act (Hetch Hetchy project) permitted roads are outside the scope of 

this proposal. 

7.	 The Forest Service will bear some cost for maintenance of any route open to motor vehicle use by 

the public. 

8.	 State law regulating motor vehicle drivers sets the standard of care for the safety of themselves 

and other users for the NFTS. 

9.	 Roads and trails do not need to be maintained every year on every mile. For cost comparison 

analyses between alternatives, it is assumed that the maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining every mile of road and trail to standard. 

Data Sources 

1.	 Infra Database 

2.	 Road maintenance costing spreadsheet 04/16/08 (FY2006 Deferred Maintenance based on Forest 

Condition Surveys, Deferred Maintenance per ML based on March 2008 Miles and Estimate per 

mile, Miles by Objective ML based on 8 March 2008 Road Core) 

3.	 Stanislaus Forest Road Analysis 1/13/03, revised 4/7/03 

4.	 Stanislaus National Forest Average Costs for Motorized Route Routine Maintenance/Repair, Oct. 

2008 

Transportation Facilities Indicators 

1.	 Public Safety 

2.	 Affordability (annual maintenance and implementation cost) 

227 
 

Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

Transportation Facilities Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel. 

Indicator(s): none 

Direct and Indirect Effects from unauthorized use: Resources potentially get damaged from the 

creation of new routes and new disturbances. Improper location of user created roads and trails 

can lead to sedimentation from erosion and affect the road bed and trail tread if sediment and 

erosion dump on to existing transportation facilities. Prohibition of travel off of designated routes 

will reduce sedimentation and erosion and negative effects to the transportation system. 

Methodology: none 

Short-term time frame: The 1 year time frame looks at routes over the short-term. It does not 

provide time for passive recovery on closed routes. 

Long-term time frame: The 20 year time frame looks at routes over the longer term 

Spatial boundary: forestwide 

Rationale: Mixed Use Analysis Guidelines, Regional Costing Guidelines 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class. 

Indicator(s): public safety and affordability 

Direct and Indirect Effects from additions to the NFTS: additions to the NFTS will not have a 

negative effect to the transportation system itself. It should be beneficial in terms of forest visitors 

knowing where to travel and where to recreate. Public safety would be addressed by determining 

whether additions would improve public safety or diminish it. Affordability would be compared 

by alternative in terms of cost to maintain the system and implement the decision. 

Methodology: evaluation and comparison of maintenance costs for the entire NFTS for both 

roads and trails by alternative. 

Short-term time frame: The 1 year time frame looks at routes over the short-term. It does not 

provide time for passive recovery on closed routes. 

Long-term time frame: The 20 year time frame looks at routes over the longer term 

Spatial boundary: forestwide 

Rationale: Mixed Use Analysis Guidelines, Regional Costing Guidelines 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class. 

Indicator(s): public safety and affordability 

Direct and Indirect Effects from changes to the NFTS: analysis would focus on how changes to 

the system would enhance or diminish public safety through changes in use on the road and trail 

system. Changes in public safety would be analyzed and compared in each alternative. 

Affordability would be compared in relation to the baseline of Alternative 2 and determine 

whether costs to manage the system were increasing or decreasing in each action alternative. 

Vehicle class changes vary from converting roads to trails; opening of closed roads; converting 

closed roads to administrative use only; closing of open roads to public use motorized use; and 

converting roads from all vehicles allowed to Highway Legal Only. All of these actions improve 

the safety of the public by providing better management of the resources. Roads would be closed 

to protect facilities, and private property. Other roads would be opened to access existing NFTS 

228 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

roads, dispersed sites, or property access. Those roads opened to all vehicles improve trail 

connectivity, and require a mixed use analysis. Those roads changed to Highway Legal Only 

vehicles reduce mixed traffic implications and probability of crashes with non-highway legal 

vehicles. 

Methodology: comparison of costs to maintain the NFTS by alternative. 

Short-term time frame: not applicable. 

Long-term time frame: The 20 year time frame looks at routes over the longer term 

Spatial boundary: Forestwide. 

Rationale: Mixed Use Analysis Guidelines, Regional Costing Guidelines. 

Season of Use: Effects on roads from wheeled over the snow use are analyzed within the 

alternatives for wheeled over snow use. 

Wheeled Over Snow Use: Public safety and affordability are analyzed and compared to the 

baseline alternative (Alternative 2). 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Indicator(s): public safety and affordability 

Direct and Indirect Effects from all reasonable foreseeable actions: Determine whether any other 

additional actions identified in Appendix B will affect the transportation system. 

Methodology: comparison of the alternatives by whether public safety is projected to increase or 

decrease and whether the system is increasing or decreasing in costs compared to the baseline 

(Alternative 2). 

Short-term time frame: not applicable. 

Long-term time frame: The 20 year time frame looks at routes over the longer term 

Spatial boundary: Forestwide. 

Rationale: Mixed Use Analysis Guidelines, Costing Regional Guidelines. 

Affected Environment 

The majority of the forest roads in the Stanislaus National Forest were built primarily for timber 

harvest access between 1950 and 1990. Higher standard roads were intended and designed for 

multiple uses including public access. These routes serve as the backbone of the Forest’s 

transportation system. In the 1980s the Stanislaus constructed about 30 miles of new roads per year, 

with a high of 104 miles in 1980. In the 1990s, about 5 miles per year of new roads were constructed, 

and in 2001 or 2002, no miles of new roads were constructed. The level of timber harvest and the 

subsequent need for new roads to access vegetative treatment has declined substantially since 

implementation of the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines in 1993, except 

during fire salvage operations. 

Public use of the road system has grown steadily. In 1950, the nationwide average ratio of recreation 

to timber traffic on Forest Roads was 10 to 1. In 1975, the ratio was 27 to 1. In 1996, the ratio was 

estimated at 114 to 1. Approximately 20% of forest visitors who were surveyed in 2003 and 2007 

identified driving for pleasure as the primary reason for their visits. When surveyed the visitors felt 

that road conditions were important to their visit and 65% thought the road conditions were either 

good or very good when traveling in the General Forest. Eighty seven per cent of the visitors 

surveyed also felt the road conditions were good or very good when traveling to developed sites or 

day use areas (USDA 2004b; USDA 2008b). Almost all National Forest visitors travel on NFTS 

229 
 

Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

roads to access recreation activities, gather forest products, drive for pleasure, or drive through to get 

to another destination. Roads opened the Stanislaus National Forest to hundreds of thousands visitors. 

They provide access for all forms of recreation, research, fish and wildlife habitat management, 

grazing, timber harvesting, fire suppression, fuels reduction, mining, insect and disease control and 

access to private land. 

NFTS roads are not public roads in the same sense as roads that are under the jurisdiction of State and 

county road agencies. These roads are not intended to meet the transportation needs of the public at 

large. Instead, they are authorized only for the use and administration of National Forest lands. 

Although roads are generally open and available for public use, that use is at the discretion of the 

Secretary of Agriculture. Through authorities delegated by the Secretary, the Forest Service may 

restrict or control traffic to meet specific management direction. 

The Stanislaus National Forest currently manages approximately 2,947 miles of NFTS roads and 85.3 

miles of NFTS motorized trails. About 2,259 miles of roads are currently open to the public. Some 

roads or segments of roads accessing the National Forest are in county-maintained road systems and 

under county jurisdiction. Some examples are Dunbar Road, Highland Lakes Road, South 

Fork/Italian Bar Road, Dodge Ridge Road, Clark Fork Road and Greeley Hill Road. Roads provide 

needed access for public use of the National Forest and access to some communities and private land. 

Tourism is a major contributor to the local economy, and recreation on the Stanislaus National Forest 

is an important component of the tourism industry. Access to recreation activities is now the 

dominant use on many Forest Service roads. Chapter 3.04 (Recreation) and Chapter 3.06 (Society) 

give a more in-depth analysis of the consequences of the proposed changes to the transportation 

system associated with recreational use and the economy. 

In addition to the NFTS roads, other existing routes on the Forest are not part of the NFTS. These 

routes originated in different ways. Some were built as temporary roads, often for timber access. 

Some were user-created routes made by unauthorized OHV use. The exact amount of unauthorized 

roads is not yet known because the entire Forest has not been inventoried. About 490 miles of 

unauthorized routes were inventoried: 260 miles of roads and 230 miles of trails. Forest Service 

policy directs that unclassified roads should be inventoried and added to the road system, added to the 

trail system or decommissioned. An estimated 230 miles of wheeled tracks were found in the 2006 

OHV Inventory. 

In some areas of the Stanislaus National Forest, new routes continue to be developed by people 

driving their vehicles off existing roads. After one vehicle leaves a set of wheel tracks, other vehicles 

sometimes follow, creating an unauthorized route. Route proliferation is estimated at 2 miles per year. 

The Forest Service identifies maintenance levels for the NFTS roads to guide how they are managed. 

Maintenance level (ML) 3, 4 and 5 roads are maintained for passenger car travel and are considered 

highways under the CVC and subject to the Federal Highway Safety Act. ML 5 roads are roads that 

are maintained with stable, smooth surfaces providing a relatively high degree of user comfort and are 

usually paved. ML 4 roads are managed to provide a moderate level of user comfort are usually paved 

or otherwise surfaced roads; ML 3 roads, usually gravel surfaced, are the lowest level considered 

suitable for passenger cars. ML 2 roads are maintained for high clearance vehicles such as trucks and 

pickup trucks, and non-highway legal vehicles. ML 2 roads are considered roughly graded under the 

CVC and OHVs are generally permitted to drive on them. Roads which are closed to motor vehicle 

traffic for a period of at least a year at a time are designated ML 1 (USDA 2003b). ML 1 roads are 

closed and not maintained. They are needed for a future use. An expanded definition of road 

maintenance levels can be found in Appendix D (Glossary). 

The Forest conducts maintenance annually on roads that need routine maintenance such as ditch 

cleaning, surface blading, brushing, and culvert cleaning. Repair of signs and warning devices are 

included. Other activities could include asphalt repair and maintenance of rolling dips. Not all roads 

230 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

need maintenance every year. The miles of existing roads by maintenance level are listed in Table 

3.08-1. The great majority of the roads on the Stanislaus are native surfaced, maintenance level 2, 

local roads which receive relatively light traffic volumes. 

Table 3.08-1 Existing Maintenance Levels 

Objective Maintenance Level1 Miles NFTS (%) 

1 - Closed, Basic Custodial Care 372.4 12.6 

2 - High Clearance Vehicles 2,163.7 73.4 

3 - Suitable for Passenger Cars 243.3 8.3 

4 - Moderate Degree of User Comfort 54.4 1.9 

5 - High Degree of User Comfort 112.9 3.8 

totals 2,946.7 100.0 

1 Stanislaus National Forest Roads Analysis (USDA 2003b) 

Road Management Capabilities and Funding Levels 

In the past decade, road maintenance capabilities declined. The Forest Roads Analysis (USDA 2003b) 

had identified three key reasons for the decline: 1) decline in timber harvest related road 

maintenance, 2) decline in budget, and 3) decline in staffing. These key reasons have not changed in 

past few years. Results of this decline in maintenance include loss of access on some roads, declining 

level of service on some roads, increasing soil erosion and sedimentation, and loss of infrastructure 

investment. The forest continues to rely on contractors and service contract projects to assist in road 

maintenance as part of project implementation. This strategy does not cover the entire transportation 

system maintenance needs. 

In order to analyze funding levels between alternatives, Regional average costs per mile to maintain 

each operational maintenance level were developed and applied to the local forest road system to 

calculate the estimated total cost as shown in Table 3.08-2. 

To better understand the costing analysis and comparisons between alternatives, two terms need 

definition: annual maintenance and deferred maintenance (also called deferred maintenance backlog). 

Maintenance needs on NFTS roads are categorized and quantified in several ways that should be 

understood to make sense of cost data and projected annual and deferred maintenance needs being 

reported at the national level. The Stanislaus National Forest does maintenance activities in all these 

categories sited below but does not do all the activities on every mile in every year. 

 Traffic Generated and Non-Traffic Generated Maintenance: Traffic generated maintenance 

needs are those associated with the use of a road, such as rutting of the roadbed caused by traffic 

during wet weather. In general, as use on a particular route increases, so does the traffic-generated 

maintenance needs. Non-traffic generated maintenance is independent of the use of a road. For 

example, the growth of tree limbs and brush creates a maintenance need, but the growth is 

independent of the volume of traffic the road receives. 

 Annual Maintenance: This term refers to the expected annual maintenance required on 

roadways and roadsides based on the Maintenance Level assigned to the road. The actual amount 

of maintenance required depends on the amount of use the road has received, the condition of the 

surface, and the season of use. Annual maintenance estimates include many work items that are 

not done yearly, but are annualized. For example, the aggregate surfacing on a mile of level 3 

road may last 25 years and cost $60,000 to replace. This equates to a simple annualized cost of 

$2,400 per mile. 

 Deferred Maintenance: This is work that can be deferred, without loss of road serviceability, 

until such time as the work can be economically or efficiently performed. Using the example 

above, if the surfacing is completely worn down the deferred maintenance is $60,000 per mile for 

replacement. Deferred maintenance needs can be reduced through a number of different actions 

and strategies, as discussed below. 

231 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

 Safety and User Related Maintenance: This term refers to activities that protect the public and 

agency employees and allow use of the road for the intended purpose. Examples include 

installation of warning devices (such as stop or bridge abutment signs); pothole patching on a 

level 5 road; maintaining surface and brush clearance for passenger car access to developed 

recreation sites; maintaining access for fire suppression initial attack equipment; or maintaining 

access for forest health project planning and implementation. 

 Resource Protection Related Maintenance: These activities preserve the road prism for its 

intended use and minimize erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic systems. Examples include 

ditch and culvert cleaning; maintaining rolling dips to prevent stream diversion; or surface 

blading to remove wheel ruts that concentrate runoff. 

 Storm proofing and Aquatic Passage: These projects reconstruct a road using various 

techniques to minimize chronic and storm related resource damage, reduce future maintenance 

costs, and restore aquatic passage at stream crossings. Storm proofing includes out-sloping the 

road surface to the maximum extent possible and eliminating associated inboard ditches and cross 

drains; installing larger culverts and/or lowering the grade through stream crossings to reduce fill 

volume and prevent diversion; installing rolling dips on moderate road grades to minimize road 

surface erosion; armoring fills with rock to reduce erosion should they be overtopped; or 

completely replacing earth fills with rock. Aquatic passage involves replacing a pipe culvert with 

an open bottom culvert or bridge to restore the natural stream bottom 

Table 3.08-2 Estimated Maintenance Costs 

ML miles National Average 

$/mi Totals 

1 372.4 $225.00 $83,790 

2 2,163.5 $543.33 $1,175,494 

3 243.3 $10,870.00 $2,644,671 

4 54.4 $14,106.67 $767,366 

5 112.9 $14,106.67 $1,592,643 

subtotal 2,946.5 NA $6,180,174 

Trails 85.5 $730.00 $62,429 

total 3,032.0 $6,326,393 

Deferred Maintenance Backlog 

The Stanislaus National Forest’s transportation system has developed over the past 100 years, 

generally in response to public access and resource management needs. The current inventory shows 

2,947 miles of road, with 86% in ML 1 and ML 2, and only 14% in ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5 (see Table 

3.08-1). Road maintenance budgets declined over the past decade, and the Forest’s internal capability 

to maintain roads has been reduced with loss of maintenance personnel and equipment. The 

Stanislaus Forestwide Roads Analysis reported a deferred maintenance backlog of $55.5 million and 

the need for an annual maintenance budget of $6.1 million to cover all ML 1-5 roads on the system 

(USDA 2003b). Using a nationally developed formula for determining deferred and annual 

maintenance needs, FY 2008 figures are $96,965,742 deferred maintenance backlog and annual 

maintenance costs of $6,326,393.00. These national estimates require some explanation. The deferred 

and annual maintenance figures were generated using a national formula based on random sampling 

(less than 0.2% miles of system roads nationwide for 2009) and standard maintenance prescriptions. 

It is a useful tool for tracking national trends and producing auditable outputs, but was never intended 

for use at the forest level, nor is it considered to be statistically valid at this scale. The annual 

maintenance costs will be used as an indicator of maintenance needs for the existing road system and 

will be used as a comparison value to show relative differences of maintenance costs between 

alternatives. 

232 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Annual Maintenance 

A variety of funding sources are used to maintain roads and trails: grants, appropriated dollars, 

volunteer work, adopt-a-trail, and adopt-a-road. In Table 3.08-2, the average annual maintenance 

costs are displayed. In actuality, not every road is maintained every year or needs maintenance every 

year. The Forest allocates about $375,000 of its appropriated road dollars annually for routine road 

maintenance activities. The remaining funds needed for road maintenance are derived from other 

funding sources such as grants, special use permits, vegetation management projects, special federal 

funding projects such as American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and Federal Highway 

funds, and project contracts requiring maintenance activities within the project contract area. 

The average costs per mile were derived from condition surveys completed on a randomly selected 

sample of roads. Work items from the condition survey were input into the I-Web database. This data 

was then extrapolated to the entire subset of roads by maintenance level to determine the average cost 

per mile. This random sample was completed in 2007, and the miles were determined by the base 

inventory as reported in I-Web database in March 2008. In some years, minimal maintenance is 

needed. Maintenance activities are generally focused on routes receiving higher use, such as the 

primary connector routes of ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5. In other situations such as heavy storm events, 

more costly maintenance may be needed. 

Forest Strategy for Road and Trail Maintenance 

Stanislaus National Forest line officers regularly make decisions about which roads to maintain or 

improve, and to what standard, in order to protect resources and minimize costs. These maintenance 

decisions, coupled with road projects such as storm proofing, fish passage construction, and 

decommissioning, reduce road maintenance needs and the deferred maintenance backlog. These 

actions are accomplished through carefully targeted maintenance planning, and aggressive pursuit of 

funding opportunities. The Forest has requested and received significant additional funding from 

several sources for road restoration and design projects since 2006. The ongoing decommissioning 

program has resulted in a net loss of road miles over the past 8 years. These actions reduced annual 

road maintenance needs, allowing more regular maintenance funds to be focused on the deferred 

maintenance backlog. 

Priorities for road and trail maintenance are established annually in a maintenance plan. ML 3-5 and 

key ML 2 (arterials) roads receive the highest priority. These roads receive the most traffic on the 

Forest and provide key access to recreation facilities such as campgrounds, boat launches, resorts, 

skiing, and administrative offices. They are the backbone of the transportation system. Roads that are 

needed for other uses such as private property access, fuels reduction projects, and salvage and Forest 

Health projects are maintained by those who use the road. Some roads were “adopted” and are 

maintained under a special use agreement. 

Trails are prioritized based on winter weather events and trail condition surveys. Trails rated green 

generally receive light routine maintenance such as water bar clean out, sign repair and replacement, 

and brushing. Trail segments rated yellow or red receive a higher degree of maintenance. These 

activities could include water bar re-establishment, tread hardening, route grading, and water crossing 

approach hardening. The Forest in the past has maintained about 10 miles of trail annually with 

appropriated dollars and relied on volunteers to maintain the remainder of the system. Special use 

events such as Enduros also contribute to trail maintenance needs as part of the event preparation and 

allowed use. As the Forest moves through completing other project analyses, a closer look at the 

transportation system is conducted and unneeded roads are closed, decommissioned, or restored. 

Averaging the last five years of road reports, only 86.6% of passenger car roads were maintained to 

standards. High clearance roads were only maintained at a 1.3% level. 

Strategies to reduce annual road and trail maintenance costs include: prioritizing maintenance of ML 

2 roads on project and recreation-related access needs; downgrading maintenance levels where 

233 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

possible without compromising user needs; and focusing on watershed level storm proofing and 

decommissioning to enhance resource protection and reduce future maintenance needs. When roads 

no longer warrant or receive the type of use for which they were designed, the road manager may 

recommend that the road’s maintenance level be reduced. For example, in many cases on the Forest, 

ML 3 roads support little traffic, and may be subject to rocks, woody debris, encroaching vegetation 

and uneven surfaces. Over the past decade a number of ML 3 roads were reduced to ML 2, and 

drainage function (rather than passenger comfort) became the primary objective. These roads are then 

prioritized for maintenance with the rest of the ML 2 roads. Annual maintenance needs are reduced, 

and the dollar values assigned to these roads and trails as part of the deferred maintenance backlog are 

also reduced. 

OHV recreation trails rated red or yellow will receive the highest priority for maintenance to bring 

these trails up to standard (green condition survey rating). OHV trails are adopted by clubs and 

individual volunteers. The clubs perform trail maintenance duties, including installation of signs, 

brushing, water bar cleanouts, etc. The Forest has the capability to conduct routine maintenance 

through local expertise in its employees or through contracting with outside businesses. The Forest 

also has the expertise to manage a volunteer program for OHV recreation which would include the 

maintenance of trail facilities. Currently, close to 10 OHV clubs assist the forest annually in 

maintaining trails. 

The primary strategies used in this project to increase public safety and reduce road maintenance 

costs are: changing maintenance level 3 roads (passenger car) to maintenance level 2 (high clearance) 

and converting ML 1 and ML 2 roads to trails. 

The strategy for providing annual maintenance funding includes appropriated dollars from roads and 

trails budget line items, state cooperative OHV grant program; other funding sources such as special 

grants from Tread Lightly. Initiatives such as ARRA, Legacy Roads and Trails, 10% funds which 

deal with roads and trails, watershed restoration and stabilization projects are some examples of 

additional appropriated funding opportunities. 

Environmental Consequences 

Focus is on giving a relative comparison of road and trail maintenance costs, identifying strategies 

which reduce maintenance costs, and disclosing effects where known to public safety from proposed 

vehicle class changes in the following analysis of alternatives, 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

In developing this alternative, maintenance consideration for the transportation system is given to 

reducing ML 3 roads to ML 2 (see Table 3.08-5) and converting ML 1 and ML 2 roads to trails (see 

Table 3.08-6 and Table 3.08-7). In order to connect motorized trail segments to make loop 

opportunities or connect to other opportunities, consideration is given to allow Mixed Use on newly 

converted ML 1 roads to ML 2 which had no previous Mixed Use and to allow Mixed Use on ML 3 

roads (passenger car roads) (see Table 3.08-4). Public safety and risk is evaluated. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as allowed by 

permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS routes unless 

otherwise prohibited. Resources potentially get damaged from the creation of new routes and new 

disturbances. Improper location of user created roads and trails can lead to sedimentation from 

erosion and affect the road bed and trail tread if sediment and erosion dump on to existing 

transportation facilities. Prohibition of travel off of designated routes will reduce sedimentation and 

erosion and negative effects to the transportation system. 

234 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Public Safety: Pubic safety will be increased by implementation of a cross country travel prohibition. 

Although forest visitors should know where it is appropriate to ride and drive and what vehicle type is 

allowed, the expectation that all visitors will actually know cannot be expected. The forest visitor will 

need to continue to use good defensive driving practices when using forest roads and trails. 

Prohibition of cross country travel language would be included in the MVUM. 

Affordability: No changes in costs to maintain the transportation system would occur. Increased costs 

for signing would be a one time expense. Annual maintenance of the signs would be needed. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative adds 151.64 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as trails. Appendix I (Route 

Data) shows the specified vehicle class, season of use and required mitigations. 

Public Safety: Additions to the NFTS should enhance public safety through routine maintenance of 

trails. Trail maintenance enhances public safety through such activities as limbing, solid trail tread, 

and site distance as needed. Trail signs would show trail difficulty and vehicle type, as well as 

direction of travel which provides the recreationist with information to match their skills and abilities. 

Affordability: Funding sources would vary from grants to volunteer work through the Adopt-a trail 

program. Currently, the Stanislaus National Forest has an active Adopt-A-Trail program with several 

clubs participating annually. Examples of funding opportunities from outside sources include grant 

opportunities from California State OHV Cooperative Grants program, Recreational Trail Program 

(RTP), National Forest Foundation, and Tread Lightly. The local communities and outlying 

communities have the capacity to maintain a number of miles these trails. The Forest has the ability 

and capacity to train and assist volunteer organizations in performing these activities. Appropriated 

dollars average $10,000 annually for motorized trail maintenance. Annual costs for trail maintenance 

if every trail was maintained to standard would be about $217,700.60. Increased costs would be 

$155,271 over the existing NFTS trails (see Table 3.08-3). 

Converting ML 1 and ML 2 roads to trails and reducing ML 3 roads to ML 2 reduces road 

maintenance costs by $858,161 (see Table 3.08-3). 

Table 3.08-3 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 1 

NFTS Existing Condition Alternative 1 Difference ML $/mi Miles Cost Miles Cost 

ML 1 $225.00 364.81 $82,082.25 412.6 $92,835.00 $10,752.75 

ML 2 $543.33 2,502.857 $1,359,877.29 2,471.85 $1,343,030.26 ($16,847.03) 

ML 3 $10,870.00 306.92 $3,336,220.40 228.52 $2,484,012.40 ($852,208.00) 

ML 4 $14,106.67 46.34 $653,703.09 46.35 $653,844.15 $141.06 

ML 5 $14,106.67 90.05 $1,270,305.63 90.05 $1,270,305.63 $0.00 

subtotal 3,310.98 $6,702,188.67 3,249.37 $5,844,027.45 ($858,161.21) 

Trails $730.00 85.52 $62,429.60 298.22 $217,700.60 $155,271.60 

total 3,396.50 $6,764,618.27 3,449.31 $6,039,615.05 ($702,290.21) 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 616.91 miles of NFTS roads including: opening 67.47 miles of 

closed roads; closing 45.98 miles of open roads; converting 93.36 miles of roads from Highway Legal 

only to all vehicles; and, converting 400.56 miles of roads from all vehicles to Highway Legal only. 

This alternative also converts 62.28 miles of the 616.91 miles of NFTS roads to trails. Mixed use and 

combined use opportunities are proposed and evaluated in Alternative 1. Mixed use changes and 

combined use changes are proposed where needed to connect trail systems and to connect road loop 

opportunities. 

235 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

Public Safety: The issue of Public Safety is addressed through increasing the miles of road for 

highway Legal only vehicles and reducing mixed use. Roads changed to mixed use were analyzed 

using “Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System 

Roads”. Additionally, motorized mixed use on roads considered highways under California state law 

were assessed for combined use under the California Vehicle Code 38025 and R5 Guidelines (Mixed 

Use Analysis, project record, RO RF letter June 2007). Crash histories were reviewed for all roads 

with changes proposed, from reports submitted by the California Highway Patrol. This alternative 

provides the third lowest miles of mixed use miles, and is the third lowest risk to public safety (see 

Table 3.08-20). Tables 3.08-4 and 3.08-5 list the routes proposed for mixed use and information on 

crash probability and crash severity. The ratings of high and high can be lowered by implementing the 

mitigations recommended in the specialist report and found in Appendix I. The routes in Table 3.08-4 

will require approval by the California Highway Patrol prior to implementing these designations. 

Table 3.08-4 Combined Use Roads: Alternative 1 

Road Miles Crash 

Probability 

Crash 

Severity 

01S03 0.01 Low Low 

01S03 0.68 Low High 

01S03 0.91 Low High 

01S03 2.33 Low High 

02S30 1.11 Low High 

03N01 0.30 High High 

03N01 0.31 High High 

03N01 0.57 High High 

03N01 0.60 High High 

03N01 0.86 High High 

03N01 1.80 High High 

04N09 0.30 High High 

04N25 0.44 High High 

total 10.22 

Table 3.08-5 Mixed Use Roads (changing from ML 3 to ML 2): Alternative 1 

Road Miles Crash 

Probability 

Crash 

Severity 

01N01 0.02 High High 

01N01 0.03 High High 

01N01 0.36 High High 

01N01 0.43 High High 

01N01 7.77 High Low 

01N01 8.47 High High 

02N05 0.83 Low Low 

02N14 1.81 Low Low 

02N14 2.57 Low Low 

02N14 3.50 Low Low 

02S02 0.10 High High 

02S02 2.37 High High 

02S02 5.35 High High 

03N01 5.77 High High 

03N01 1.69 High High 

03N34Y 3.21 High High 

05N01 0.47 High High 

05N01 0.55 High High 

05N01 0.71 High High 

05N01 2.30 High High 

05N01 2.61 High High 

05N14 0.60 High High 

05N14 4.62 High High 

06N58 0.03 High High 

06N58 0.08 High High 

Road Miles Crash 

Probability 

Crash 

Severity 

06N58 0.12 High High 

06N58 0.18 High High 

06N58 0.25 High High 

06N58 0.36 High High 

06N58 0.46 High High 

06N58 0.70 High High 

06N58 0.79 High High 

06N58 0.90 High High 

06N58 1.74 High High 

06N62 1.35 Low Low 

07N05 0.53 Low High 

07N09 0.48 Low High 

07N09 0.84 Low High 

07N09 1.09 Low High 

07N09 1.13 Low High 

07N09 2.23 Low Low 

07N09 0.01 Low High 

07N09 0.44 Low High 

07N09 0.59 Low High 

07N09 2.94 Low High 

07N28 0.91 Low Low 

07N28 0.96 Low Low 

07N28 1.35 Low Low 

total 76.61 

236 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Tables 3.08-6 and 3.08-7 list the roads being converted to trails. Converting roads to trails will 

increase public safety through the removal of mixed use on these routes. Increasing the miles of 

Highway Legal Only increases public safety through the removal of mixed use on these routes as 

well. 

Table 3.08-6 ML 1 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 1 

Road Miles 

01N01C 0.19 

01N01D 0.50 

01N04A 0.44 

01N04C 0.91 

01N07A 0.80 

01N10B 0.16 

01N33Y 0.29 

01N45 1.77 

01N69 1.14 

01N81 0.72 

01N91 0.58 

01S01YC 0.13 

01S03A 0.63 

01S11C 0.07 

01S11C 0.07 

01S11C 0.08 

01S11C 0.22 

01S11C 0.68 

01S11D 0.98 

01S14K 0.17 

01S14L 0.58 

01S15C 0.57 

01S20 0.30 

01S23C 0.27 

01S26A 0.20 

01S27 0.80 

01S30A 0.24 

01S32A 0.50 

Road Miles 

01S39YB 0.38 

01S45Y 0.35 

01S46 0.25 

01S51A 0.77 

01S52Y 0.49 

01S54Y 0.50 

01S56Y 0.60 

01S57B 1.45 

01S57Y 0.66 

01S59 0.87 

01S60Y 0.51 

01S61Y 0.22 

01S61YA 0.55 

01S65Y 0.45 

01S66Y 0.49 

01S86 2.77 

01S86B 0.57 

01S97 0.9 

02N07D 0.05 

02N64 0.71 

02S21Y 1.53 

02S23YA 0.73 

02S37YB 0.74 

02S39B 0.85 

02S43 1.40 

02S64C 0.73 

02S82 0.34 

02S93C 0.36 

Road Miles 

03N48Y 0.75 

04N09 0.04 

04N49YA 0.13 

06N17A 0.09 

06N17A 0.46 

06N17B 0.65 

06N17D 0.35 

06N17J 0.52 

06N17P 0.41 

06N27 1.53 

06N27 3.24 

06N66YB 0.82 

06N76YA 0.25 

06N80Y 0.78 

06N80YA 0.11 

06N85 0.72 

06N85A 0.39 

07N09B 0.45 

07N09W 0.24 

07N14C 0.47 

07N16A 0.20 

07N17A 0.08 

07N18YC 0.32 

07N19X 0.11 

07N48A 0.22 

07N56YA 0.71 

total 48.25 

Table 3.08-7 ML 2 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 1 

Road Miles 

02S21Y 0.30 

03N01P 0.61 

03N01Y 1.69 

03N58 0.29 

07N09A 0.86 

07N09C 0.62 

07N09D 0.16 

07N09E 0.29 

07N09F 0.13 

07N09G 0.12 

07N09H 0.54 

Road Miles 

07N09J 0.26 

07N22 0.05 

07N22 0.43 

07N22 0.01 

07N22 1.03 

07N87 1.70 

07N87A 0.14 

07N87A 0.20 

07N87B 0.12 

total 9.55 

Affordability: No direct effects exist on the transportation system from changing vehicle use from all 

use allowed to highway legal on almost 400 miles of roughly graded roads. Some improvements 

would be needed for increased sight distance through additional brushing (estimated at $650 per mile) 

and additional signing (estimated at $620/mi). Of the 616.91 miles of proposed vehicle class changes, 

65.8 miles of passenger car roads would be reduced to roughly graded roads. An estimated $1,000 per 

mile would cover costs to remove extra signage and replace route ID markers on each road. Also, the 

publication of the Motorized Vehicle Use Map is estimated at $30,000, for data entry and map 

publishing. These additional costs are not funded through special allocations, and would be added 

expense to the already decreased road maintenance budget. Some undetermined amount of road 

maintenance savings result from changing 51.40 miles roads from ML 1 roads and public use roads to 

237 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

administrative use. These roads are not maintained to the same standard. A total reduction of 

$702,290.21 in road and trail maintenance costs would be realized in this Alternative (see Table 3.08­

3). 

Season of Use 

Public Safety: Implementing a seasonal closure will increase public safety through closure of roads 

that are unsafe to travel due to adverse weather conditions such as snow and ice and muddy claybased roads. The public will know when road conditions are considered safe to travel on through the 

implementation of the MVUM. Winter closures will ensure that all users will be restricted to the same 

closure times, dependant on elevation. Seasonal closures will also protect transportation facilities 

from use during inclement weather when increased rutting, erosion, and compaction would occur 

from vehicular use. 

Affordability: No increased costs to the transportation facilities are expected from implementing a 

seasonal closure other than the annual production of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (see Table 3.08-19). 

Reduced maintenance costs would be realized from reduced vehicle use during the wet season. Wet 

weather closures will ensure suitable drying has occurred on native surfaced roads, although access 

will be delayed during the drying period. 

Wheeled Over Snow 

Public Safety: Because no mixed use would be occurring with the prohibition of Highway Legal 

vehicles on the wheeled over snow use routes (snow trails), the risk of crash between higher speed 

vehicles such as 4WD jeeps and ATVs is significantly reduced. 

Affordability: Minor changes to the cost of the management or maintenance of transportation facilities 

is incurred in implementing this alternative. Costs would be associated with signing of wheeled over 

snow routes. No other increased maintenance costs should occur. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Slightly higher initial costs to the maintenance of the transportation system would occur due to 

signing to provide for public safety. These costs would not be incurred annually except for some 

routine sign maintenance. Positive effects would be an increase in overall public safety from 

elimination of cross country travel. Addition and the designation of routes would also increase public 

safety from the existing condition because routes and class of vehicle would be known and shown on 

the ground and on maps. The public would know what type of vehicle activity to expect and where 

that activity may occur. 

This alternative overall reduces road and trail maintenance costs through changes to the transportation 

system compared to the existing condition by $702,290.21. It has the lowest costs associated with 

road and trail maintenance (see Table 3.08-19) and the second lowest risk to public safety. 

Mitigations proposed have no effects on the transportation system and will benefit the system (see 

Appendix I, Route Data). 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Under this alternative the agency would take no affirmative action (no change from current 

management or direction) and cross country travel with continued use of unauthorized routes would 

occur. It includes current closures and does not include any restrictions on motorized dispersed 

recreation access. The Travel Management direction would not be implemented and no MVUM 

would be produced. Unauthorized routes have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities. 

238 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would continue. 

Public Safety: Road uses would continue unchanged. New routes would continue to be created. 

Forest visitors would not know which routes were approved for use and could travel on unsafe, user 

created roads and trails. 

Affordability: The absence of a prohibition of cross country travel does not affect Transportation 

Facilities costs. Maintenance costs would remain unchanged. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

No routes would be added to the NFTS. 

Public Safety: No change from the existing condition would occur. Use would continue on the NFTS. 

Affordability: 85.5 miles of NFTS trails are maintained at a cost of $62,429.60 (see Table 3.08-8). 

The Forest would continue to rely on appropriated dollars and volunteer groups and grants to 

maintain the NF trails system. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

No changes are made to the NFTS and existing closures and restrictions based on current Forest 

Orders (see Table 2.02-7). 

Public Safety: Mixed use would continue on most all Level 2 roads. Public safety would not increase 

or decrease with this alternative. Current management plans would continue to guide management of 

the project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS and no cross country travel 

prohibition would be put into place. Public safety risks could be increased during cross county travel 

off the roads and trail corridors. Unauthorized routes would continue to be unregulated, and overall 

road and trail density could increase. This alternative provides no change in mixed or combined use 

routes, thus no direct change to public safety. 

Affordability: This alternative provides the baseline costs for maintenance of the transportation 

system. If every road were maintained to standard, the cost would be $6,180,174. Total maintenance 

costs, including trails would be $6,764,618.27 (see Table 3.08-8). Maintenance costs would continue 

as they are now with no change in management. No MVUM would be produced, so added costs to 

publish the map would not be anticipated. Deferred maintenance costs would also continue as no 

changes to the road system are recommended. 

Table 3.08-8 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 2 

NFTS Existing Condition 

ML $/mi Miles Cost 

ML 1 $225.00 364.81 $82,082.25 

ML 2 $543.33 2,502.857 $1,359,877.29 

ML 3 $10,870.00 306.92 $3,336,220.40 

ML 4 $14,106.67 46.34 $653,703.09 

ML 5 $14,106.67 90.05 $1,270,305.63 

subtotal 3,310.98 $6,702,188.67 

Trails $730.00 85.52 $62,429.60 

total 3,396.50 $6,764,618.27 

239 
 

Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

Season of Use 

Current forest restrictions would remain in effect (see Table 2.02-7). No changes in cost to 

transportation management of facilities would occur. No consistency in management of roads across 

the forest during the winter season would occur. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be a static road maintenance program, but fewer roads managed efficiently. 

Without publishing a MVUM map, understanding of designated routes for motorized traffic by public 

users will not occur. Public safety would not be enhanced and no opportunity exists to reduce 

transportation maintenance costs. This alternative provides the highest risk to public safety by 

allowing continued mixed use on most all ML 2 roads. This alternative also costs the most to 

maintain (see Table 3.08-19). 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Alternative 3 responds to the administration and resource issues by prohibiting cross country travel 

without adding any new facilities to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a baseline for 

comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS in the form of new 

facilities (roads and trails). None of the currently unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS 

under this alternative. 

Alternative 3 would not change the use of the NFTS and would not add any miles to the NFTS. Under 

this alternative the agency will prohibit cross country travel eliminating continued use of 

unauthorized routes. It would include seasonal closures on routes with existing closures and prohibit 

motorized access beyond existing NFTS routes. 

Table 3.08-9 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 3 

NFTS Existing Condition 

ML $/mi Miles Cost 

ML 1 $225.00 364.81 $82,082.25 

ML 2 $543.33 2,502.857 $1,359,877.29 

ML 3 $10,870.00 306.92 $3,336,220.40 

ML 4 $14,106.67 46.34 $653,703.09 

ML 5 $14,106.67 90.05 $1,270,305.63 

subtotal 3,310.98 $6,702,188.67 

Trails $730.00 85.52 $62,429.60 

total 3,396.50 $6,764,618.27 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as allowed by 

permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS routes unless 

otherwise prohibited. Prohibition of cross country travel would reduce negative effects associated 

with route proliferation: habitat fragmentation, soil disturbance, and habitat damage. Recreation 

motorized use would continue to be unregulated. 

Public Safety: Travel would be confined to the NFTS of roads and trails. The public would know 

where to travel and what type of vehicle could be used. Public safety would be increased, compared 

to Alternative 2. 

Affordability: No costs are associated with prohibiting cross country travel. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Same as Alternative 2. 

240 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Same as Alternative 2. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be a static road maintenance program, but fewer roads managed efficiently. 

However, publishing a MVUM will enhance the public education of where motorized use can occur. 

Public safety would be enhanced through prohibition of cross country travel. Recreationists and forest 

visitors would know where to travel and what mode of vehicle to use. Concentration of recreational 

motorized use on a smaller number of trails may increase maintenance costs some undetermined 

amount from increased use on a smaller system. Costs associated with implementing this alternative 

are slightly higher than Alternative 2 because of MVUM publication costs and informational signing 

associated with Cross Country Travel prohibitions. This alternative is ranked third in terms of public 

safety (see Table 3.08-20). 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

In developing this alternative, maintenance consideration for the transportation system is given to 

reducing ML 3 roads to ML 2 with mixed use allowed (see Table 3.08-11); and converting ML 1 and 

ML 2 roads to trails (see Tables 3.08-12 and 3.08-13). In order to connect motorized trail segments to 

make loop opportunities or connect to other opportunities, consideration is given to allow Mixed Use 

on newly converted ML 1 roads to ML 2 which had no previous Mixed Use and to allow Mixed Use 

on ML 3 roads (passenger car roads) (see Table 3.08-10). Public safety and risk is evaluated. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be prohibited except as allowed by 

permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS routes unless 

otherwise prohibited. 

Public Safety: By prohibiting travel off of designated routes, the public will not travel on 

unauthorized routes, reducing the risk of traveling on unmaintained, and user created routes which 

may be poorly located. Pubic safety will be increased by implementation of a cross country travel 

prohibition. Although forest visitors should know where it is appropriate to ride and drive and what 

vehicle type is allowed, the expectation that all visitors will actually know cannot be expected. The 

forest visitor will need to continue to use good defensive driving practices when using forest roads 

and trails. Prohibition of cross country travel language would be included in the MVUM 

Affordability: The prohibition of cross country travel does not affect Transportation Facilities costs. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 175.97 miles of additions to the NFTS. Appendix I (Route Data) shows the 

specified vehicle class, season of use and required mitigations. 

Public Safety: By adding trails to the NFTS which describe difficulty, location, vehicle class, and 

season of use, the public will know where to recreate and what skills they need to ride on these trails. 

Affordability: Adding these trails increases trail maintenance costs by $200,057 (see Table 3.08-14) 

if every trail were maintained every year. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 368.05 miles of NFTS roads including: opening 101.34 miles 

of closed roads; closing 10.66 miles of open roads; converting 99.52 miles of roads from Highway 

241 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

Legal only to all vehicles; and, converting 145.69 miles of roads from all vehicles to Highway Legal 

only. This alternative also converts 99.38 miles of the 370.89 miles of NFTS roads to trails. Mixed 

use and combined use opportunities are proposed and evaluated. Mixed use changes and combined 

use changes are proposed where needed to connect trail systems and to connect road loop 

opportunities (see Tables 3.08-10 and 3.08-11). ML 1 and ML 2 roads are converted to trails to 

provide loop riding opportunities and reduce road maintenance costs and increase public safety (see 

Tables 3.08-12 and 3.08-13). 

Table 3.08-10 Combined Use Roads: Alternative 4 

Road Miles Crash 

Probability 

Crash 

Severity 

01S03 0.01 Low Low 

01S03 0.68 Low High 

01S03 0.91 Low High 

01S03 2.33 Low High 

02S30 1.11 Low High 

03N01 0.30 High High 

03N01 0.31 High High 

03N01 0.57 High High 

03N01 0.60 High High 

03N01 0.86 High High 

03N01 1.80 High High 

04N09 0.30 High High 

04N25 0.44 High High 

07N01 0.09 High High 

07N75 1.84 High High 

total 12.15 

Table 3.08-11 Mixed Use Roads (changing from ML 3 to ML 2): Alternative 4 

Road Miles Crash 

Probability 

Crash 

Severity 

01N01 0.02 High High 

01N01 0.03 High High 

01N01 0.36 High High 

01N01 0.43 High High 

01N01 7.77 High Low 

01N01 8.47 High High 

02N05 0.83 Low Low 

02N14 1.81 Low Low 

02N14 2.57 Low Low 

02N14 3.50 Low Low 

02S02 0.10 High High 

02S02 2.37 High High 

02S02 5.35 High High 

03N01 1.58 High High 

03N01 1.69 High High 

03N01 2.24 High High 

03N01 5.77 High High 

03N34Y 3.21 High High 

04N33 0.42 High High 

05N01 0.47 High High 

05N01 0.55 High High 

05N01 0.71 High High 

05N01 2.30 High High 

05N01 2.61 High High 

05N14 0.60 High High 

05N14 4.62 High High 

Road Miles Crash 

Probability 

Crash 

Severity 

06N58 0.03 High High 

06N58 0.08 High High 

06N58 0.12 High High 

06N58 0.18 High High 

06N58 0.25 High High 

06N58 0.36 High High 

06N58 0.46 High High 

06N58 0.70 High High 

06N58 0.79 High High 

06N58 0.90 High High 

06N58 1.74 High High 

06N62 1.35 Low Low 

07N05 0.53 Low High 

07N09 0.48 Low High 

07N09 0.84 Low High 

07N09 1.09 Low High 

07N09 1.13 Low High 

07N09 2.23 Low Low 

07N09 0.01 Low High 

07N09 0.44 Low High 

07N09 0.59 Low High 

07N09 2.94 Low High 

07N28 0.91 Low Low 

07N28 0.96 Low Low 

07N28 1.35 Low Low 

total 80.85 

Public Safety: Roads analyzed for motorized mixed uses were assessed for compliance with the 

California Vehicle Code (see project record- Mixed Use Analysis Report). Crash histories were 

reviewed for all roads with changes proposed, from reports submitted by the California Highway 

242 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Patrol. This alternative provides the highest risk to public safety with regards to mixed or combined 

use of traffic on roads. More routes are available for mixed use, increasing risk of licensed vs. 

unlicensed driver. 

Table 3.08-12 ML 1 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 4 

Road Miles 

01N01C 0.19 

01N01D 0.50 

01N04A 0.44 

01N04C 0.91 

01N07A 0.80 

01N10B 0.16 

01N14B 0.96 

01N14E 0.54 

01N33Y 0.29 

01N34 1.24 

01N34A 0.93 

01N40Y 0.62 

01N45 1.77 

01N69 1.14 

01N81 0.72 

01N91 0.58 

01N97E 0.64 

01S01 2.95 

01S01YC 0.13 

01S03A 0.63 

01S04 0.51 

01S04 1.28 

01S05A 0.65 

01S11C 0.07 

01S11C 0.07 

01S11C 0.08 

01S11C 0.22 

01S11C 0.68 

01S11D 0.98 

01S14K 0.17 

01S14L 0.58 

Road Miles 

01S15C 0.57 

01S20 0.3 

01S23C 0.27 

01S26A 0.2 

01S26B 0.41 

01S27 0.8 

01S29A 0.24 

01S30A 0.24 

01S32A 0.5 

01S35Y 0.42 

01S35Y 0.59 

01S39 0.80 

01S39YB 0.38 

01S42 1.03 

01S45Y 0.35 

01S46 0.25 

01S51A 0.77 

01S51B 0.71 

01S52Y 0.49 

01S54Y 0.50 

01S56Y 0.60 

01S57B 1.45 

01S57Y 0.66 

01S59 0.87 

01S60Y 0.51 

01S61Y 0.22 

01S61YA 0.55 

01S65Y 0.45 

01S66 0.49 

01S79 0.19 

01S79 2.51 

Road Miles 

01S81A 0.58 

01S86 2.77 

01S86B 0.57 

01S97 0.90 

02N03YB 0.18 

02N03YB 0.43 

02N07D 0.05 

02N64 0.71 

02S05C 0.98 

02S07A 0.66 

02S09A 1.64 

02S10Y 0.88 

02S11C 1.04 

02S20Y 2.33 

02S21Y 1.53 

02S22 0.73 

02S23YA 0.73 

02S26 1.48 

02S37YB 0.74 

02S39B 0.85 

02S43 1.40 

02S59A 0.50 

02S59B 1.35 

02S64C 0.73 

02S74 1.37 

02S74A 1.73 

02S82 0.34 

02S93C 0.36 

03N01W 0.22 

03N24A 0.09 

03N43A 0.55 

Road Miles 

03N48Y 0.75 

03S06 0.66 

04N09 0.04 

04N09 0.27 

04N49YA 0.13 

06N17A 0.09 

06N17A 0.46 

06N17B 0.65 

06N17D 0.35 

06N17J 0.52 

06N17P 0.41 

06N27 1.53 

06N27 3.24 

06N66YB 0.82 

06N76YA 0.25 

06N80Y 0.78 

06N80YA 0.11 

06N85 0.72 

06N85A 0.39 

07N09B 0.45 

07N09W 0.24 

07N14C 0.47 

07N16A 0.2 

07N17A 0.08 

07N19X 0.11 

07N48A 0.22 

07N56YA 0.71 

total 82.81 

Table 3.08-13 ML 2 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 4 

Road Miles 

02N82 1.35 

02S21Y 0.30 

03N01Y 1.69 

03N58 0.29 

04N17D 0.59 

07N09A 0.86 

07N09C 0.62 

07N09D 0.16 

07N09E 0.29 

07N09F 0.13 

07N09G 0.12 

Road Miles 

07N09H 0.54 

07N09J 0.26 

07N22 0.05 

07N22 0.43 

07N22 0.01 

07N22 1.03 

07N87 1.70 

07N87A 0.14 

07N87A 0.20 

07N87B 0.12 

total 10.85 

Affordability: Direct effects include the improvements to 146 miles of road. The improvements 

would cover additional brushing (estimated at $650 per mile) and additional signing (estimated at 

$620/mi). As part of the road maintenance strategy, this alternative changes maintenance levels from 

ML 3 to ML 2 and converts ML 1 and ML 2 roads to trails. The total annual road maintenance costs 

reduction would be $710,949.00 (see Table 3.08-14). Some undetermined amount of road 

maintenance savings results from changing 13.13 miles roads from ML 1 roads and public use roads 

to administrative use. These roads are not maintained to the same standard 

243 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

An estimated $1,000 per mile would cover costs to remove extra signage and replace route ID 

markers on each road. Also, the publication of the Motorized Vehicle Use Map is estimated at 

$30,000, for data entry and map publishing. These additional costs are not funded through special 

allocations, and would be added expense to the already decreased road maintenance budget. 

Alternative 4 is the most expensive to implement and maintain (see Tables 3.08-19 and 3.08-20). 

Road and trail maintenance costs are decreased by $658,988.00. 

Table 3.08-14 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 4 

NFTS Existing Condition Alternative 4 Difference ML $/mi Miles Cost Miles Cost 

ML 1 $225.00 364.81 $82,082.25 376.84 $84,789.00 $2,706.75 

ML 2 $543.33 2,502.857 $1,359,877.29 2,485.49 $1,350,441.28 ($9,436.01) 

ML 3 $10,870.00 306.92 $3,336,220.40 228.51 $2,483,903.70 ($852,316.70) 

ML 4 $14,106.67 46.34 $653,703.09 46.34 $653,703.09 $0.00 

ML 5 $14,106.67 90.05 $1,270,305.63 90.05 $1,270,305.63 $0.00 

subtotal 3,310.98 $6,702,188.67 3,227.23 $5,843,142.70 ($859,045.96) 

Trails $730.00 85.52 $62,429.60 359.57 $262,487.56 $200,057.96 

total 3,396.50 $6,764,618.27 3,665.21 $7,211,734.26 ($658,988.00) 

Season of Use 

Same as Alternative 1 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The risk to public safety is the third highest in this alternative due to the number of miles where all 

motorized use is allowed. However, publishing a MVUM will enhance the public education of where 

motorized use can occur. Public safety would be enhanced through prohibition of cross country 

travel. Recreationists and forest visitors would know where to travel and what mode of vehicle to use. 

This alternative is the third most costly to maintain. Concentration of recreational motorized use on a 

smaller number of trails may increase maintenance costs from increased use on a smaller system. 

Mitigations proposed have no effects on the transportation system and will benefit the system (see 

Appendix I, Route Data). 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Alternative 5 responds to the administration, private property, recreation and resource issues by 

limiting additions to the NFTS and increasing restrictions that would reduce conflicts and provide 

additional resource protection. This alternative would limit motorized recreation opportunities 

(including those accessing dispersed recreation activities) by providing greater protection for forest 

resources. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS roads and NFTS trails by the public would be prohibited except as 

allowed by permit or other authorization. Parking is allowed within one vehicle length off of NFTS 

routes unless otherwise prohibited. Motorized vehicle travel off NFTS routes by the public would be 

prohibited except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Resources potentially get damaged 

from the creation of new routes and new disturbances. Improper location of user created roads and 

trails can lead to sedimentation from erosion and affect the road bed and trail tread if sediment and 

erosion dump on to existing transportation facilities. Prohibition of travel off of designated routes will 

reduce sedimentation and erosion and negative effects to the transportation system. 

244 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Public Safety: Pubic safety will be increased by implementation of a cross country travel prohibition. 

Although forest visitors should know where it is appropriate to ride and drive and what vehicle type is 

allowed, the expectation that all visitors will actually know cannot be expected. The forest visitor will 

need to continue to use good defensive driving practices when using forest roads and trails. 

Prohibition of cross country travel language would be included in the MVUM. 

Affordability: No changes in costs to maintain the transportation system would occur. Increased costs 

for signing would be a one time expense. Annual maintenance of the signs would be needed 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative includes 28.37 miles of additions to the NFTS. Appendix I (Route Data) shows the 

specified vehicle class, season of use and required mitigations. 

Public Safety: This alternative increases public safety through the reduction of motorized mixed use 

by changing 440.93 miles of road changed to Highway Legal Only. 

Affordability: Trail maintenance costs would increase by $33,339.10 over Alternative 2 (see Table 

3.08-15). An estimated $1,000 per mile would cover costs to place extra signage and replace route ID 

markers on each road. The publication of the MVUM is estimated at $30,000 for data entry and map 

production. These additional costs are not funded through special allocations, and would be added 

expense to the already decreased road maintenance budget. 

Table 3.08-15 Maintenance Costs: Alternative 5 

NFTS Existing Condition Alternative 1 Difference ML $/mi Miles Cost Miles Cost 

ML 1 $225.00 364.81 $82,082.25 457.04 $102,834.00 $20,751.75 

ML 2 $543.33 2,502.857 $1,359,877.29 2,488.75 $1,352,212.54 ($7,664.75) 

ML 3 $10,870.00 306.92 $3,336,220.40 306.92 $3,028,708.10 ($307,512.30) 

ML 4 $14,106.67 46.34 $653,703.09 46.34 $653,703.09 $0.00 

ML 5 $14,106.67 90.05 $1,270,305.63 90.04 $1,270,164.57 ($141.06) 

subtotal 3,310.98 $6,702,188.67 3,389.09 $6,407,622.29 ($294,566.36) 

Trails $730.00 85.52 $62,429.60 131.19 $95,768.70 $33,339.10 

total 3,396.50 $6,764,618.27 3,520.28 $6,503,390.99 ($261,227.26) 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Vehicle Class Changes 

Vehicle class changes would occur on 525.73 miles of NFTS roads including: opening 11.66 miles of 

closed roads; converting 5.42 miles of closed roads to administrative use only; closing 59.03 miles of 

open roads; and, converting 440.93 miles of roads from all vehicles to Highway Legal only. This 

alternative also converts 21.45 miles of the 531.16 miles of NFTS roads to trails (the mileage 

overlaps with the other changes described above and shown in Chapter 2. 

Public Safety: Changing 440.94 miles of roads from All Vehicles to Highway Legal Only eliminates 

the possibility of mixed traffic on routes. This alternative increases public safety through the 

reduction of motorized mixed use. This alternative has the fewest miles available for mixed use and 

therefore, provides the least amount of risk to the public (see Table 3.08-20). 

Affordability: Direct effects from changes in use on 440.94 miles from all vehicles allowed to travel 

on these roads to Highway Legal Only allowed results in no change in road maintenance costs. These 

roads would continue to be managed as roughly graded for high clearance vehicles. As part of the 

road maintenance strategy, this alternative changes maintenance levels from ML 3 to ML 2 and 

converts ML 1 and ML 2 roads to trails (see Table 3.08-16). The total annual road maintenance costs 

reduction would be $261,227.26. Some undetermined amount of road maintenance savings results 

from changing 64.45 miles roads from ML 1 roads and public use roads to administrative use. These 

roads are not maintained to the same standard. 

245 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

An estimated $1,000 per mile would cover costs to place extra signage and replace route ID markers 

on each road. Also, the publication of the Motorized Vehicle Use Map is estimated at $30,000, for 

data entry and map publishing. These additional costs are not funded through special allocations, and 

would be added expense to the already decreased road maintenance budget. 

Table 3.08-16 Roads Converted to Trails: Alternative 5 

Road ML Miles 

01N01 2 5.77 

01N01 2 0.29 

03N01Y 2 1.69 

03N08Y 1 0.49 

03N60 1 1.33 

03N48Y 1 0.75 

06N27 1 1.53 

06N27 1 3.24 

07N09A 2 0.01 

07N09C 2 0.86 

07N09D 2 0.62 

07N09E 2 0.16 

Road ML Miles 

07N09F 2 0.13 

0709G 2 0.12 

07N09H 2 0.54 

07N09J 2 0.26 

07N22 2 0.05 

07N22 2 0.43 

07N22 2 0.01 

07N22 2 1.03 

07N87 2 1.70 

07N87A 2 0.14 

07N87A 2 0.20 

07N87B 2 0.12 

Season of Use 

This alternative provides the maximum amount of protection to transportation facilities and public 

safety through seasonal closing of roads and trails to the public during inclement weather. Travel is 

allowed when roads are usually fully open and free from snow. Roads at mid elevations are dried out 

and not as subject to rutting and erosion as during the wetter periods of the year. 

Reduced maintenance costs would be realized through fewer repairs of road rutting and erosion from 

vehicle use during the wet season. Wheeled over snow use would be prohibited except where allowed 

by permit or other authorization. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be a static road maintenance program, but fewer roads managed efficiently. 

However, the publishing of the MVUM map will enhance the public education of designated routes 

for motorized traffic by public users. However, publishing a MVUM will enhance the public 

education of where motorized use can occur. Public safety would be enhanced through prohibition of 

cross country travel. Recreationists and forest visitors would know where to travel and what mode of 

vehicle to use. Concentration of recreational motorized use on a smaller number of trails may increase 

maintenance costs from increased use on a smaller system. 

Mitigations proposed have no effects on the transportation system and will benefit the system (see 

Appendix I, Route Data). 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

The transportation system remains too extensive to fully maintain all the roads. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would not change current management of the road system. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 change vehicle use 

which either improves public safety or improves recreation opportunities. 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel. 

The prohibition of cross country travel does not affect the transportation facilities. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 have no increased costs for maintenance as no changes are made to the 

existing NFTS. Annual maintenance will remain the same as will deferred maintenance. 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 will increase annual maintenance costs for increased safety precautions 

246 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

such as installation and maintenance of signing. Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 will reduce maintenance 

costs for routine road maintenance by reducing the number of miles of higher standard roads to 

lower standard roads or not adding trails to the system (see Table 3.02-20). Alternatives 1, 3, 4 

and 5 would require the publication of a Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), which will 

require additional administrative expense. Figure 3.08-1 shows a relative comparison of 

maintenance levels and vehicle class by alternative. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class. 

Vehicle class changes vary from converting roads to trails; opening of closed roads; converting 

closed roads to administrative use only; closing of open roads to public use motorized use; and 

converting roads from all vehicles allowed to Highway Legal Only. All of these actions improve 

the safety of the public by providing better management of the resources. Roads would be closed 

to protect facilities and private property. Other roads would be opened to access existing NFTS 

roads, dispersed sites, or property access. Those roads open to all vehicles improve trail 

connectivity, but required a mixed use analysis. Those roads changed to Highway Legal Only 

vehicles reduce mixed traffic implications and probability of crashes with non-highway Legal 

vehicles. 

4. Cumulative Effects 

The transportation system remains too extensive to fully maintain all the roads. Alternatives 2 and 

3 would not change current management of the road system. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 change 

vehicle use which either improves public safety or improves recreation opportunities. 

Public Safety 

Alternatives 2 presents the greatest risks to public safety, as it contain the most miles where 

motorized mixed use would occur on roads. Alternative 3 is the next highest for the same reasons as 

Alternative 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 have no net change from the current transportation system. 

Alternative 5 provides the least risk to public safety, with the most miles changed from All Vehicles 

to Highway Legal Only, which eliminates mixed motorized traffic on the same route. Alternative 4 

increases the risk to public safety the most by having the most miles available for all motorized use 

on roads. Alternative 1 is in the middle in terms of risk (see Table 3.08-20). In Chapter 2, Table 2.05­

5 compared the alternatives in terms of the actions resulting from the changes to the existing NFTS. 

Table 3.08-17 displays the NFTS roads maintenance level and vehicle class by alternative. Table 

3.08-18 compares the alternatives in terms of maintenance level changes. 

Table 3.08-17 NFTS Roads: Maintenance Level and Vehicle Class 

ML and Vehicle Class Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

ML 1 412.60 364.81 364.81 267.28 353.16 

ML 2 Administrative Use Only (ADM) 74.17 44.74 44.74 52.54 71.51 

ML 2 Highway Legal Only (HLO) 414.12 281.29 281.29 185.92 406.19 

ML 2 All Vehicles (ALL) 1,378.63 1,744.29 1,744.29 1,669.29 1,233.67 

ML 3 Highway Legal Only (HLO) 195.40 19.00 19.00 185.92 332.33 

ML 3 All Vehicles (ALL) 16.47 0.00 0.00 14.30 0.00 

ML 4 46.34 46.34 46.34 46.34 46.34 

ML 5 90.05 90.05 90.05 90.05 90.05 

subtotal 2,627.78 2,590.52 2,590.52 2,511.64 2,533.25 

Trails 298.22 85.52 85.52 359.57 131.19 

total 2,926.00 2,676.04 2,676.04 3,035.61 2,664.44 

Roads with No Access1 831.39 831.39 831.39 831.39 831.39 

ML=Maintenance Level; ADM and ML 1 are closed to public motorized use 1

 Without legal access these roads are not available for public use 

247 
 

Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

Table 3.08-18 NFTS Roads: Maintenance Level Changes 

Change Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

ML 3 (HLO) to ML 2 All 74.59 0.00 0.00 78.41 0.00 

ML 1 to ML 2 All 12.56 0.00 0.00 12.07 2.88 

ML 2 converted to trail 9.53 0.00 0.00 10.85 14.10 

ML 1 converted to trail 48.26 0.00 0.00 82.81 7.33 

Affordability 

Table 3.08-19 displays the affordability indicator measures for each alternative. The costs shown are 

based on estimates for the types of work needed to complete the changes. Costs may include safety 

enhancements or resource improvements such as increased signage, brushing, surfacing, and washout 

repairs. The total cost shown includes the estimated annual maintenance costs for roads and trails as 

well as implementation costs from the Mixed Use and Combined Use Reports. Alternatives 1 would 

be the least costly to maintain, followed by Alternatives 5, 4, 3, and 2 (see Table 3.08-20). Funding to 

maintain the transportation system will be of concern no matter what alternative is selected. The 

Forest will exercise every option to find funding sources to continue to deal with annual maintenance 

and deferred maintenance backlog. Table 3.08-20 ranks the alternatives on public safety and 

affordability. 

Table 3.08-19 Affordability Indicator Measures 

Affordability Indicator Measures Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

NFTS Roads (miles)1

 2,627.78 2,590.52 2,590.52 2,511.64 2,533.25 

NFTS Trails (miles) 298.22 85.52 85.52 359.57 131.19 

Annual Maintenance 

Roads $5,844,027 $6,702,188 $6,702,188 $5,843,142 $6,407,622 

OHV Trails $217,700 $62,429 $62,429 $262,487 $95,768 

subtotal $6,039,615 $6,764,618 $6,764,618 $7,211,734 $6,503,390 

Implementation Costs 

Passenger car roads reduced to high clearance road2

 $93,590 $0 $0 $99,760 $ 0 

Roads converted to motorized trails3

 $64,210 $0 $0 $102,830 $21,510 

Trails converted to roads $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $ 0 

Roads removed from the NFTS $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $ 0 

Cost of implementing MVUM2

 $30,000 $0 $ 30,000 $30,000 $30,000 

subtotal $187,800 $0 $30,000 $232,590 $51,510 

total $6,227,415 $6,764,618 $6,794,618 $7,444,324 $6,554,900 

1 Road miles are the entire system for comparison purpose 2 Assume $30,000 for MVUM publication costs 

3 Assume $1,000/mile reductions 

Table 3.08-20 Summary of Effects to Transportation Facilities 

Indicators – Transportation Facilities Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Public Safety 4 1 3 4 5 

Affordability 5 3 2 1 4 

Total 9 4 5 5 9 

Average for Transportation Facilities 4.5 2 2.5 2.5 4.5 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact on this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most. 

248 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

The action alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 implement the Travel Management Rule by designating those 

routes for motorized use by type of vehicle and time of year. They also follow Forest Plan direction 

which states that every acre within the Stanislaus National Forest will be designated in either a Closed 

or Restricted Category for Motorized Vehicle Travel management. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) does not implement the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, 251, 261 

and 295). Specifically, it does not address the requirements of 36 CFR 212, Subpart B, Designation of 

roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas which states in part “Motor vehicle use on National 

Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands 

shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official on 

administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National Forest System.” 

Figure 3.08-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Maintenance Level and Vehicle Class 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1800 

ALT 1 ALT 2/3 ALT 4 ALT 5 

ML 1 

ADMIN 

ML 2 HLO 

ML 2 ALL 

ML 3 HLO 

ML 3 ALL 

ML 4 

ML 5 

249 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus 

Transportation Facilities National Forest
 

250 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.09 VISUAL RESOURCES
 

This section examines the extent to which alternatives respond to visual resources management 

direction established in the Forest Plan and the TM Rule. The Forest Plan visual resources direction 

was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA). 

In the development of the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the 

Forest’s visual resources were inventoried to determine the landscape’s scenic attractiveness (Variety 

Class Inventory) and the public’s visual expectations (Sensitivity Level Inventory). Based upon these 

inventories, Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) were established for all forest land areas. The VQOs 

establish minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations from an otherwise naturalappearing forest landscape. For example, areas with a Retention VQO are expected to retain a natural 

appearance; areas with a Partial Retention VQO may have some alterations, but they remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Areas with a Modification or Maximum Modification 

VQO can have alterations that do not look natural appearing. 

New roads and trails create linear alterations in landscapes that can be reduced through good design 

and construction techniques. Unmitigated, they can present uncharacteristic line qualities in forest 

landscapes, especially when the surface color contrasts with adjacent natural vegetation as from a 

distance in an open landscape. Forested landscapes with a dense canopy and ground vegetation have 

the capability of masking these linear alterations. The proliferation of unauthorized routes, 

particularly in sparsely vegetated landscapes, can also adversely affect the Forest’s visual resources. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the Proposed Action as it affects visual resources includes the following: 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and its implementing regulations, required the 

inventory and evaluation of the forest’s visual resource, addressing the landscape’s visual 

attractiveness, and the public’s visual expectations. Management prescriptions for definitive lands 

areas of the forest are to include Visual Quality Objectives. 

Travel Management Rule 

The Travel Management (TM) Rule does not cite aesthetics specifically, but in the designation of 

trails or areas, the Responsible Official must consider effects on forest resources, with the objective of 

minimizing effects of motor vehicle use. 

Forest Plan 

The Forest Plan contains forest-wide management direction in the form of Visual Quality Objectives 

and specific management area direction for visual resources (USDA 2005a). The visual standards and 

guidelines in the Forest Plan applicable to motorized travel management include the following. 

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) 

Preservation – Only allows for ecological changes and all other management activities, except for 

very low visual impact recreation facilities, are prohibited. 

Retention – Provides for management activities that are not visually evident and landscape character 

appears unaltered with only minimal deviations. Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and 

251 
 

 

Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus 

Visual Resources National Forest
 

texture of the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, 

pattern, etc. should not be evident. 

Partial Retention – Provides for management activities that remain visually subordinate to the 

landscape and landscape character may appear slightly altered. Activities may repeat form, line, color, 

and texture of the characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, 

direction, pattern, etc. should remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities 

may also introduce form, line, color, or texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the 

characteristic landscape but still remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic 

landscape. 

Modification – Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape. Activities 

such as roads should borrow naturally established form, line, color, and texture so completely and at 

such scale that its visual characteristics are compatible with the natural surroundings. 

The Forest Plan allocations are primarily done within 12 management areas. Table 3.09-1 lists each 

management area along with the Visual Quality Objectives (see Appendix C, Forest Plan Direction). 

Table 3.09-1 Management Area VQOs 

# Management Area Visual Quality Objective 

1 Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness Preservation 

2 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and 

Scenic Rivers 

Retention 

3 Near Natural Retention 

4 Wildlife Retention 

5 Special Interest Areas Retention 

6 Research Natural Areas Preservation 

7 Experimental Forest Varies, based on inventory 

8 Scenic Corridor1 Retention or Partial Retention2 

9 General Forest Modification, but may be seen at distances greater than 5 miles 

10 Developed Recreation Sites Partial Retention 

11 Winter Sports Sites Modification 

12 Developed Non-Recreation Modification 

1 Created to manage scenery in response to VQOs; this includes most areas seen from all important roads, trails, and vistas. 

2 Based upon sensitivity level, variety class, and distance at which the area is seen. Most sensitivity level 1 roads and trails and some 

sensitivity level 2 roads are included in the Scenic Corridors. These include highways, roads, and trails leading directly to major areas 

of interest such as Yosemite National Park, major recreation areas such as Pinecrest Lake, Wilderness areas, developed recreation 

sites, concentrated recreation use areas (not developed) and other popular destinations. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Roads and trails can create a change in the natural-appearing landscape as measured in form, line, 

color, texture, and pattern. The visual effects of roads and trails can be described from different points 

of view: (1) the view of the surrounding landscape as seen by travelers on the route (the route is the 

view origin.); and, (2) the view of the route by forest visitors (riders, hikers, campers, skiers, etc.) 

looking from other locations at the route. 

The type of visual experience differs whether the landscape is viewed from a motorized, nonmotorized mode of travel (walking, hiking, skiing), or from a fixed viewpoint such as a scenic 

overlook. The speed of the traveler, duration of the view, distance to area seen, vegetative screening, 

contrast between the adjacent natural landscape and a disturbance, and lighting are some of the 

factors that may influence the experience. 

The proposed alternatives have the potential to affect both the visual resource, as well as the forest 

visitor’s opportunity to view the resource. The degree of deviation from the natural-appearing 

landscape determines whether a route is in compliance with the VQO. The VQOs establish minimum 

252 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations from an otherwise natural-appearing forest landscape. 

Site specific variables such as distance, duration (number of locations seen from) soil color, 

slope/aspect, landform alteration, vegetation and other factors can influence the visibility of an 

alteration. These factors are known as Visual Absorption Capability (VAC). They were considered in 

this analysis but not formally applied. 

Assumptions Specific to Visual Resources 

1.	 Based upon the review of the Forest Plan, the basic measurement indicator for the visual 

resources is compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention Visual Quality Objectives. 

2.	 The Preservation VQO is not addressed as it occurs only in Wilderness and Research Natural 

Areas. Motorized access is not authorized in either management area and no changes are 

proposed within them. 

3.	 The Modification VQO is not addressed, since this VQO allows for obvious alterations, such as 

roads and trails that may not appear natural. 

4.	 The prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicles should have a positive effect on the Forest’s 

visual resources. This assumes that nature will take its course, healing disturbances. Vehicular 

barriers, gates, fencing, and signs installed along road edges usually are more severe visual 

impact than the route itself. This analysis does not address road closure, confinement and other 

implementation structures that may be installed in the future. 

5.	 All areas with a Semi-Primitive Recreation management prescription meet the direction for visual 

resources to meet or exceed the Partial Retention VQO. 

6.	 For classification, analysis, and inventory of the visual resource landscape, viewing is identified 

by the distance zones of foreground (300 feet to 1/2 mile), middle ground (1/2 to 4 miles), and 

background (4-10 miles). 

7.	 Wheeled Over Snow Route use does not affect visual resources since any impact is short lived on 

existing NFTS routes that are open to public motorized use during the normal summer driving 

season. 

Data Sources 

1.	 The Forest Plan data set was used to identify route segments within areas with visual quality 

objectives of Partial Retention or Retention. 

2.	 The 2007 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report determined that 76 percent of those 

who visited the Forest participated in viewing natural features (scenery) on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands (USDA 2008b). This is more than any other recreation activity. Forty-four 

percent identified scenery as the primary reason for coming to the Forest. This is a substantial 

increase from the same survey four years earlier and an indication of the growing support for 

scenery. 

Visual Resources Indicators 

1.	 The extent to which the proposed NFTS falls within the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs, 

this is measured by the number of miles traversing landscapes that are to remain natural to nearnatural appearing in character. 

2.	 Effects on key view sheds that are identified in the approved Forest Plan as the Scenic Corridor 

management area. Visual Quality Objectives within the view sheds vary. Areas seen within 

foreground are generally Retention; while more distance views (up to 5 miles) are Partial 

Retention, and covered under indicator one. 

253 
 

Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus 

Visual Resources National Forest
 

Visual Resource Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel. 

The prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicles would have a positive effect on the Forest’s 

visual resources because it would remove the chance of continued route proliferation and the 

possible impact to visual resources. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to location within Retention and Partial 

Retention VQO 

Rationale: The closure of routes, as compared with the No Action Alternative, would lead to a 

general trend of improving visual resources in areas identified with a Retention and Partial 

Retention VQO. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The “viewshed” is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects 

associated with changes in the NFTS or season of use. 

Indicator: The extent to which the proposed NFTS falls within the Retention and Partial 

Retention VQOs (number of miles traversing landscapes that are to remain natural to near-natural 

appearing in character). 

Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. 

Rationale: Compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class. 

No change in effect for visual resources. 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the 

long-term time frame. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The “viewshed” is the unit of spatial analysis for determining cumulative 

effects. 

Indicator: Number of key viewsheds that are or have the potential to be affected by motor 

vehicle travel. 

Methodology: Identify key forest viewsheds (scenic byway corridors, etc). These viewsheds are 

sometimes identified in the Forest Plan. Identify whether any of these key viewsheds are or have 

the potential to be affected by motor vehicle travel. 

Rationale: Compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. 

254 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Affected Environment 

The diverse character and high quality of the Stanislaus National Forest’s scenic resources is reflected 

in the latest NVUM findings (USDA 2008b). Viewing natural features (scenery) was the most 

popular activity identified by visitors. Scenery was given both the highest importance and satisfaction 

rating (90%- very satisfied). 

Located between Tahoe and Yosemite on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, the 

Forest has a variety of settings. Ancient volcanic flows covered granite and metamorphic rock before 

the Sierra Nevada was uplifted. Glaciers polished plateaus and carved canyons, leaving resistant 

volcanic formations to stand above the valleys and canyons in the high country. At mid elevations, 

the gentle tilt of the western slope has the soil and moisture to support a productive mixed conifer 

forest, capable of growing large trees in dense stands. The lower elevations are a composite of oak 

woodlands, brush fields, and conifer stands. 

Significant human impacts to scenery began in the Gold Rush era and were concentrated in the 

Mother Lode Foothill region, to the west of the Forest boundary. Several mining era projects of 

varying success attempted to harness the water and its power within the Forest. Beginning about 160 

years ago, major water/hydroelectric projects transformed the free-flowing rivers of the Forest in 

some locations. Along with water diversions, dams, and reservoirs came railroads, power lines, and 

roads. At the same time, logging of the Forests gained momentum. Railroad and road development 

supported intensive and extensive timber harvest over much of the Forest. Wildfires and fire 

suppression activities have also left their mark. The railroads are gone, converted to roads. The roads 

and skid trails created by the above activities are the focus of this analysis. 

Scenery and Key Viewsheds 

The significant and extensive impacts from above activities are not very apparent today, due to 

natural recovery over time. The landscapes of the Forest generally have a great ability to absorb 

impacts and recover quickly, primarily due to vegetative growth. Three state highways traverse the 

Forest (4-Ebbetts Pass, 108-Sonora Pass, and 120-Tioga Pass). Highway 4 is a National Scenic 

Byway for the entire length of the Forest. Highway 120 is a National Scenic Byway within Yosemite 

National Park. All three routes have spectacular views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains including the 

high elevation sub-alpine landscapes. Highway 140, adjacent to the southern boundary of the Forest, 

follows the Merced River into Yosemite Valley. The Forest highways and county roads interconnect 

the Tran-sierra highways. From these routes, lower standard roads and trails access most of the 

Forest. Views from these routes and views of them from other routes are possible at thousands of 

locations. 

The most important routes were included within the Scenic Corridor management area of the Forest 

Plan. These areas are to emphasize the scenic and recreation values. Following is a brief description 

of the 6 general areas as described and mapped in the Forest Plan (USDA 2005a, p. 144). 

Merced River: including the viewshed of Highway 140. 

Highway 120: including Mather, Evergreen, Cherry, Ferretti and Lumsden Roads. 

Cherry Lake: including the viewshed of Cherry Lake. 

Highway 108: including Fraser Flat, Beardsley, Pinecrest, Herring Creek, Eagle Meadow, Clark 

Fork and Kennedy Meadow Roads. 

Highway 4: including Highland Lakes, Pacific Valley and Spicer Meadow (including Utica/Union 

Reservoirs) roads. 

North Fork Mokelumne River: including the viewshed of the North Fork Mokelumne River below 

the Mokelumne Wilderness. 

255 
 

 

Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus 

Visual Resources National Forest
 

Environmental Consequences 

Effects for All Alternatives 

All alternatives have the potential to affect the existing landscape in varying ways and this also varies 

from one location of the Forest to another. All alternatives would retain more than 790 miles of 

existing system routes in the Retention VQO and 380 miles in the Partial Retention VQO. Alternative 

4 would have the highest number of NFTS miles of roads within visually sensitive lands, but 

Alternative 2 with cross country travel would have the greatest potential to impact the visual 

resources. Alternative 5 has the least impact of all alternatives but only by a narrow margin. Table 

3.09-2 illustrates the minor differences between alternatives by looking at total mileages. 

Table 3.09-2 Visual Quality Objectives: NFTS 

Visual Quality Objective Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Retention - Scenic Corridor 179.96 172.04 171.88 181.22 173.05 

Retention - Other Resources (setting) 649.83 621.07 614.69 657.93 618.03 

subtotal 829.79 793.11 786.57 839.15 791.08 

Partial Retention - Scenic Corridor 352.51 336.09 332.41 355.25 336.91 

Partial Retention - Other Resources (setting) 49.31 48.26 47.60 49.23 47.72 

subtotal 401.82 384.35 380.01 404.48 384.63 

Total 1231.61 1177.46 1166.58 1243.63 1175.71 

Alternatives 2 and 3 characterize the existing situation in different ways. The primary difference is 

Alternative 2 (No Action) continues cross country travel and therefore all unauthorized routes will 

continue to be used. Table 3.09-3 displays the differences between alternatives indicating the 

variation between alternatives. The additions represent a small percentage of the overall NFTS 

ranging between 0 and 6.2% of the total miles. 

Table 3.09-3 Visual Quality Objectives: Additions to the NFTS 

Visual Quality Objective Alternative (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Retention - Scenic Corridor 8.08 0.00 0.00 9.34 1.17 

Retention - Other Resources (setting) 35.14 0.00 0.00 43.24 3.34 

subtotal 43.22 0.00 0.00 52.58 5.51 

Partial Retention - Scenic Corridor 20.10 0.00 0.00 22.84 4.50 

Partial Retention - Other Resources (setting) 1.71 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.12 

subtotal 21.81 0.00 0.00 24.47 4.62 

Total 65.03 0.00 0.00 77.05 10.13 

The presence of roads within Retention or Partial Retention areas provides viewing opportunities for 

motorized users. The majority of roads on the forest were not identified as important (sensitivity level 

1 or 2). Travel limitations placed on some of these roads would be beneficial to the scenery. While 

fewer people may experience the views, the view experience would be of a greater quality because of 

less dust, noise, and fewer impacts on other resources, such as soil (erosion). 

A wide variety of uses occurs on the forest, much of it recreational. Recreation use is expected to 

increase 43% during the next 20 years (Cordell 2008). Sightseeing and driving for pleasure are 

examples of activities that directly use roads as part of the recreational experience. The character of 

and access to scenic views, will directly depend on the road system for many people. Predicted 

increases in general recreational use will provide scenery benefits to more people. Alteration of road 

systems can disrupt long-established access and use patterns. As described in Chapter 3.04 

(Recreation) all alternatives (except Alternative 2) will close the majority of dispersed recreation 

access routes to motorized use. This would result in parking immediately adjacent to or on the NFTS 

roads and a less natural appearance generally for those traveling along these roads. 

256 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative is positioned between alternatives 4 and 5 emphasizing a balance between motorized 

recreation and ecological values. The elimination of cross country travel will have a positive effect on 

the overall scenery on the Forest over time as existing unauthorized routes naturally recover. 

Existing OHV use would be concentrated in fewer areas, resulting in some ephemeral loss of visual 

quality at those specific locations. This will not have a significant impact on lands within the Scenic 

Corridor Management Area (key viewsheds). VQOs would be met. Land disturbance from use on 

unauthorized routes will naturally recover over time, improving scenery. Increased parking and 

proliferation of campsites along NFTS roads will make scenery appear less natural and more 

congested during the peak recreation season. Currently these vehicles and campsites are out of view, 

but in this alternative most will be scattered along roads, in plain view, due to the elimination of 

motorized access. Many of the new parking areas are likely to be adapted for camping by displaced 

motorized campers. The pioneering of campsites along the immediate edge of the roads will also 

degrade the currently natural appearing landscapes at those locations. When occupied, they will be 

obvious to motorists but these effects are temporary. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The direct and indirect effects disclosed above contribute to cumulative effects along with certain 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative Effects 

Analysis). Given the terrain and vegetation cover on the Stanislaus National Forest, adding 

established roads or trails to the NFTS within the Retention or Partial Retention categories would not 

have an adverse effect on the scenic values of the Forest and key viewsheds (Scenic Corridor) will not 

be significantly affected. The routes currently exist and no new visual impact will result from this 

action. Past activities have altered the natural landscape character, creating the existing condition of 

the landscape. The most obvious and significant effects on scenic resources are from landform 

alterations, constructed facilities, and vegetation manipulation. The activities that contributed include 

mining, utilities, timber management, recreation facility development, fire management (suppression, 

prescribed burning and fuel reduction) and livestock grazing. Many impacts from these past activities 

were severe but now hidden by vegetative growth. Future projects that remove this vegetation can 

expose these unnatural appearing features, impacting scenery, and increase opportunities for 

unauthorized motorized use. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Alternative 2 would continue to allow cross country travel which will result in visible impacts to the 

scenery at many locations, including Scenic Corridors. This alternative is the only alternative that 

would not close motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. Existing roads will not see an increase 

in parking and development of adjacent campsites as in the other alternatives. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The direct and indirect effects disclosed above contribute to cumulative effects along with certain 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative Effects 

Analysis). Continued proliferation of routes would occur at about 2.25 miles a year, resulting in a loss 

of natural character and a potential inconsistency with VQOs. This may affect key viewsheds (Scenic 

Corridor) at unpredictable locations. These impacts will be limited to the wheel tracks and will only 

be a problem within the immediate foreground. There would be little or no natural recovery on the 

existing unauthorized routes. Past activities have altered the natural landscape character, creating the 

existing condition of the landscape. The most obvious and significant effects on scenic resources are 

257 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus 

Visual Resources National Forest
 

from landform alterations, constructed facilities, and vegetation manipulation. The activities that 

contributed include mining, utilities, timber management, recreation facility development, fire 

management (suppression, prescribed burning and fuel reduction) and livestock grazing. Many of the 

impacts from these past activities were severe but now hidden by vegetative growth. Future projects 

that remove this vegetation can expose these unnatural appearing features from view and increase 

opportunities for unauthorized motorized use. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

The elimination of cross country travel and motorized use on all unauthorized routes will have a 

positive effect on the overall scenery of the Forest, but would prevent motorized touring and 

enjoyment of the scenery at many locations. 

This alternative would close all motorized access routes for dispersed recreation resulting in 

maximum parking along roads and proliferation of dispersed camp sites adjacent to them. Currently 

these vehicles and campsites are out of view, but in this alternative most will be scattered along roads, 

in plain view. Many of the new parking areas are likely to be adapted for camping by displaced 

motorized campers. The pioneering of campsites along the immediate edge of the roads will also 

degrade the currently natural appearing landscapes at those locations. When occupied, they will be 

obvious to motorists. 

With no additions to the NFTS, existing OHV use will concentrate in fewer areas, resulting in some 

ephemeral loss of visual quality at those locations. This will not have a significant impact on lands 

within the Scenic Corridor Management Area (key viewsheds). VQOs would be met. Land 

disturbance from use on unauthorized routes will naturally recover over time, improving scenery 

(greater than all other alternatives). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The direct and indirect effects disclosed above contribute to cumulative effects along with certain 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Appendix B (Cumulative Effects 

Analysis). Past activities have altered the natural landscape character, creating the existing condition 

of the landscape. The most obvious and significant effects on scenic resources are from landform 

alterations, constructed facilities, and vegetation manipulation. The activities that contributed include 

mining, utilities, timber management, recreation facility development, fire management (suppression, 

prescribed burning and fuel reduction) and livestock grazing. Many impacts from these past activities 

were severe but now hidden by vegetative growth. Future projects that remove this vegetation can 

expose these unnatural appearing features, impacting scenery, and increase opportunities for 

unauthorized motorized use. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

The elimination of cross country travel and motorized use on all unauthorized routes will have a 

positive effect on the overall scenery of the Forest. This alternative emphasizes motorized loop 

driving, riding, and touring opportunities. Motorized viewing opportunities are maximized at the 

expense of some non-motorized potential. There are fewer restrictions placed on the type of vehicle 

than alternatives one and four. This alternative closes motorized access to the majority of existing 

dispersed recreation opportunities, but less than either Alternatives 1 or 5. Fewer campers and 

campsites will be displaced to immediate roadsides. Currently these vehicles and campsites are out of 

view, but in this alternative most will be scattered along roads, in plain view. Many of the new 

parking areas are likely to be adapted for camping by displaced motorized campers. The pioneering of 

campsites along the immediate edge of the roads will also degrade the currently natural appearing 

258 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

landscapes at those locations. When occupied, they will be obvious to motorists but the effects are 

temporary. 

With the greatest amount of additions to the NFTS, existing use will spread across more areas of the 

Forest, but visual impacts will be less concentrated. This will not have a significant impact on lands 

within the Scenic Corridor Management Area (key viewsheds). VQOs would be met. Land 

disturbance from OHVs on unauthorized routes will naturally recover over time, improving scenery 

(more than Alternative 2, less than other alternatives). This alternative has the longer season of use, 

beginning earlier and ending later than Alternatives 1 or 3. Weather permitting; scenery can be 

enjoyed earlier in the spring and later in the fall. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Emphasis is placed on natural resource and habitat values, which are essential to the scenic 

management system’s underlying ecological aesthetic. Under the scenic management system, 

activities that improve forest health also improve forest aesthetics in order to reach the long-term 

desired condition stated in the Forest Plan. Since alternative 5 best protects natural resources, it would 

thus best protect scenic resources, although recreationists would have less motorized access to the 

scenery. The alternative would have a beneficial impact on lands within the Scenic Corridor 

Management Area (key viewsheds) and VQOs would be met. Land disturbance from OHVs on 

unauthorized routes will naturally recover over time, improving scenery (more than Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 4. The road and trail systems are not designed for optimal touring by recreationists and some 

types of use would be restricted, preventing loop tours. The season of use is the most restrictive of all 

alternatives. Tours in early spring (wildflowers) and in the fall (peak fall color) would be affected at 

many locations. Parking along roads and proliferation of campsites along NFTS roads will make 

roads appear less natural and more congested due to the loss of most existing motorized access routes 

for dispersed recreation. Currently these vehicles and campsites are out of view, but in this alternative 

most would be scattered along roads, in plain view. Many of the new parking areas are likely to be 

adapted for camping by displaced motorized campers. The pioneering of campsites along the 

immediate edge of the roads will also degrade the currently natural appearing landscapes at those 

locations. When occupied, they will be obvious to motorists but the effects are temporary. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

Roads and trails can create a change in the natural-appearing landscape as measured in form, line, 

color, texture, and pattern. Authorized and unauthorized roads are generally not apparent in the 

middle or distance views of the forest. 

Travel on roads and trails often provide the opportunity for viewing scenery. Most travel routes 

appear slightly altered due to grading and absence of vegetation on the travel way. This is true even of 

hiking trails, to a lesser extent. The road and trail facilities, although noticeable at times, generally 

remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. 

Steep terrain, dense vegetation, boulders, and fencing along roads have helped prevent the 

development of unauthorized routes. Fires and thinning projects have expanded the view and often 

the access into areas. The removal of screening can expose existing features that were not apparent 

259 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus 

Visual Resources National Forest
 

originally, including roads and trails. This is not part of this analysis, but an issue that must be 

addressed and taken into consideration in future projects. 

Changes or additions to the NFTS are consistent with Visual Quality Objectives. Elimination of cross 

country travel will have a modestly beneficial effect. Decommissioning of roads, closure of roads, 

conversion of roads to trails, and elimination of motorized access on existing routes are generally 

beneficial to scenery, but have the potential to reduce enjoyment of the scenery by those who would 

rely on motorized travel over unauthorized routes. Future actions to prevent entry, such as barriers 

posts, rocks, logs, berms and guard rails may impact scenery and will be addressed in future 

implementation plans. 

Table 3.09-4 Summary of Effects to Visual Resources 

Indicators – Visual Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Disturbance/Integrity: Compliance with the Retention and Partial 

Retention VQOs 4 2 4 4 4 

Key Viewsheds Affected by Proposed NFTS 4 2 4 4 4 

Total 8 4 8 8 8 

Average for Visual Resources 4 2 4 4 4 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact on this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most. 

There are differences between alternatives that the numbers above do not reflect due to offsetting factors. See project record for 

more information. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 currently meet the objectives and standards and guidelines of the Forest 

Plan for visual resources. Alternative 2 is likely to allow impacts within the scenic corridor that would 

not conform to the Forest Plan over time. 

260 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.10 WATER RESOURCES
 

Protection of water quantity and quality is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service 

(Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2007 to 2012, July 2007). Management activities on National Forest 

lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic functions of Forest watersheds, 

including the volume, timing, and quality of streamflow. The use of roads and trails on National 

Forests for public operation of motor vehicles has potential to affect these hydrologic functions 

through interception of runoff, compaction of soils, and detachment of sediment (Foltz 2006). 

Management decisions to eliminate cross-country motorized travel, add new routes to the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and make changes to the existing NFTS must consider effects 

on watershed functions. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as is affects water resources includes: 

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987): establishes as federal policy for the control 

of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for control of water 

pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by National Forests in California is achieved under 

state law (see below). 

Non-point source pollution on National Forests is managed through the Regional Water Quality 

Management Plan (USDA 2000a), which relies on implementation of prescribed best management 

practices (BMPs). The Water Quality Management Plan includes one BMP for off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use (4-7) and 28 BMPs related to road construction and maintenance (2-1 to 2-28) (See 

Appendix G). All NFTS roads and trails open to OHV use are required to comply with these BMPs. 

Of particular relevance for motorized travel management, BMP 4-7 requires each Forest to (1) 

identify areas or routes where OHV use could cause degradation of water quality, (2) identify 

appropriate mitigation and controls, and (3) restrict OHV use to designated routes. This BMP further 

requires Forests to take immediate corrective actions if considerable adverse effects are occurring or 

are likely to occur. 

The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state laws 

related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to 

water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the National Forests and are directed at 

protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the Proposed Action is section 

13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices. 

The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water 

Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the state Water Resources Control 

Board and the regional water quality control boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California. 

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

SNFPA includes standards and guidelines that apply to the 11 Sierra Nevada Forests for construction 

and relocation of roads, and for management of riparian conservation areas (RCAs). These standards 

and guidelines require the Forest Service to avoid road construction, reconstruction, and relocation in 

meadows and wetlands (SNFPA S&G 70). Reconstructing unauthorized routes to bring them to 

NFTS standards in meadows or wetlands should therefore be avoided. Only routes that already meet 

NFTS standards in meadows and wetlands should be proposed for addition to the NFTS. SNFPA 

S&G 92 requires that the Forest Service evaluate new management activities within RCAs and 

critical aquatic refuges (CARS) during environmental analysis to determine consistency with riparian 

261 
 

Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

conservation objectives (RCOs) at the project level and the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) 

goals for the landscape. Adding an unauthorized route to the NFTS is a new management activity and 

must comply with S&G 92. SNFPA S&G 100 requires the Forest Service to maintain and restore the 

hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, and wetlands by identifying roads and trails that 

intercept, divert, or disrupt flows paths and implementing corrective actions. SNFPA S&G 102 

requires that the Forest Service determine if stream characteristics are within the range of natural 

variability prior to taking actions that could adversely affect streams. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Proposed additions to the NFTS as well as cross country travel prohibition and change in vehicle 

class were reviewed in all applicable watersheds within the Forest boundary to determine effects on 

water resources. This consisted of GIS analysis as well as a review of the Forest trail condition 

surveys (project record) to determine which routes were in hydrologically sensitive areas (HSA). 

Hydrologically sensitive areas are synonymous with Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) in the 

Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2005a). The focus of these sensitive areas, which includes streams and 

wetlands such as meadows, springs and seeps, and attendant near-surface ground water resources, 

was to determine which segments of routes with erosional features could adversely affect water 

quality. These areas, known as hydrologically connected segments (HCS), are locations near water 

within hydrologically sensitive areas where drainage off a route is likely to enter a watercourse. The 

GIS analysis showed that 25 HUC Level 7 watersheds with routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

had routes that were in hydrologically sensitive areas as shown in Table 3.10-7. Once the GIS 

analysis was complete, all HSA routes in the 25 watersheds were field surveyed to determine the level 

of concern regarding the water resource. Field evaluation was conducted following the hydrologically 

connected segment inventory protocol used on the Stanislaus National Forest (Frazier 2006a). Data 

were collected on all routes identified as hydrologically connected (results are shown in Table 3.10­

7). The field evaluations were analyzed to determine hydrologically connected segments of routes 

that would be acceptable with routine maintenance or mitigation, or routes that should not be 

recommended for addition to the NFTS because of a watershed resource concern that was not 

practical to mitigate (see tables 3.10-9 and 3.10-10). Data from all the hydrologically connected 

segments was analyzed by watershed to inform the effects analysis. 

Beneficial uses of water and water quality objectives in the California Water Quality Control Plan 

(Basin Plan) of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB 1998) were 

utilized as a regulatory benchmark regarding the existing condition and to assess the effects of the 

proposed action and its alternatives. The principal water quality parameter considered in the water 

resources analysis was sediment, since this is the primary pollutant from motorized travel. 

Petrochemical residue (e.g., oil and grease) was also considered since motor vehicles can deposit such 

pollutants. Water temperature was also evaluated since motorized travel routes can create openings 

along streams that may be a factor in elevating stream temperature. 

Many of the watersheds with water resource concerns in this analysis have had recent stream 

condition surveys using the Stanislaus National Forest StreamScape Inventory protocol (Frazier 

2006b). This information was used to evaluate existing water quality and stream condition to 

determine the effects of the three actions. In addition, other available recent stream and water quality 

information was used, including data from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E 2002) and the Clavey 

River Watershed Assessment (CREP 2008). Other information sources included sampling condition 

of some streams and wet areas (e.g., springs) during field evaluation of routes with watershed 

resource concerns and/or watershed staff observations in these areas in recent years, both to fill data 

gaps. The time frame for analysis of direct and indirect effects is from one to 20 years. 

262 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Assumptions Specific to Water Resources 

Four assumptions are specific to the water resources analysis: 

1.	 Route Proliferation: Routes will continue to increase without prohibition of cross country 

motorized travel. This applies only to Alternative 2 (No Action) since cross country travel would 

continue. The rate of proliferation is estimated to be 2.25 miles per year across the Forest based 

on utilizing the same proliferation rate that has occurred during the past 20 years (see project 

record). For purposes of the water resources analysis the route proliferation in Alternative 2 was 

assumed to occur in the concentrated use watersheds (Table 3.10-2) since these are expected to 

continue to be the locations of demand for off-highway motorized travel. 

2.	 New Construction: While no new route construction occurs in the proposed action or 

alternatives, about five miles are expected to be built in the next 10 years. These are primarily 

segments that would connect existing routes to enhance motorized travel opportunities. These 

routes exist in, and the effects are accounted for, in the CWE analysis of concentrated use 

watersheds. 

3.	 Passive Recovery: Existing routes not added to the NFTS are assumed to passively recover; that 

is, heal over in time as forest litter (e.g., pine needles, twigs, branches) and vegetation re-occupies 

the route surface. The rate of recovery will vary by location, type of route (i.e., motorcycle or 

ATV trail, road), and by soil type and route gradient. The range of time is expected to be from 

about two to ten or more years. Trails in forested areas that were closed were observed to 

accumulate an acceptable amount of ground cover within two years while trail segments in forest 

openings may take up to a decade or longer to recover. 

4.	 Wheeled over snow (WOS) vehicle use: WOS vehicles are not expected to affect water 

resources. These vehicles are restricted to specified paved or well-graveled roads that, when 

driven atop a minimum required 12” of snow cover, should not cause rutting, erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Data Sources 

Refer to the introduction to the Effects Analysis Methodology section above. 

Water Resources Indicators 

Three water resource indicators were used to analyze effects of the alternatives considered: 

1.	 Unauthorized routes in hydrologically sensitive areas, with miles as the measure 

2.	 Unauthorized routes with documented erosional features affecting water quality (hydrologically 

connected segments), with miles as the measure 

3.	 Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA), with % ERA per HUC Level 7 watershed as the measure 

Indicators 1 and 2 were most applicable to analyzing direct and indirect effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives. Indicator 3 was used in the analysis of cumulative watershed effects. 

Water Resources Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel 

This action affects the amount of hydrologically sensitive area disturbed and potential stream 

sedimentation or impact to other wet areas. That is, the more miles of unauthorized routes 

currently existing in the Forest that are prohibited from being used, the less impact on the water 

resource. The effects vary by alternative since the number of miles of routes proposed for 

addition in each alternative is different and they all vary from the existing condition. The analysis 

of the intensity of effects includes mitigation measures with been prescribed to lessen impacts. 

263 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS including identifying seasons of 

use and vehicle class 

This action also affects the amount of hydrologically sensitive area disturbed, in the reciprocal 

from prohibition of cross country travel. The more unauthorized routes that are added to the 

NFTS in hydrologically sensitive areas, the more retention of potential stream sedimentation and 

disturbance to other wet areas. The effects vary by alternative since the number of miles of routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS in each alternative is different and they all vary from the 

existing condition. The analysis of the intensity of effects includes mitigation measures that were 

prescribed to lessen impacts (Appendix I shows protections for streams, meadows, springs, etc.) 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS including identifying seasons 

of use and vehicle class 

This action may affect hydrologically sensitive areas by changing the status of currently open and 

closed routes and changing the vehicle use type. Opening closed NFTS routes which have 

hydrologically sensitive segments to motorized travel may increase stream sedimentation while 

closing open routes may reduce the effect. Changing the type of vehicle use on routes with 

hydrologically sensitive segments may have an effect that could increase or decrease impacts. 

The effects vary by alternative as with the previous two actions. In both cases the proposed 

changes occur on a small percentage of the NFTS routes presently available for motorized travel. 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) were evaluated using the USDA Forest Service Region 5 

methodology (USDA 1988) and the Stanislaus National Forest CWE model (USDA 2003a). 

Details are available in the project record. The data source for consideration of past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future action is the list of activities in the Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Analysis (Appendix B). 

CWE were considered for all alternatives for HUC Level 7 watersheds that had routes proposed 

for addition to the NFTS as well as prohibition of cross-country travel. These watersheds were 

categorized as either concentrated or dispersed use. Concentrated use watersheds refer to those 

that encompass the three concentration areas of off-highway motorized travel on the Forest. 

Detailed CWE analysis was conducted on these watersheds. The dispersed use watersheds usually 

have a lesser amount of mileage of routes per watershed and/or less management activity 

disturbance, and thus a lower risk of cumulative effects. The time frame for analysis of 

cumulative watershed effects used in the CWE model is 20 years. 

Affected Environment 

Watershed Setting 

The three actions described above (cross-country travel prohibition, additions to the NFTS and 

changes to the existing NFTS) are applicable to roaded watersheds throughout the Forest, with some 

exceptions. Watersheds in Wilderness and certain other areas are excluded. Additions to the NFTS 

are proposed on the Calaveras, Groveland and Mi-Wok Ranger Districts. Changes to the existing 

NFTS are proposed on the Summit Ranger District and the others. 

Watersheds on the Stanislaus National Forest are delineated into a series of subdivisions based on a 

national hierarchical classification system (FGDC 2004). These watersheds cover the entire Forest – 

roaded, unroaded and wilderness areas. They are nested in five of the eight tiers in the classification 

system; these five range from very large (greater than 250,000 acres each) to very small (less than 

2,000 acres each). 

The watershed classification system uses the title Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for all tiers (see Table 

3.10-1). The tiers are numbered in order from one to eight in descending size classes. Each HUC level 

264 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

code is a two digit number that ties to a watershed size and name. For example, HUC Level 1 is a two 

digit code whereas as HUC Level 5 is a 10 digit code. Table 3.10-1 also shows an example of how the 

nesting system applies to the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Table 3.10-1 Hydrologic Unit Code System (HUC) 

HUC 

Level Name Size (acres) Examples Related to Stanislaus NF 

1 Region 100,000,000 (average) NA 

2 Sub-region 10,000,000 (average) NA 

3 Basin 7,000,000 (average) San Joaquin River 

4 Sub-basin 450,000 (average) Stanislaus River 

5 Watershed ~40,000-250,000 South Fork Stanislaus River 

6 Sub-watershed ~10,000-40-000 Lower South Fork Stanislaus River 

7 Drainage ~2,000-10,000 Deer Creek 

8 Sub-drainage ~Less than 2,000 Upper Deer Creek 

Note: Names and sizes for HUC 7 and 8 watersheds are draft but are used for reference in this report. 

The Stanislaus National Forest consists of HUC level watersheds four through eight. (The term 

watershed is used generically even though each HUC level has a unique name). The HUC Level 4 

watersheds on the Forest are the headwaters of large rivers that continue downstream of the Forest 

(e.g., Stanislaus River). Some of the HUC Level 5 watersheds extend somewhat downstream from the 

Forest and some are entirely within the Forest boundary. With rare exceptions, boundaries of HUC 

Levels 6 through 8 are entirely on the Forest. 

Scope of the Water Resources Analysis 

The Water resources analysis primarily focused on HUC Level 7 watersheds, though context to HUC 

Level 5 watersheds is provided as needed. These two tiers are often termed “classic” watersheds 

where the naming convention provides a relatively clear understanding of size and location. (The 

intermediate class, HUC 6, sometimes provides less spatial and naming clarity, and is not used in this 

report). The rationale for the focus on HUC 7’s was that they provide the best size class for estimating 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects of management activity relative to the water resource. Potential 

effects on the Stanislaus National Forest are often underestimated if only larger watersheds are 

considered and can be overestimated in smaller watersheds. 

The principal scope for the analysis of watershed effects in this project was all HUC Level 7 

watersheds with additions to the NFTS on National Forest land within the Forest boundary. This 

action is expected to have the highest risk of effects since it determines permanent additions to the 

NFTS and allows passive recovery of existing unauthorized routes. Watersheds without additions to 

the NFTS but changes to the NFTS were considered as well and are discussed as needed in the 

analysis. 

The analysis was initiated at the largest scale of the HUC Level 7 watersheds on the Forest and 

focused down to the principal watersheds, in the following sequence: 

 188 HUC Level 7 watersheds exist on the Stanislaus National Forest, 

 Of these 188, 97 have one or more unauthorized routes available for motorized travel, 

 Of these 97, 88 have one or more unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, 

 Of these 88, 25 have one or more unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within 

hydrologically sensitive areas. (Many proposed routes in the 88 watersheds run along ridges, on 

upper slopes or are dead-end segments off NFTS routes that are not near water). These 25 

watersheds are the principal focus for analysis of direct and indirect effects, 

 Of these 25, 10 watersheds encompass three areas of concentrated motorized travel on the Forest. 

These 10 watersheds are the principal focus of the CWE analysis. 

265 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

The three concentrated use areas are the Deer Creek, Hull Creek and Moore Creek areas as shown in 

Table 3.10-2. The four watersheds in the Deer Creek area are contiguous as are the five watersheds in 

the Hull Creek area. These 10 concentrated use watersheds account for 75% of the routes in 

hydrologically sensitive areas with the other 15 watersheds accounting for the remainder (see Figure 

3.10-1). 

Table 3.10-2 Principal Areas of Concentrated Vehicle Use on Unauthorized Routes 

Area Name Ranger District and 

General Location 

Watershed Name 

HUC 5 HUC 7 

Deer Creek Mi-Wok – 5 miles north of 

Twain Harte 

South Fork Stanislaus River Deer Creek 

Lyons Reservoir-South Fork 

Stanislaus River 

Fraser Flat-South Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Lower Middle Fork Stanislaus River Upper Rose Creek 

Hull Creek Mi-Wok – 8 miles east of 

Twain Harte 

Clavey River Hull Creek 

Main Stem West Clavey River 

Trout Creek 

Two Mile Creek 

North Fork Tuolumne River Wrights Creek 

Moore 

Creek 

Groveland – 8 miles east 

of Groveland 

North Fork Merced River Moore Creek 

Motorized Routes within Watersheds 

HUC Level 4 and HUC Level 5 Watersheds 

Approximately 176 miles, out of 246 miles of unauthorized routes, are proposed for addition to the 

NFTS. These 246 miles comprise the existing condition of unauthorized motorized travel on the 

Forest. This is about 11% of the 2,279 miles of NFTS routes presently available for motorized travel 

forestwide. 

These 246 miles lie within all four HUC Level 4 watersheds on the Forest and are distributed among 

11 of the Forest’s 22 HUC Level 5 watersheds. No routes are proposed for addition on the Summit 

Ranger District. 

At present, cross country motorized travel is not prohibited and only limited seasonal use restrictions 

exist (see Table 2.02-7). The period of motorized travel usually occurs in relation to weather 

conditions. Lower elevation sites, such as the Deer and Moore Creek concentrated use areas, are used 

mostly in fall, winter and spring since summers are generally too hot and dusty. Mid elevation sites, 

such as the Hull Creek concentrated use area, are often used spring through fall since summer 

temperatures are not too hot. Higher elevation areas are usually not accessible in winter due to snow. 

Of the 2,279 miles of NFTS routes open for motorized travel, changes are proposed on about 618 

miles. These changes consist mostly of altering the vehicle class that may use an existing route. A 

lesser amount of this route mileage is a mix of opening closed routes and closing open routes. These 

changes occur in most all HUC Level 5 watersheds since they include routes on the Summit Ranger 

District. 

266 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Figure 3.10-1 Distribution of Off-Highway Motorized Travel in HUC Level 7 Watersheds 

267 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

HUC Level 7 Watersheds 

Routes are proposed for addition to the NFTS in 88 of the Forest’s HUC Level 7 watersheds. Routes 

within hydrologically sensitive areas (HSA) occur in 25 of these watersheds. Many of the proposed 

routes in the 88 watersheds run along ridges, on upper slopes without stream courses, or are away 

from water as “hill climbs” or dead-end segments off NFTS routes. Mid and lower slope routes most 

often cross or closely run along streams for short distances. These are considered hydrologically 

connected segments (HCS), a subset of routes in hydrologically sensitive areas. Hydrologically 

connected segments are those route portions that drain water and sediment directly to a watercourse 

rather than drain off onto the forest floor where sediment does not reach water. Some of these 

hydrologically connected segments occur on dispersed campsite access routes, usually going a short 

distance off NFTS routes. Hydrologically connected segments average about 11% of the length of 

routes in hydrologically sensitive areas. About 70% of the hydrologically connected segments occur 

on ephemeral and intermittent streams with the remainder on small perennial streams. 

Across the 25 HUC Level 7 watersheds, 75 routes and 41.02 miles are proposed for addition to the 

NFTS in hydrologically sensitive areas, as shown in Table 3.10-3. The range is 1-15 routes per 

watershed which average about 6,000 acres, with an average of 3 per watershed. Route density is very 

low, an average of 0.18 miles per square mile with a range 0.01 to 0.96. 

Table 3.10-3 Additions to the NFTS: Hydrologically Sensitive Areas (Watersheds) 

HUC 4 HUC 5 HUC 7 Ranger 

District 

Hydrologically 

Sensitive Areas 

Routes Miles 

Mokelumne 

River 

Lower North Fork 

Mokelumne River 

Moore Creek-North Fork Mokelumne River Calaveras 1 0.31 

Upper North Fork 

Mokelumne River 

Highland Lakes-Headwaters Upper NFK 

Mokelumne River 

Calaveras 1 0.10 

Stanislaus 

River 

North Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Bloods Creek-Upper North Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Calaveras 2 2.13 

Silver Creek-Upper North Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Calaveras 2 0.29 

Lower Middle Fork 

Stanislaus River 

Upper Rose Creek Mi-Wok 3 3.36 

South Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Fraser Flat-Lower South Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Mi-Wok 2 0.45 

Lyons Reservoir- Lower South Fork 

Stanislaus River 

Mi-Wok 4 2.59 

Italian Bar-Lower South Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Mi-Wok 3 0.29 

Deer Cr Mi-Wok 15 8.24 

Tuolumne 

River 

North Fork Tuolumne 

River 

Wrights Creek Mi-Wok 5 1.04 

Clavey River Hull Creek Mi-Wok 6 2.26 

Trout Creek Mi-Wok 5 3.25 

Two Mile Creek Mi-Wok 3 3.72 

Cottonwood Creek Mi-Wok 2 0.45 

Main Stem West Clavey River Mi-Wok 1 3.65 

Bourland Creek Mi-Wok 2 0.07 

Reed Creek Groveland 2 0.42 

Bear Springs-Lower Clavey River Groveland 1 0.13 

Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River 

Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River West Groveland 1 0.31 

South Fork Tuolumne 

River

 Lower South Fork Tuolumne River West Groveland 1 0.94 

Tuolumne River- Big 

Creek 

Big Creek East Groveland 4 3.01 

Middle Jawbone Creek Groveland 1 0.07 

Merced River North Fork Merced 

River 

Moore Creek-Upper North Fork Merced 

River 

Groveland 8 3.86 

Lower Bull Creek Groveland 1 0.05 

Upper Bull Creek Groveland 1 0.03 

total 75 41.02 

268 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

No hydrologically sensitive area information exists for the 72 miles of existing unauthorized routes 

that are not proposed for addition since they will not be maintained. However, they are accounted for 

in the cumulative watershed effects analysis since they represent an existing watershed disturbance. 

Of the 178 hydrologically connected route segments inventoried for this analysis, 93% (165) are less 

than 0.10 miles (about 500 feet) in length, and most are less than half that length. Route gradient of 

these segments is dominantly gentle to moderate – 128 segments are less than 10%, with 90 of those 

segments less than 5%. Thirty four segments are between 10-15% with the remainder mostly 15-20%. 

Most of the segments were found to be in acceptable condition (routine maintenance will minimize 

stream sedimentation) but 23 are proposed for site specific mitigation to minimize sedimentation. 

Mitigation typically includes installation of drain dips and/or trail hardening to prevent or minimize 

mechanical erosion caused by motorized vehicles. Mitigation also includes wet season closure zones 

intended to minimize trail damage and stream sedimentation that can occur from wet weather use. 

Nine routes are not recommended for addition to the NFTS because the water resource problem 

cannot be practicably mitigated. 

Route gradients that are steepest usually occur outside hydrologically connected sites, and are 

typically greatest on “hill climb” sections of routes. Gradient is an important corollary with poorer 

condition of routes as noted in the Soil Resource Report. 

While sedimentation does occur from the hydrologically connected segments of unauthorized routes 

in hydrologically sensitive areas, it should be considered in context with the existing NFTS. The 246 

miles of unauthorized routes are generally much narrower than NFTS routes, and only about 10% of 

the NFTS mileage on the Forest. Motorcycle routes are about 3 feet wide, ATV routes are about 5 

feet wide, and other unauthorized routes that accommodate high clearance vehicles are typically 10­

12 feet wide. Most of the 2,279 miles of NFTS roads are 15-25 feet wide or wider, and though some 

are gravel or paved a very high percentage remain native surfaced like unauthorized routes. While 

unit-area erosion and sedimentation in hydrologically connected segments can be higher on OHV 

routes than on Forest roads (Welsh 2008), OHV routes are likely to be a smaller overall sediment 

producer in roaded watersheds since total surface area of roads is usually greater. This is the case in 

the Stanislaus National Forest motorized travel management analysis area where NFTS road density 

(miles per square mile) exceeds that of unauthorized routes, often substantially. 

Water Resources Condition 

Water Quality Management Framework 

Water quality on the Forest is principally managed through the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin 

Plan) of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (CVRWQCB 

1998). This plan establishes Beneficial Uses of Water and describes Water Quality Objectives for 

meeting beneficial uses. 

Beneficial Uses of Water 

All four of the HUC Level 5 watersheds on the Forest (Mokelumne, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and 

Merced Rivers) have established beneficial uses of water applicable to the additions to the NFTS and 

changes in vehicle class in this analysis. These uses are municipal and domestic supply, contact and 

non-contact recreation, warm and cold water freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. 

Of the municipal and domestic supply beneficial uses, one of the most important regarding effects of 

motorized travel management occurs in the South Fork of the Stanislaus River. Lyons Reservoir 

serves as the collection and distribution point that serves water to as much as 80% of the population 

of Tuolumne County. Water is diverted from Lyons Reservoir into a broad distribution system that 

has numerous water treatment plants downstream of the Forest prior to consumptive use. Other large 

269 
 

 

Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

reservoirs downstream of the Forest (New Melones on the Stanislaus River and New Don Pedro on 

the Tuolumne River) store water for some municipal and domestic use in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Beneficial uses relevant to humans and aquatic wildlife within the Forest are contact and non-contact 

recreation (e.g., swimming, angling), freshwater habitat (cold and warm water fisheries), and wildlife 

(amphibian and aquatic reptile species). All of the streams in the watersheds where routes are 

proposed for addition to the NFTS have these beneficial uses. 

Water Quality Objectives 

Water quality objectives are limits of constituents in water that are intended to provide reasonable 

protection of beneficial uses of water. The Basin Plan contains objectives for numerous water quality 

constituents, or parameters. The water quality parameter most likely to be affected by the proposed 

action is sediment, as a result of erosion that occurs on unauthorized routes near water. The measure 

of the water quality objective for this pollutant is that sediment “...shall not be altered so as to cause 

nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.” The focus of sediment evaluation in this project is 

streambed sediment in pools – natural areas of deposition in streams. Pool tail surface fine sediment 

and pool bed sediment are relevant to erosion from roads and trails. 

Water temperature is another parameter considered relevant to this project. It can be elevated by 

openings along streams, including those created by roads and trails. The measure of this water quality 

objective is that water temperature “...shall not be altered unless it...does not adversely affect 

beneficial uses, and...at no time or place be increased more than 5 degrees F above natural receiving 

water temperature.” 

Petrochemical products in water (e.g., oil or grease) are also considered relevant to this project since 

they have the potential to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. These pollutants can be 

produced as a byproduct of motorized vehicle use. 

Water Quality Condition 

HUC Level 4 Watersheds 

These are the four major rivers on the Stanislaus National Forest. The two principal rivers, the 

Stanislaus and the Tuolumne, occupy much more land on the Forest than the Mokelumne on the north 

and the Merced on the south. They also contain most of the routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

as well as changes in vehicle use on the existing NFTS. 

All four of these large watersheds are managed for beneficial water resources, primarily off the 

Forest. All have very large reservoirs in the Sierra foothills downstream of the Forest and 

infrastructure that produces hydroelectric power, supplies water for irrigation, domestic, municipal 

and other uses, and provides recreational opportunities. 

Water quality meets beneficial uses of water at this large watershed scale. No impaired waters exist 

on the Forest. The Environmental Protection Agency lists such waters as a requirement of Section 

303d of the Federal Clean Water Act. None of the four major rivers on the Stanislaus National Forest 

are listed. 

HUC Level 5 Watersheds 

The 11 principal HUC Level 5 watersheds in this analysis will be described in groups with similar 

geographic and/or motorized travel characteristics. HUC Level 7 watersheds within each HUC Level 

5 group will be discussed as applicable. 

South Fork Stanislaus River and Lower Middle Fork Stanislaus River 

These contiguous watersheds both drain into the 2.4 million acre foot New Melones Reservoir 

immediately downstream of the Forest. The South Fork headwaters originate in the Emigrant 

270 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Wilderness at about 9,600 feet. The Lower Middle Fork watershed begins at the confluence of the 

Clark and Upper Middle Forks of the Stanislaus River; its uppermost elevation is slightly above 9,000 

feet. Both watersheds are dominated by mixed conifer forests although the upper portions reach into 

the true fir zone and the lowest elevations include a pine-oak mix. The South Fork is the principal 

recreation watershed on the Stanislaus National Forest. It includes Pinecrest Lake and the 

communities of Pinecrest and Strawberry, and access to the nearby Dodge Ridge Ski Area. It also 

includes Lyons Reservoir which, along with Pinecrest Lake, provides fishing and other recreational 

activities. These watersheds also have the most off-highway vehicle recreation on the Forest. Herring 

Creek, a South Fork tributary above Strawberry, has several authorized trails, and the Deer Creek 

concentrated use area has most of its unauthorized trails in the South Fork with some others in the 

Upper Rose Creek HUC Level 7 watershed within the Lower Middle Fork. The Deer Creek 

concentrated use area contains 24 of the 75 segments with routes in hydrologically sensitive areas 

considered in this analysis. 

The South Fork water resource is regulated by the Spring Gap-Stanislaus hydroelectric project 

operated by PG&E. It consists of dams on Pinecrest Lake and Lyons Reservoir and a diversion from 

the South Fork to the Middle Fork Stanislaus River for hydropower production near Spring Gap. 

Lyons Reservoir serves as the point of diversion for the Tuolumne Main Canal which distributes 

municipal and domestic water to about 80% of the population of Tuolumne County. Along the canal a 

small diversion provides water for hydro power at the Phoenix powerhouse. 

The Lower Middle Fork water resource is also regulated for hydropower and other uses downstream 

of the Forest. This river holds Donnells and Beardsley Reservoirs as well as hydropower plants near 

each. These are both operated by the Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts. These 

facilities along with Tulloch Reservoir downstream of the Forest are known as the Tri-Dam Project. 

Water Quality is very good in the South Fork of the Stanislaus River as documented in recent studies 

by PG&E (2002). 

For the South Fork between Pinecrest Lake and Lyons Reservoir, PG&E conducted water sampling of 

numerous water quality parameters in 2000 and 2001 as required for relicensing of the Spring GapStanislaus hydroelectric project (FERC No. 2130). This water quality information is applicable to the 

Fraser Flat and Lyons Reservoir HUC Level 7 watersheds that lie between Pinecrest Lake and Lyons 

Reservoir. 

Overall water quality is consistent with the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan of the Central 

Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (PG&E 2002). More specifically, suspended sediment 

levels were found to be very low as were total settleable solids, indicating little deposition of 

streambed sediment. Pinecrest Lake likely traps some of the settleable material that may otherwise 

move downstream. Forest watershed staff observations concur with this as minimal streambed 

sedimentation appears present. In addition, PG&E sampled benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) 

communities as an indicator of water quality and habitat condition. The sampling from the project 

reaches indicates favorable water quality as demonstrated by a community of taxa that are intolerant 

to water degradation, including sedimentation. 

Water temperature in the South Fork is not elevated above normal. It may be somewhat below normal 

at times during summer months since water released from Pinecrest Lake from near the bottom of the 

dam is cooler than surface water. No oil or grease was detected in the South Fork during PG&E’s 

studies. 

Two other HUC Level 7 watersheds have routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in the South Fork, 

both downstream of Lyons Reservoir. Deer Creek, the main watershed in the Deer Creek 

concentrated use area for off-highway motorized travel, is an unregulated tributary of the South Fork. 

It is a small perennial stream although portions of its mid-watershed segment, running through a low 

271 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

gradient alluvial valley, often goes dry by late summer. A stream survey was conducted on 

approximately 3.5 miles of Deer Creek in June 2009, from about 1⁄2 mile downstream of the Italian 

Bar Road (2N63) to the stream’s headwaters. Much of this is a low gradient channel (less than 2%). 

The stream survey was conducted using the Stanislaus National Forest StreamScape Inventory (SSI) 

protocol (Frazier et al 2006b). SSI consists of measuring 19 physical and biological attributes 

continuously along a stream. Key attributes related to this project are summarized in Table 3.10-4. 

Pool tail and pool bed sediment are both low, indicating sedimentation from management activities in 

the watershed is negligible. Stream temperature is suitable for fish habitat as evidenced by the 

survey’s detection of a reproducing population of rainbow trout. Oil and grease were not detected 

during the survey. 

The other HUC Level 7 watershed in the South Fork with routes proposed is a segment of the main 

channel called Italian Bar. Little quantitative data are available for this watershed although data from 

a field survey in 2001 to conduct benthic macroinvertebrate sampling described some applicable 

conditions of the river. It noted that streambed sediment was minor. Also, data recorded during the 

streambed particle count showed no fine sediment (< 2 mm) at any of the 100 sample points, and the 

dominant particle size classes were boulder and cobble with lesser amounts of gravel. 

The portion of the Lower Middle Fork of the Stanislaus applicable to this project is Upper Rose 

Creek. This small perennial tributary drains into New Melones Reservoir from its headwaters near 

Crandall Peak at about 5,400 feet. A StreamScape Inventory was conducted in July 2006 in the 

middle section of the stream in the Upper Rose Creek watershed. Results are shown in Table 3.10-4. 

Pool tail sediment is low. Pool bed sediment appears somewhat elevated but is not adversely affecting 

beneficial uses (e.g., a reproducing trout population is present in Upper Rose Creek). Benthic 

macroinvertebrate data from 1996-1998 provide another indication of stream health. About two miles 

downstream of the 1992 Ruby fire, samples were taken for three years and showed metric ranking 

scores suitable for recommending it as a reference site, meaning conditions were suitable as a 

benchmark for comparison with other streams (PG&E 2002). Even only a few years after the 

upstream fire, the Rose Creek benthic community was in good condition. 

Table 3.10-4 Water Quality Summary for the South Fork and Lower Middle Fork Stanislaus River 

HUC 7 Watershed Pool Tail Surface 

Fine Sediment (%) 

Pool Bed Surface 

Fine Sediment 

(% of pool length) 

Water Temperature 

(Degrees C) Oil and Grease 

Deer Creek 4 10 15 Not Detected 

Upper Rose Creek 4 18 22 Not Detected 

Clavey River and North Fork Tuolumne River 

These contiguous watersheds are major tributaries of the main Tuolumne River, the largest watershed 

in the San Joaquin river system. The Clavey and North Fork are both free-flowing rivers. The Clavey 

and North Fork headwaters are slightly above 9,000 and 8,000 feet respectively. Both watersheds are 

heavily forested, with true fir at the higher elevations, mixed conifer in mid elevations and a pine-oak 

mix in the lowest portions of the watersheds. The North Fork contains developed recreation at the 

upper elevations (Dodge Ridge Ski Area and part of Pinecrest), and organization camps and offhighway vehicle use at mid elevations. In the low to mid-elevations of the North Fork thousands of 

acres of timber plantations occupy the landscape as a result of reforestation following the 150,000 

acre Stanislaus Complex Fire of 1987. 

The Clavey River is unique in the Sierra Nevada. It is one of the longest free flowing rivers remaining 

in the mountain range with 47 miles of undammed waters. It is a proposed Wild and Scenic River 

based on numerous outstandingly remarkable values including a unique native assemblage of fish 

(USDA 1991c). It is also designated as a Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR) in the Forest Plan Direction 

(USDA 2005a). At 100,000 acres, the Clavey River is the largest CAR in the Pacific Southwest 

272 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Region of the Forest Service and a California Wild Trout Stream. Recreational activity in the Clavey 

River watershed consists mostly of dispersed uses; other than the Dodge Ridge Ski Area only one 

developed campground is in the watershed. Dispersed camping, hiking in the upper part of the 

watershed in the Emigrant Wilderness and hunting in the fall are principal activities. The most 

widespread recreation activity is off-highway motorized travel in the mid elevation portion of the 

watershed. Four of the five HUC Level 7 watersheds comprising the Hull Creek concentrated use area 

are within the Clavey River. The Hull Creek concentrated use area contains 20 of the 75 segments 

with routes in hydrologically sensitive areas considered in this analysis. 

Water quality in the Clavey River and North Fork Tuolumne River is excellent based on recent 

detailed surveys as part of a watershed assessment conducted for the Clavey River (CREP 2008) and 

stream surveys in most of the North Fork Tuolumne River. This includes Wrights Creek, one of the 

HUC Level 7 watersheds in the North Fork that is part of and contiguous with the Hull Creek 

concentrated use area for off-highway motorized travel. 

In the Clavey River, stream surveys were conducted on all HUC Level 7 watersheds, also using the 

Stanislaus National Forest StreamScape Inventory (SSI) protocol (Frazier 2006b). In addition, benthic 

macroinvertebrates were sampled at 14 sites in the Clavey River as an indicator of water quality and 

aquatic habitat condition. Results are summarized in Table 3.10-5 for the HUC Level 7 watersheds in 

which routes are proposed in the Clavey River watershed as well as Wrights Creek in the North Fork 

Tuolumne River. 

In the Clavey Watershed Assessment (CREP 2008) the desired condition (DC) measures for the 

sediment attributes are 20 and 10% respectively. For benthic macroinvertebrates the DC measure is > 

0.9. The Clavey WA does not contain water temperature or oil and grease desired conditions; 

however, these parameters can be related to their respective water quality objective in the Basin Plan. 

Sediment attributes all exceed desired condition except for Cottonwood Creek, which is slightly 

higher but not limiting to the trout fishery. Overall, very little streambed sediment exists in these 

HUC Level and watersheds. BMI data were evaluated using the River Invertebrate Prediction and 

Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins 2000). All streams (including Cottonwood Creek) 

exceed the BMI desired condition measure in the Clavey River Watershed Assessment. Numeric 

values very close to 1 indicate reference condition. No impairment of water quality is evident. 

Table 3.10-5 Water Quality Summary for the Clavey and North Fork Tuolumne Rivers 

HUC 7 Watershed 

Pool Tail 

Surface Fine 

Sediment (%) 

Pool Bed Surface 

Fine Sediment 

(% of pool length) 

Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

(Observed v. 

Expected Taxa) 

Water 

Temperature 

(Degrees C) 

Oil and Grease 

Wrights Creek 8 1 NA 12 Not Detected 

Two Mile Creek 8 1 0.991 NA Not Detected 

Trout Creek 14 6 1.102 17 Not Detected 

Hull Creek 15 5 1.106 16 Not Detected 

Main Stem West Clavey 

River 

NA NA 0.927 NA NA 

Reed Creek 1 8 1.021 14 Not Detected 

Bourland Creek 2 7 1.166 17 Not Detected 

Cottonwood Creek 32 36 1.166 12 Not Detected 

Bear Springs CreekLower Clavey River 

NA NA 0.932 NA NA 

Notes: NA means data not available. For the Main Stem and Bear Springs watersheds only BMI data were collected. Temperature data 

for Two Mile Creek is not available due to thermograph malfunction. 

Water temperature is within the range of variability for these watersheds. BMI data indicates this as 

does the presence of viable populations of fish and other aquatic species. Water temperature does not 

appear elevated above normal range in these streams. 

273 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

No oil or grease or other petrochemical products were detected during stream surveys. The survey 

protocol includes making observations for such pollutants. 

North Fork Merced River 

The North Fork is a free flowing tributary of the Merced River that runs along the southern boundary 

of the Forest. The North Fork headwaters is at about 6,000 feet on Pilot Ridge and drops rapidly to 

elevations of 3,000 feet or lower before running off the Forest and into the main Merced River. 

Vegetation consists of mixed conifer, pine-oak and chaparral. Much of the area is in timber 

plantations following reforestation after the Stanislaus Complex Fire in 1987. The North Fork 

consists of five HUC Level 7 tributaries that all join just above Forest road 2S05, at which point they 

begin to carve into the landscape and form a deep canyon as it heads south toward the Merced River. 

The five tributaries are mapped as perennial streams. However, upper portions are often dry by fall, 

and in very dry years most sections of these streams may be nearly dry. At this relatively low 

elevation fully perennial streams are not common. 

The North Fork has limited recreation activity. Camping and off-highway motorized travel, the main 

activities, occur from fall through spring as this area is accessible year round. Hot summers at the 

3,000 foot elevation limit use. Most of the OHV use is in the Moore Creek HUC Level 7 watershed, 

the center of the Moore Creek concentrated use area previously described. Several contiguous HUC 

Level 5 watersheds have similar activity but to a lesser degree. The Moore Creek concentrated use 

area contains 8 of the 75 segments with routes in hydrologically sensitive areas considered in this 

analysis. 

Water Quality in the North Fork appears good based on staff observations and some stream surveys in 

the area. Estimates of pool tail and pool bed sediment percentages in 2008 at several sample sites in 

Moore Creek plus Deer Lick Creek, Jordan Creek and the Headwaters of the North Fork were all less 

than 10 %. While the latter three HUC Level 7 watersheds have no routes proposed for addition they 

still provide an insight regarding water quality in the Moore Creek area. No stream temperature or oil 

and grease data are available. 

Two short hydrologically connected routes proposed for addition to the NFTS occur in Bull Creek, 

one in lower and one in upper Bull Creek. Staff observations were made in Bull Creek reaches near 

these routes and stream condition appears acceptable to support beneficial uses. 

Middle and South Fork Tuolumne River and Tuolumne River-Big Creek 

These three contiguous watersheds represent a southern group of dispersed off-highway motorized 

travel activity. The Middle and South Fork are free flowing tributaries of the main Tuolumne River, 

and both originate in Yosemite National Park east of the Forest. The Tuolumne River-Big Creek 

watershed incorporates the entire main channel of the Tuolumne River on the Forest as well as its Big 

Creek tributary that begins near Buck Meadows and enters the river downstream of Pine Mountain 

Lake near the town of Groveland. Most of the land in these watersheds is below 5,000 feet. Mixed 

conifer forests are common with pine-oak and some chaparral in the lower portions. Oak grasslands 

occupy some of the lowest elevations in the Tuolumne River Canyon. 

Recreational activity in these watersheds is mostly dispersed camping and off-highway motorized 

travel. Use is more scattered and less intense than in the nearby Moore Creek area. 

Water Quality in these watersheds is very good based on recent stream surveys in the Middle and 

South Forks of the Tuolumne River and staff observations at several sites in Big Creek. The streams 

shown in Table 3.10-6 were surveyed in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. One hydrologically 

connected route is proposed in each of the Middle and South Fork West HUC Level 7 watersheds, 

and four routes proposed for the Big Creek East HUC Level 7. One hydrologically connected route is 

proposed for addition to the NFTS in Middle Jawbone Creek HUC Level 7 watershed. Staff 

274 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

observations indicate suitable stream condition on the Jawbone Creek tributary where this very short 

route exists. 

Table 3.10-6 Water Quality Summary for the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers 

HUC 7 Watershed 

Pool Tail 

Surface Fine 

Sediment (%) 

Pool Bed Surface 

Fine Sediment 

(% of pool 

length) 

Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

(Observed v. 

Expected Taxa) 

Water 

Temperature 

(Degrees C) 

Oil and 

Grease 

Lower Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River West 

8 9 NA 8 Not Detected 

Lower South Fork 

Tuolumne River West 

1 3 NA 18 Not Detected 

Big Creek East <10 (est.) <10 (est.) NA NA Not Detected 

Notes: BMI data were not collected. Water temperature for the Lower Middle Fork is low because SSI was conducted in the fall. 

Pool sediment was estimated at sample points along Big Creek. 

Streambed sediment is very low in these streams. Water temperature is within the range of variability 

and does not appear to be elevated above normal. 

No oil or grease or other petrochemical products were detected during stream surveys. The survey 

protocol includes making observations for such pollutants. 

Lower and Upper North Fork Mokelumne River and North Fork Stanislaus River 

These three HUC Level 5 watersheds are along the state highway 4 corridor near the northern edge of 

the Forest. All range from mid to high elevation on the Forest with mixed conifer and true fir 

vegetation types. Portions of the Mokelumne River watersheds extend north to the Eldorado National 

Forest. 

Recreational use in these watersheds includes developed and dispersed camping in summer and 

winter sports activities since the higher elevations have downhill and cross country ski areas. Lake 

Alpine in the Silver Creek HUC Level 7 watershed is the hub of summer developed recreation use 

along upper Highway 4. Motorized off-highway travel is mostly a summer activity in these three 

HUC Level 5 watersheds and is relatively low intensity and well dispersed. These HUC Level 5 

watersheds contain only 5 routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in hydrologically sensitive areas. 

Observations by Forest watershed staff over the past several years indicate water quality is very good. 

Minimal instream sediment exists, water temperature is suitable for beneficial uses and no apparent 

petrochemical issues are present. Only five routes are scattered among the four HUC Level 7 

watersheds here, and little intensive forest management that would potentially contribute to water 

quality problems. Riparian vegetation along Moore, Silver and Bloods creeks as well as the 

headwaters of the North Fork Mokelumne River is abundant and the streams are stable at the HUC 

Level 7 scale. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects of All Alternatives 

The following two tables display data that will be used to describe direct and indirect effects of 

alternatives 1, 4 and 5. 

Table 3.10-7 shows proposed additions to the NFTS in hydrologically sensitive areas (HSA) as well 

as the hydrologically connected segments (HCS) for the action alternatives. 

Table 3.10-8 shows that the routes proposed in hydrologically sensitive areas (HSA) are a small 

percentage of the total additions to the NFTS proposed at the Forest scale. For example, Alternative 1 

adds about 151 miles to the NFTS, of which about 37 miles, or 24%, are in HSA. Hydrologically 

connected segments are a much smaller percentage of forestwide additions to the NFTS in Alternative 

1 – about 3%. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include additions to the NFTS. 

275 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

Finally, for context among the alternatives, 24 of the 25 HUC Level 7 watersheds with routes in 

hydrologically sensitive areas occur in Alternative 1, all 25 are in Alternative 4 and eight are in 

Alternative 5. 

Table 3.10-7 Additions to the NFTS: Hydrologically Sensitive Areas (action alternatives) 

Watershed Name Additions in HSA and length of HCS within HSA (miles) 

HUC 5 HUC 7 (Ranger District) # of 

routes 

Alternatives 

1 4 5 

HSA HCS HSA HCS HSA HCS 

Upper North 

Fork 

Mokelumne 

River 

Moore Creek-North Fork 

Mokelumne River (Calaveras) 

1 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.30 0 0 

Upper North 

Fork 

Mokelumne 

River 

Highland Lakes-Headwaters 

Upper North Fork Mokelumne 

River (Calaveras) 

1 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.01 

North Fork 

Stanislaus 

River 

Bloods Creek-Upper North 

Fork Stanislaus River 

(Calaveras) 

1 2.13 0.31 2.13 0.31 0 0 

Silver Creek-Upper North 

Fork Stanislaus River 

(Calaveras) 

2 0.29 0.09 0.29 0.09 0.29 0.09 

Lower Middle 

Fork Stanislaus 

River 

Upper Rose Creek ( Mi-Wok) 3 3.36 0.21 3.36 0.21 2.05 0.01 

South Fork 

Stanislaus 

River 

Fraser Flat-Lower South Fork 

Stanislaus River (Mi-Wok) 

2 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0 0 

Lyons Reservoir- Lower 

South Fork Stanislaus River 

(Mi-Wok) 

4 .21 0.24 2.59 0.45 2.06 0.04 

Deer Creek (Mi-Wok) 15 7.87 0.38 8.24 0.43 1.47 0.04 

Italian Bar-Lower South Fork 

Stanislaus River (Mi-Wok) 

3 0.29 0.16 0.29 0.16 0 0 

North Fork 

Tuolumne River 

Wrights Creek Mi-Wok) 5 1.04 0.25 1.04 0.25 0.87 0.22 

Clavey River Hull Creek Mi-Wok) 6 1.77 0.17 2.26 0.59 0.08 0.01 

Trout Creek (Mi-Wok) 5 2.72 0.25 3.25 0.29 0 0 

Two Mile Creek (Mi-Wok) 3 2.93 0.11 3.72 0.46 0 0 

Main Stem West Clavey 

River (Mi-Wok) 

1 2.82 0.13 3.65 0.13 0 0 

Cottonwood Creek (Mi-Wok) 2 0.45 0.26 0.45 0.26 0 0 

Bourland Creek Mi-Wok) 2 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0 0 

Reed Creek (Groveland) 2 0.42 0.36 0.42 0.36 0 0 

Bear Springs-Lower Clavey 

River (Groveland) 

1 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0 0 

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River 

Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River West (Groveland) 

1 0 0 0.31 0.10 0 0 

South Fork 

Tuolumne River 

 Lower South Fork Tuolumne 

River West (Groveland) 

1 0.94 0.02 0.94 0.02 0 0 

Tuolumne 

River- Big 

Creek 

Big Creek East (Groveland) 4 3.01 0.27 3.01 0.27 0 0 

Middle Jawbone Creek 

(Groveland) 

1 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.04 0 0 

North Fork 

Merced River 

Moore Creek-Upper North 

Fork Merced River 

(Groveland) 

8 3.86 0.41 3.86 0.41 1.00 0.12 

Lower Bull Creek (Groveland) 1 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0 0 

Upper Bull Creek (Groveland) 1 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0 0 

total 75 37.32 4.65 41.02 5.82 7.93 0.55 

Table 3.10-8 Additions to the NFTS and Existing Condition 

Existing 

Condition 

Alternatives (miles) 

1 2 3 4 5 

246.12 151.64 0.00 0.00 175.97 28.37 

276 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Cumulative Effects of All Alternatives 

The CWE analysis considered the 88 HUC 7 watersheds on the Forest that contain one or more 

proposed additions to the NFTS. Of these, the largest concentration of use occurs in the 10 

watersheds that coincide with the three principal off-highway vehicle activity areas on the Forest. 

These concentrated use watersheds are the locations in which detailed CWE analysis was conducted. 

The summary of cumulative watershed effects is shown in Table 3.10-9, and more detailed 

information is in the project record. The table shows the equivalent roaded acres (ERA) for each 

watershed, the portion of the ERA contributed by the additions to the NFTS and the threshold of 

concern (TOC) for each watershed. 

The 78 remaining “dispersed area” watersheds have a low amount of existing ERA and a very low 

route contribution to ERA. Detailed CWE calculations were not performed on these watersheds based 

on professional knowledge of cumulative disturbances in each and correlated with recent CWE 

analysis conducted in some of them for other projects. The ERA in 68 of these watersheds is 

estimated to be less than 50% of the TOC, some as low as 25%. Ten of these watersheds are 

estimated to be between 50-75% of the TOC. None of the dispersed area watersheds would approach 

the TOC even if all routes proposed for addition to the NFTS were selected. The proposed addition 

route mileage is low enough in each watershed that the disturbed acreage would increase no more 

than about 10 acres, or 0.15% ERA, in watersheds that average approximately 6,000 acres in size. 

Table 3.10-9 Summary of Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Watershed Name ERA Category 

ERA (%) 

Alternative TOC (%) HUC 5 HUC 7 1 2 3 4 5 

South Fork 

Stanislaus River 

Deer Creek HUC 7 Watershed 3.30 3.87 2.80 3.35 2.86 12-14 

Route Additions 0.12 0.56 0 0.14 0.01 

Fraser Flat-Lower South 

Fork Stanislaus 

HUC 7 Watershed 5.50 5.70 5.34 5.57 5.45 12-14 

Route Additions 0.06 0.18 0 0.10 0.03 

Lyons Reservoir-Lower 

South Fork Stanislaus 

HUC 7 Watershed 8.10 8.40 7.93 8.13 8.01 12-14 

Route Additions 0.05 0.25 0 0.06 0.02 

Lower Middle Fork 

Stanislaus River 

Upper Rose Creek HUC 7 Watershed 3.72 3.99 3.30 3.73 3.46 12-14 

Route Additions 0.11 0.37 0 0.10 0.04 

North Fork 

Tuolumne River 

Wrights Creek HUC 7 Watershed 3.78 3.98 3.36 3.78 3.41 12-14 

Route Additions 0.14 0.35 0 0.14 0.02 

Clavey River Hull Creek HUC 7 Watershed 6.11 6.35 5.80 6.17 5.83 12-14 

Route Additions 0.14 0.29 0 0.16 0.02 

Main Stem West Clavey 

River 

HUC 7 Watershed 2.75 2.91 2.59 2.77 2.59 12-14 

Route Additions 0.05 0.18 0 0.06 0 

Trout Creek HUC 7 Watershed 5.27 5.46 4.90 5.30 4.91 12-14 

Route Additions 0.16 0.31 0 0.17 0 

Two Mile Creek HUC 7 Watershed 4.42 4.92 3.96 4.68 3.97 12-14 

Route Additions 0.20 0.51 0 0.31 0 

North Fork Merced 

River 

Moore Creek HUC 7 Watershed 3.67 3.80 3.45 3.68 3.45 14-16 

Route Additions 0.09 0.20 0 0.10 0 

Notes: (1) HUC 7 ERA is for the maximum CWE year from 2010-2019; year varies by watershed: (2) no route additions occur in 

Alternative 2; however, for comparison with the other alternatives, values are shown that represent the existing condition of unauthorized 

routes combined with all other activities occurring or expected to occur in the watershed in the reasonably foreseeable future; and (3) 

route additions means the portion of the HUC 7 watershed ERA contributed by proposed route additions to the NFTS. 

The two items are of most importance in this CWE analysis are (1) the total ERA which considers the 

effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the watershed and (2) the 

portion of the total ERA contributed by the proposed additions to the NFTS. The total ERA 

represents the cumulative disturbances in the watershed for comparison with the threshold of concern 

(TOC) to determine the risk of CWE. The ERA contributed by the additions to the NFTS is important 

because it shows its context with the total ERA for the watershed. These values can then be compared 

between alternatives and with the overall ERA values for the watershed. 

277 
 

Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

Summary findings common to all alternatives in the 10 concentrated use watersheds are (1) the total 

ERA is well below the TOC, including the additions to the NFTS, (2) additions to the NFTS are a 

very small fraction of the total ERA, and (3) the ERA created by additions to the NFTS is less in the 

action alternatives (1, 4 and 5) than the existing watershed footprint (Alternative 2), thus reducing 

disturbance and the risk of cumulative effects. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

The proposed action reduces direct and indirect effects compared with both the existing condition and 

Alternative 4, the alternative with the most mileage proposed for addition to the NFTS. Existing 

condition consists of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS as well as unauthorized 

routes that exist but are not proposed for addition. 

The length of routes that occur in hydrologically sensitive areas (e.g., Riparian Conservation Areas) 

decreases from 41.02 to 37.32 miles, or 10% as shown in Table 3.10-7. The erosional features that 

affect water quality along those routes – hydrologically connected segments – are reduced by 20%, 

from 5.82 to 4.65 miles. As a result, the route footprint, or disturbed watershed area, becomes less 

over time as the existing route mileage in hydrologically sensitive areas passively recovers (e.g., 

ground cover re-occupies the route – plant growth, pine needles, etc.). Existing stream sedimentation 

from the HCS sites is thus reduced as well. 

Most watersheds have very little route mileage in hydrologically sensitive areas, and based on field 

surveys a very small portion of that is hydrologically connected; that is, 11.3% of the lengths of 

routes in the hydrologically sensitive areas are hydrologically connected. While the overall amount of 

hydrologically connected segments in the alternative is several miles, it is small in each of the HUC 7 

watersheds. 

Water quality effects from existing stream sedimentation will decrease over time since the routes not 

added to the NFTS will passively recover. The magnitude of this effect is expected to be minor since 

at present very little stream sedimentation exists. Based on detailed stream surveys and/or staff 

observations of the streams in these watersheds, pool sedimentation is very low, and where data exist 

from benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stream health is excellent. 

Water temperature and petrochemical effects of vehicle use are negligible. Existing water temperature 

data in numerous streams in the project area indicate this parameter is suitable for all instream 

beneficial uses. No petrochemical effects were noted during recent stream surveys or observations. 

No oil or grease has been detected in any stream. 

1. Cross Country Travel 

This action will result in a minor reduction in stream sedimentation. Fewer miles of routes mean less 

potential stream sedimentation. Route reduction may, however, increase traffic on the routes added to 

the NFTS. However, this is expected to be a neutral effect since sedimentation will be reduced on 

trails not added as they heal over, and mitigation measures described below will reduce sedimentation 

from routes added to the NFTS. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

Stream sedimentation will continue to be produced from the hydrologically connected segments of 

routes. However, the existing amount of sedimentation will be reduced on routes added to the NFTS 

by implementation of site-specific and area-wide maintenance and mitigation measures, as shown in 

Table 3.10-10. For maintenance, upkeep of existing features to minimize sedimentation (e.g., water 

bars, hardened crossings) will be performed as needed. For mitigation, drainage control features and 

trail hardening will be installed where needed to minimize stream sedimentation, and hardening or 

boardwalks will be installed in other wet areas (i.e., seeps and springs) to protect them from damage. 

278 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

In addition, seasonal closures will be implemented which will further reduce sedimentation presently 

caused by wet season use. The combination of mitigation and reduced sedimentation from elimination 

of a portion of existing unauthorized trails is expected to result in decreased water quality effects 

from motorized travel. 

Table 3.10-10 Maintenance and Mitigation in Hydrologically Connected Segments 

Activity Number of routes 

Alt. 1 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Routine maintenance 46 52 10 

Mitigation measures 20 23 5 

Total number of routes 66 75 15 

Table 3.10-11 Routes Not Recommended for Addition to the NFTS 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

16EV191 CAL 0.13 UNT ATV ATV ATV 

17EV192 GR 0.63 UNT ALL ALL 

1S1728 GR 0.47 UNT SLO SLO 

1S17M GR 1.13 UNT ATV ATV 

1S1822C GR 0.31 UNT ALL 

2N1820 GR 0.34 UNT ALL ALL 

2S1804 GR 0.94 UNT ATV ATV 

17EV297 MW 0.49 UNT ATV 

18EV100 MW 0.31 UNT ALL ALL 

FR98704 MW 0.15 UNT SLO ALL 

total (miles) 3.85 0.00 0.00 4.67 0.13 

Some proposed routes are not recommended for addition to the NFTS (Table 3.10-11) since water 

quality effects cannot practicably be mitigated and inclusion would likely not be in compliance with 

water quality best management practices. These routes, if selected for addition to the NFTS, would 

result in continued sedimentation at present rates. While sedimentation from these routes is believed 

to be individually unacceptable, the effect at the stream reach scale would not be expected to impair 

water quality. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Route closure or opening may have a minor effect on stream sedimentation but will be less in relation 

to additions to NFTS. Closed NFTS routes that are proposed to be opened are roads that were 

engineered to control drainage and erosion and are thus designed to minimize stream sedimentation. 

They are expected to receive maintenance when opened and will be subject to seasonal closure. 

Closure of NFTS roads will result in no maintenance but are expected to be “put to bed” before 

closure, meaning that erosion control measures would be taken to keep them from long term damage 

with the expectation they may be re-opened in the future. Changing the type of vehicle use is not 

expected to result in a noticeable impact on water quality since any impacts related to a vehicle type 

would be mitigated by drainage features and wet season closure. 

CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS 

For this alternative, ERA values in the 10 concentrated use watersheds shown in Table 3.10-9 are 

based on consideration of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the 

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (project record). The activities that usually contribute most to 

ERA values are vegetation management and the NFTS. In addition, approximately 5 miles of 

motorized routes are expected to be constructed in the future to complete the motorized route system 

on the Forest. These routes are expected be constructed in six of the concentrated use watersheds 

within the next 10 years. Although they are not part of the proposed action, they were accounted for 

279 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

in the CWE analysis as a future activity. Another item accounted for is passive recovery of routes not 

added to the NFTS in the alternative. Passive recovery represents a slight reduction in the risk of 

cumulative effects over time since the route footprint decreases as the abandoned routes heal over. 

The total ERA in the 10 concentrated use watersheds ranges from 2.75% to 8.10% of the total 

watershed area in these watersheds, which is 20% to 58 % of the TOC and thus represents a low risk 

of CWE. The additions to the NFTS account for less than 0.20% ERA in all of the watersheds, a very 

small fraction of the total ERA value. Alternative 1 results in a reduction of the watershed footprint, 

or disturbed area, thus reducing the risk of cumulative effects compared to the existing condition. 

For each of the dispersed use watersheds, the total ERA in this alternative is estimated to be well 

below the TOC. The past, present and expected future management activity level is not anticipated to 

exceed, and is likely to be less than, that in the concentrated use watersheds based upon review of the 

list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis list. The additions to the NFTS in these 

watersheds would account for even smaller fraction of the total ERA than in the concentrated use 

watersheds since the length of routes added is much less. The watershed footprint will be reduced 

compared with the existing condition, though to a smaller degree than in the concentrated use 

watersheds because the route addition mileage is much less. 

Changes to the existing NFTS represent a neutral cumulative effect at the watershed scale since no 

changes exist in the watershed disturbance acreage of these routes. In addition, the prohibition of 

cross country motorized travel on routes inventoried but not added to the NFTS in this alternative will 

reduce route proliferation. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative represents the existing condition of watershed disturbance. This footprint on the 

watersheds consists of all the inventoried unauthorized routes, approximately 246 miles. This 

alternative would result in perpetuation of the existing footprint. 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Without prohibition of cross country travel it is expected that route proliferation would occur over 

time, at a forestwide rate of 2.25 miles per year. For purposes of this analysis, it is expected that most 

if not all of the proliferation would occur in the concentrated use watersheds since these are the most 

popular areas for off highway motorized travel. 

Unauthorized routes would continue to be used and increase as a result of this alternative. Thus, no 

reduction of stream sedimentation occurs as in the other alternatives. It would be expected to increase 

slightly over time as the unauthorized route system expands and likely includes additional 

hydrologically sensitive areas. 

Even at the existing condition, based on stream inventories and observations, it appears that stream 

sedimentation from these routes is not degrading water quality at the HUC 7 level, and minimally if at 

all at the reach scale (i.e., downstream a certain distance from route crossings). The alternative is, 

however, likely not in compliance with water quality best management practices insofar as the routes 

are not preventing or minimizing stream sedimentation to the extent practicable. Perpetuating cross 

country motorized travel does not meet the intent of the BMPs. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative does not make any additions to the NFTS and thus no direct and indirect effects on 

the water resource. 

280 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

This alternative does not change the existing NFTS and thus no direct and indirect effects on the 

water resource. 

CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS 

For Alternative 2, ERA values in the 10 concentrated use watersheds shown in Table 3.10-9 are based 

on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Analysis (project record). The activities that usually contribute most to ERA values are vegetation 

management and the NFTS. Although no routes will be added to the NFTS in Alternative 2, for 

purposes of evaluating CWE this alternative serves as the baseline, or existing condition, of the 

footprint of unauthorized routes. Footprint is the watershed disturbance acreage these routes 

represent. Forestwide, the footprint includes approximately 246 miles of unauthorized routes and 

trails that were inventoried for this project. This is approximately 72 miles greater than Alternative 4, 

the alternative with the most mileage of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS among the action 

alternatives. Alternative 2 also includes about 2.25 miles per year of expected route proliferation 

since this alternative would not prohibit motorized cross country travel. For purposes of the CWE 

analysis it is assumed that route proliferation will occur within the concentrated use watersheds and 

the mileage will occur evenly distributed among these watersheds. This alternative does not include 

new future route construction. 

The total ERA in Alternative 2 ranges from 2.91% to 8.40% in the 10 concentrated use watersheds. 

This is 21% to 60 % of the TOC and thus represents a low risk of CWE. Alternative 2 does not reduce 

the watershed footprint, and given that route proliferation is anticipated, this alternative will slightly 

increase the risk of cumulative effects. The increase, however, will not cause the watershed ERAs to 

approach the threshold of concern since route proliferation raises the ERA in the alternatives less than 

0.10%. 

For each of the dispersed use watersheds, the total ERA in this alternative is estimated to be well 

below the TOC. The past, present and expected future management activity level is not anticipated to 

exceed, and is likely to be less than, that in the concentrated use watersheds based upon review of the 

list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis list. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

This alternative would allow all unauthorized routes described in Alternative 2 to immediately begin 

the passive recovery process. The short term watershed effect would be that no mitigation would 

occur on existing routes. Stream sedimentation at rates similar to present could be expected to occur 

for two to three years as routes naturally revegetate and become covered with forest floor litter (e.g., 

leaves, pine needles). Sedimentation would likely decrease at an accelerated rate after three years and 

not be noticeable after about 10 years. Observations of unauthorized motorized trails on the Forest 

that were closed to use indicate that passive recovery occurs rapidly where trails occur in forested 

areas; tree leaves and needles provide 50% or greater cover on trails within two to three years. Routes 

that traverse open areas such as lava caps with shallow soils and herbaceous cover take longer to 

passively recover, and some may need active restoration since some of the growing medium may 

were reduced by motorized vehicle use. While this effect may be severe at the site scale, these areas 

represent a very small percentage of route miles and are often on ridges or upper slopes and thus not 

in hydrologically sensitive areas. Another small fraction of the unauthorized route footprint, even less 

than the lava caps, lie in wet areas such as meadows, springs and seeps. These spots have the 

capability to revegetate quickly after disturbance ceases since they have productive soil and a good 

source of subsurface moisture. 

281 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

This alternative represents the greatest reduction in stream sedimentation of all the alternatives since 

use on all existing routes – those proposed for addition to the NFTS as well as routes not proposed for 

addition - is prohibited. Overall, positive effects of this alternative on the water resource are 

anticipated to be relatively the highest – slightly more than Alternative 5, comparatively much more 

than alternatives 1 and 4 and especially more than Alternative 2. However, as existing sedimentation 

does not appear to be adversely affecting water quality and stream condition, the reduction over time 

resulting from this alternative is not significantly greater than the other alternatives. 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

This alternative does not make any additions to the NFTS and thus no direct and indirect effects on 

the water resource. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

This alternative does not change the existing NFTS and thus no direct and indirect effects on the 

water resource. 

CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS 

For Alternative 3, ERA values in the 10 concentrated use watersheds shown in Table 3.10-9 are based 

on consideration of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Cumulative 

Watershed Effects Analysis (project record). The activities that usually contribute most to ERA 

values are vegetation management and the NFTS. None of the 5 miles of future motorized routes that 

are expected to be constructed to complete the motorized route system occur in this alternative. Route 

proliferation is not expected to occur since no motorized travel will be permitted off existing NFTS 

routes. Passive recovery of all 246 miles of unauthorized routes is accounted for in this alternative 

since none are added to the NFTS. This represents a reduction in the risk of cumulative effects over 

time since the route footprint decreases as the abandoned routes heal over. 

The total ERA in the 10 concentrated use watersheds ranges from 2.59% to 7.93% in these 

watersheds, which is 18% to 56% of the TOC and thus represents a low risk of CWE. Since no 

additions to the NFTS are in Alternative 3 the only contribution to ERA are existing NFTS routes and 

other management activities in the watersheds. Alternative 3 prohibits cross country travel and thus 

eliminates the entire watershed footprint of unauthorized routes over time due to passive recovery. 

Thus, Alternative 3 reduces the risk of cumulative watershed effects relatively high compared to the 

existing condition and the other alternatives. However, the reduction is not a significant factor in the 

overall ERA. 

For each of the dispersed use watersheds, the total ERA in this alternative is estimated to be well 

below the TOC. The past, present and expected future management activity level is not anticipated to 

exceed, and is likely to be less than, that in the concentrated use watersheds based upon review of the 

list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis list. The watershed footprint will be reduced 

compared with the existing condition to a greater extent than any of the other alternatives. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

The types of effects are the same as Alternative 1: a reduction in routes, hydrologically connected 

segments, disturbed area and sedimentation compared with the existing condition in the watersheds; 

changes to existing NFTS routes; and prohibition of cross country travel. However, the magnitude of 

effects is slightly different since more routes are proposed for addition to the NFTS in Alternative 4. 

This alternative represents the greatest mileage of routes added to the NFTS among the alternatives, 

282 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

and conversely the least mileage of routes on which cross country travel would be prohibited and 

would thus be allowed to passively recover. 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

As shown in Table 3.10-7, route mileage in hydrologically sensitive areas in Alternative 4 is 3.70 

more than Alternative 1, or an increase of about 10%. The increase in hydrologically connected 

segments is about 25% compared with Alternative 1. As a result, sedimentation would be expected to 

be somewhat more than in Alternative 1 though still less in the short term than the existing condition. 

Thus, stream sedimentation would likely be somewhat more than Alternative 1 but less than present. 

This again represents a reduction of effects compared to the existing situation. Effects of this 

alternative on the water resource are anticipated to be negligible since existing sedimentation does not 

appear to be adversely affecting water quality and stream condition. 

Some proposed routes are not recommended for addition to the NFTS (Table 3.10-9) since water 

quality effects cannot practicably be mitigated and inclusion would likely not be in compliance with 

water quality best management practices. These routes, if selected for addition to the NFTS, would 

result in continued sedimentation at present rates. While sedimentation from these routes is believed 

to be individually unacceptable, the effect at the stream reach scale would not be expected to impair 

water quality. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS 

For Alternative 4, ERA values in the 10 concentrated use watersheds shown in Table 3.10-9 are based 

on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Analysis (project record). The activities that usually contribute most to ERA values are vegetation 

management and the NFTS. In addition, approximately 5 miles of motorized routes are expected to be 

constructed in the future to complete the motorized route system on the Forest. These routes are 

expected be constructed in six of the concentrated use watersheds within the next 10 years. They were 

accounted for in the CWE analysis as a future activity; they are not part of this project. Another item 

accounted for is passive recovery of existing routes not added to the NFTS in this alternative. This 

represents a slight reduction in the risk of cumulative effects over time since the route footprint 

decreases as the abandoned routes heal over. 

The total ERA in the 10 concentrated use watersheds ranges from 2.77% to 8.13% in these 

watersheds, which is 20% to 58% of the TOC and thus represents a low risk of CWE. The additions 

to the NFTS account for less than 0.31% ERA in these watersheds, a very small fraction of the total 

ERA value. Overall, Alternative 4 results in a reduction of the watershed footprint, or disturbed area, 

thus reducing the risk of cumulative effects compared to the existing condition. 

For each of the dispersed use watersheds, the total ERA in this alternative is estimated to be well 

below the TOC. The past, present and expected future management activity level is not anticipated to 

exceed, and is likely to be less than, that in the concentrated use watersheds based upon review of the 

list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix B). The additions to the NFTS in these 

watersheds would account for even smaller fraction of the total ERA since the length of routes added 

is much less than in the concentrated use watersheds. The watershed footprint will be reduced 

compared with the existing condition, though to a smaller degree than in the concentrated use 

watersheds because the route addition mileage is much less. 

283 
 

Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

Changes to the NFTS represent a neutral cumulative effect at the watershed scale since no change 

occurs in the watershed disturbance acreage of these routes. In addition, the prohibition of cross 

country motorized travel on routes inventoried but not added to the NFTS in this alternative will 

prevent route proliferation. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

The types of effects are the same as Alternative 1: a reduction in routes, hydrologically connected 

segments, disturbed area and sedimentation compared with the existing condition in the watersheds; 

changes to existing NFTS routes; and prohibition of cross country travel. However, the magnitude of 

effects is noticeably different since substantially less route mileage is proposed in this alternative. 

This alternative represents the least mileage of routes added to the NFTS among the alternatives, and 

conversely the most mileage of routes on which cross country travel would be prohibited and would 

thus be allowed to passively recover. This alternative has noticeably fewer changes to the NFTS than 

alternatives 1 and 4. 

1. Cross Country Travel 

Same as Alternative 1. 

2. Additions to the NFTS 

As shown in Table 3.10-7, route mileage in hydrologically sensitive areas in Alternative 5 is 29.39 

less than Alternative 1, or a decrease of about 78%. The decrease in hydrologically connected 

segments is about 88% compared with Alternative 1. As a result, sedimentation would be expected to 

be less than in Alternative 1 though still slightly more in the short term than the existing condition 

since some rather than no miles will be added to the NFTS. Thus, stream sedimentation would be 

proportionally highly reduced compared to Alternatives 1 and 4 but slightly more than present. This 

represents the greatest reduction in sedimentation among the action alternatives. However, the 

amount of reduction in this alternative must be considered in context with the sediment reduction 

effects of the mitigation measures in Alternatives 1 and 4; those would notably reduce sediment even 

though more length of hydrologically connected segments would remain. Overall, effects of this 

alternative on the water resource are anticipated to be negligible insofar as existing sedimentation 

does not appear to be adversely affecting water quality and stream condition. 

One proposed route is not recommended for addition to the NFTS (Table 3.10-11) since water quality 

effects cannot practicably be mitigated and inclusion would likely not be in compliance with water 

quality best management practices. This route, if selected for addition to the NFTS, would result in 

continued sedimentation at present rates. While sedimentation from this route is believed to be 

individually unacceptable, the effect at the stream reach scale would not be expected to impair water 

quality. 

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS 

For Alternative 5, ERA values in the 10 concentrated use watersheds shown in Table 3.10-9 are based 

on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Analysis (project record). The activities that usually contribute most to ERA values are vegetation 

management and the NFTS. None of the 5 miles of future motorized routes that are expected to be 

constructed to complete the motorized route system occur in this alternative. In addition, the CWE 

analysis has accounted for passive recovery of routes not added to the NFTS. This represents a slight 

284 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

reduction in the risk of cumulative effects over time since the route footprint decreases as the 

abandoned routes heal over. 

The total ERA in the 10 concentrated use watersheds ranges from 2.59% to 8.01% in these 

watersheds, which is 18% to 57 % of the TOC and thus represents a low risk of CWE. The additions 

to the NFTS account for 0.04% of the ERA in these watersheds, a very small fraction of the total 

ERA value. Many of the watersheds with routes in hydrologically sensitive areas have no additions to 

the NFTS in this alternative. Among the action alternatives this one results in the most reduction of 

the watershed footprint, thus providing the largest relative reduction in the risk of cumulative effects 

compared to the existing condition. However, since the route footprint is a small fraction of overall 

ERA the absolute change is minor. 

For each of the dispersed use watersheds, the total ERA in this alternative is estimated to be well 

below the TOC. The past, present and expected future management activity level is not anticipated to 

exceed, and is likely to be less than, that in the concentrated use watersheds based upon review of the 

list of activities in the Cumulative Effects Analysis list. The additions to the NFTS in these 

watersheds would account for an even smaller fraction of the total ERA since the length of routes 

added is much less than in the concentrated use watersheds. The watershed footprint will be reduced 

compared to the existing condition, though to a smaller degree than in the concentrated use 

watersheds because the route addition mileage is much less. 

Changes to the NFTS represent a neutral cumulative effect at the watershed scale since no change 

occurs in the watershed disturbance acreage of these routes. In addition, the prohibition of cross 

country motorized travel on routes inventoried but not added to the NFTS in this alternative will 

prevent route proliferation. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives 

Compared with the existing condition, represented by Alternative 2 (No Action), all other alternatives 

result in a reduction of direct, and indirect and cumulative watershed effects. The existing condition 

consists of the footprint of the unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS as well as 

unauthorized routes that exist but are not proposed for addition. 

The rank of decreasing watershed effects from the existing condition, from most to least, is 

Alternative 3, Alternative 5, Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 (see Table 3.10-12). While the range in 

reduction of effects among these four alternatives is relatively large based on the mileage measures in 

the water resource indicators, the decrease in the effect on water quality is minor. Water quality is 

good to excellent at present, and the difference in the expected reduced stream sedimentation is not 

likely to be of a magnitude that is measurable. Other watershed disturbances, such as vegetation 

management, wildfires and NFTS roads have a much greater influence on water quality than the 

present unauthorized route network. 

Table 3.10-12 Summary of Effects on Water Resources 

Indicators – Water Resources Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of unauthorized routes in hydrologically sensitive areas 3 1 5 2 4 

Miles of unauthorized routes with documented erosional features 

affecting water quality (hydrologically connected segments) 3 1 5 2 4 

Equivalent roaded acres 3 1 5 2 4 

Average for water resources 3 1 5 2 4 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact on this resource; a score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most. 

All alternatives meet beneficial uses of water. Sediment, water temperature and oil and grease are 

consistent with water quality objectives. Alternative 2, assuming the amount of future route 

proliferation, would likely slightly increase sedimentation but not adversely affect beneficial uses. 

285 
 

Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus 

Water Resources National Forest
 

Cumulative watershed effects analysis shows that proliferation is a negligible part of equivalent 

roaded acreage in the watersheds analyzed. Stream survey information shows that stream sediment is 

very low at present and the expected proliferation is small enough to expect that sedimentation would 

remain similar to the present condition. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Forest Plan 

All alternatives comply with applicable standards and guidelines (S&Gs) as displayed in the RCO 

Analysis in the project record (USDA 2005a). No new routes are proposed in RCAs, and existing 

routes in RCAs that are proposed for addition to the NFTS have maintenance or mitigation 

requirements where applicable to insure consistency with S&Gs. 

Beneficial Uses of Water 

All alternatives are expected to result in maintenance of the applicable beneficial uses of water in the 

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Central Valley Water Quality Control 

Board (CVRWQCB 1998). Sediment, water temperature and petrochemical products are not expected 

to be adversely altered. Domestic and municipal water supplies are not adversely affected by the 

proposed action or alternatives. Recreational contact and non-contact waters are suitable for human 

use. Freshwater habitat (cold and warm water fisheries) and wildlife habitat (amphibian and aquatic 

reptile species) are not adversely affected by the proposed action or alternatives. 

Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 comply with the intent and procedural requirements of BMPs (USDA 2000a). 

If any of those alternatives is implemented, or a combination thereof, applicable BMPs would be 

followed. Alternative 2 (No Action) would not comply with the intent of BMPs because unregulated 

cross country motorized travel would continue to occur. Applicable BMPs such as OHV planning and 

monitoring (4-7), Watershed Restoration (7-1), Wetland Protection (7-3) and Wet Season Closure (7­

7) would not be implemented. 

286 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.11 WILDLIFE: TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC SPECIES
 

Management of terrestrial and aquatic species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal 

communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 

1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands are planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered (TE) species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest 

Service Sensitive species. In addition, management activities are designed to maintain or improve 

habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS) to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives 

established in each Forest Land Management Plan. Management decisions related to motorized travel 

can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to 

disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA 2000b). 

It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid 

significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motorized use on NFS lands (FSM 

2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must 

consider effects to wildlife and their habitat. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects terrestrial and aquatic biota includes the 

following: 

Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such 

species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible 

federal agency to consult the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to 

analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management activities are not be likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of 

such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in a Biological 

Assessment (BA) and is summarized and referenced in this Chapter. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670): Forest Service Sensitive species are 

species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The Forest 

Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not 

become threatened or endangered and to ensure their continued viability on National Forests. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not 

create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in 

a Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

SNFPA identified the following standards and guidelines applicable to motorized travel and terrestrial 

and aquatic biota, which will be considered during the analysis process: 

 Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Standard and Guideline [S&G] 70): see Section 3.10, Water 

Resources. 

 California Spotted owl and Northern Goshawk: Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off 

highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb nest 

sites (S&G 82). 

 Fisher and Marten: Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and 

recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites (S&Gs 87 and 89). 

287 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

 Riparian Habitat (S&G 92): See Section 3.10, Water Resources. 

 Bog and Fen Habitat (S&G 118): Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely 

affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical 

to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During 

project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities 

as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. 

 Water Temperatures (S&G 96): Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water 

temperatures necessary for local aquatic and riparian dependent species assemblages. 

 Vegetative Management (S&G 114): Ensure that vegetative management activities including 

fuels reduction actions within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and Critical Aquatic Refuges 

(CARs) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with 

aquatic/riparian dependent species. As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions 

following the Regional Stream Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground 

disturbing activities within suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, 

Yosemite toad, foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog. 

Applicable direction from the Forest Plan is identified in Appendix C and species-specific S&Gs are 

identified under the species-specific effects analysis. Compliance with Forest Plan direction is 

discussed in the Compliance section. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of project alternatives’ 

compliance with the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) is provided in the project record and 

is herein incorporated by reference. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

The use of a variety of motorized wheeled vehicles has become an increasingly popular form of 

recreation on National Forest lands. As it has become more popular, vast improvements in technology 

have also been incorporated into the sport, resulting in more powerful vehicles that are capable of 

cross country travel in more areas. Large increases in the number of users and improved vehicles have 

resulted in the proliferation of routes throughout many National Forests, including the Stanislaus. 

Route proliferation and the use of motorized wheeled vehicles have a broad range of direct and 

indirect effects on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The direct and indirect effects of motorized use on 

wildlife can be placed in three general categories: (1) human-caused mortality, (2) changes in 

behavior, and (3) habitat modification (Gaines et al. 2003). These categories were further broken 

down into specific effects that were documented in the literature (Table 3.11-1). 

Human-caused Mortality: Death or injury from a vehicle hitting or running over an animal is well 

documented and affects the vast majority of species, though to varying degrees (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000). In general, road mortality increases with traffic volume and speed. Road mortality on 

native surface forest roads is generally not significant for large mammals (USDA 1998). Small 

mammals and herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) are more vulnerable because individuals are 

inconspicuous and slow-moving. Amphibians may be especially vulnerable to road mortality because 

their life histories often involve migration between wetland and upland habitats (Trombulak and 

Frissel 2000, USDA 1998). Raptors may also be vulnerable to collisions on forest roads due to their 

foraging behaviors. However, the most substantial documented mortality has been along highways. 

Changes in Behavior (displacement or avoidance, impacts on breeding behavior, and physiological 

impacts): Frid and Dill (2002) cite the assumption that wildlife exhibit a predator avoidance response 

when they become non-lethally disturbed by humans. When a motorized vehicle or human triggers a 

predator avoidance response in an individual, it may directly or indirectly affect that individual’s 

fitness. Direct effects of disturbance to an individual’s fitness are commonly measured through 

increases in stress hormone levels. Significant increases in stress hormone levels have been found to 

reduce reproductive success of individuals of some species. The indirect effects of disturbance are 

commonly displayed through changes in an individual’s time and energy budget. As a vehicle or 

288 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

human approaches an individual, the most obvious and common disturbance response is for that 

individual to avoid the threat and seek cover. After an individual exhibits the disturbance response, a 

period of time will elapse until that individual resumes pre-disturbance behavior. Since this change in 

an individual’s time budget may result in less time feeding or resting (fitness-enhancing activities), 

the disturbance may result in changes to the individual’s energy budget and potentially impact their 

fitness. If an individual is repeatedly disturbed in an area, they may eventually avoid the area, 

essentially being displaced from the habitat. 

Table 3.11-1 Road and Trail Factors with Documented Effects on Wildlife Species and Group 

Road and Trail 

Associated Factors Effects of the Factors Wildlife Group Affected 

Human-Caused 

Mortality 

Collisions Mortality or injury from a motorized vehicle 

running over or hitting an animal. 

Wide-ranging Carnivores 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Ungulates 

Displacement or Avoidance Spatial shifts in individuals or populations of 

animals away from human activities on or near 

roads or trails. 

Wide-ranging Carnivore 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Ungulates 

Disturbance at a Specific 

Location 

Displacement of individual animals from a 

specific location that is being used for 

reproduction and rearing of young. 

Wide-ranging Carnivores 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Ungulates

Changes in Behavior 

Physiological Response Increase in heart rate or stress hormones (which 

may decrease survivorship or productivity) when 

near a road or trail. 

Ungulates 

Late-successional 

Habitat Loss and 

Fragmentation 

Loss and resulting fragmentation of habitat due 

to the establishment or use of roads or trails and 

associated human activities. 

Wide-ranging Carnivores 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Ungulates 

Cavity Dependent 

Edge Effects Changes to habitat microclimates associated 

with the edge induced by roads or trails. 

Late-successional 

Snag or Down Log 

Reduction 

Reduction in density of large snags and downed 

logs owing to their removal near roads to remove 

hazards and as fuel wood. 

Cavity Dependent 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Route for Competitors and 

Predators 

Providing access or greater hunting success for 

competitors or predators than would otherwise 

have existed. 

Wide-ranging Carnivores 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Cavity Dependent 

Habitat Modification 

Movement Barrier Interference with dispersal or other movements 

due to either the road itself or by human activities 

on or near roads or trails. 

Wide-ranging Carnivores 

Late-successional 

Riparian 

Ungulates 

Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed literature on road- and trail-associated effects upon wildlife and found 

that alteration of use of habitats in response to roads or road networks was the most common 

interaction reported. Fifty to sixty percent of the 29 focal species reviewed were impacted in this 

manner (Gaines et al. 2003). Studies have documented shifts in an animal’s home range area, shifts in 

foraging patterns, and disturbance of nesting or breeding behaviors caused by motorized road or trail 

use and its associated increased human recreation activity facilitated by motorized access (Foppen 

and Reijnen 1994, Johnson et al. 2000, Rost and Bailey 1979). Recreation activities (hiking, camping, 

fishing, shooting, etc.) associated with the access provided by motorized routes result in indirect 

disturbance and displacement effects that often exceed the direct influence of the roads and trails. 

Many species avoid areas in proximity to roads or trails, or exhibit flight behavior within a certain 

289 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

distance of route use, though studies documenting the magnitude and duration of behavioral 

responses are limited. Road usage by vehicles has a significant role in determining animal’s road 

avoidance behavior. Black bear, for example, crossed roads with low traffic volume more frequently 

than roads with high traffic volume, and almost never crossed interstate highways (Brody and Pelton 

1989). Perry and Overly (1977) documented displacement of deer up to 800 meters (approximately 

2,620 feet, or 1⁄2 mile) from major roads, and from 200 to 400 meters (1

/8 to 1⁄4 mile) from secondary 

and primitive roads. Van Dyke et al. (1986) documented that mountain lions avoided improved native 

surface roads and surfaced roads, and selected home range areas with lower road densities than the 

study area average. Activities that create elevated sound levels or result in close visual proximity of 

human activities at sensitive locations (e.g., nest trees) have the potential to disrupt normal behavior 

patterns. Studies of the effects of human disturbance upon wildlife have revealed that the immediate 

postnatal period in mammals and the breeding period in birds are time periods when individuals are 

most vulnerable to disturbance. 

Intrusion-induced behaviors such as nest abandonment and decreased nest attentiveness have led to 

reduced reproduction and survival in species that are intolerant of intrusion (Knight and Gutzwiller 

1995). Foppen and Reijnen (1994), for example, found that the reproductive success of forest bird 

species declined in areas fragmented by roads. Anthony and Isaacs (1989) found that the mean 

productivity of bald eagle nests was negatively correlated with their proximity to main logging roads, 

and the most recently used nests were located in areas farther from all types of roads and recreational 

facilities when compared to older nests in the same territory. Wasser et al. (1997) found that stress 

hormone levels were significantly higher in male northern spotted owls (but not females) when they 

were located less than 0.25 miles from a major logging road compared to spotted owls in areas greater 

than 0.25 miles from a major logging road. Chronic high levels of stress hormones may have negative 

consequences on reproduction or physical condition of birds, though these effects are not well 

understood. 

Habitat Modification (habitat loss, fragmentation, edge effects, snag and down log reduction, routes 

for competitors, movement barriers): Road and trail networks remove habitat but also have a broader 

effect than just the conversion of a small area of land to route surfaces. Andren (1994) suggested that 

as landscapes become fragmented the combination of increasing isolation and decreasing patch size 

of suitable habitat is negatively synergistic, compounding the effects of simple habitat loss. In 

particular, species associated with old forest habitats may be impacted by such effects. One study 

determined that the total landscape area affected by roads was 2.5 to 3.5 times the actual area 

occupied by the road feature, assuming a 50-meter (approximately 165–foot) influence along the 

road’s edge (Reed et al. 1996). A decrease in interior forest patch size results in habitat loss and 

greater distance between suitable interior forest patches for sensitive species like the California 

spotted owl and American marten. As roads and trails break up forest patches, increased exposure 

may increase nest predation and parasitism rates by species such as jays or cowbirds (Miller et al. 

1998), or provide increased access for generalist competitors or predators, such as coyotes (Buskirk 

and Ruggiero 1994). 

Additional habitat modification occurs as an indirect effect of managing roads or trails for public 

wheeled motor vehicle use. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are removed along 

roads. These trees are typically snags that are within a tree-height distance from the road. This safety 

policy results in a “snag free” zone of 200 to 300 feet from a road’s edge, also affecting the 

recruitment of large down wood within this zone. Few hazard trees are removed along trails. 

Major highways are known to create movement barriers for a number of wildlife species, particularly 

wide-ranging carnivores and ungulates, and are suspected of being a major factor in the decline of 

some forest carnivores, such as fisher and marten (Brody and Pelton 1989, USDA 2001). The slower 

speed and lower traffic volume roads and trails that are being evaluated in the project alternatives are 

290 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

less likely to create barriers to movement. However, the extent to which denser networks of roads and 

trails might result in barriers to movement for some wildlife species is unknown (USDA 2001). 

The project alternatives may result in the above listed effects through six types of actions: 

 The prohibition of cross country travel, 

 Adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the National Forest 

transportation System (NFTS), 

 Changing the type of use on an existing NFTS route, 

 Changing the season of use on the NFTS, 

 Implementation of mitigation measures 

 Amending the Forest Plan with respect to the western pond turtle. 

Assumptions Specific to Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 

While some of these assumptions may be arguable, the comparison of alternatives using these 

assumptions is valid because the same assumptions are applied to all alternatives. 

1.	 The Risk – Disturbance Hypothesis: Animals respond to non-lethal human disturbance similarly 

to how they respond to predation (Frid and Dill 2002). 

2.	 All vehicle classes result in the same amount of disturbance effects to wildlife, unless there is 

local information enabling a separate analysis by vehicle class. 

3.	 Location of a route is equal to disturbance effects from that route (i.e., assume all routes provide 

the same level of disturbance), unless local data or knowledge indicate otherwise. 

4.	 Habitat is already impacted in the short term. In the long term, habitat will remain the same on 

added routes, and will increase to at least some degree on non-added routes with ban of cross 

country travel and subsequent passive restoration. 

5.	 Without a prohibition on cross country travel, route proliferation would continue to occur. 

Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; therefore, route proliferation would likely 

occur over the short and long term throughout the project area. Since it is largely unknown where 

route proliferation may occur over the long term, it is assumed that individuals of many species 

may be adversely impacted by this alternative. 

6.	 Aquatic species spend all or significant portions of their life cycles either in or moving through 

riparian habitats. 

7.	 Although hazard tree sales result in the reduction of snags along Maintenance Level (ML) 2 and 

ML3 roads within the project area, snags are not actively removed along ML1 roads and along 

NFTS trails. 

8.	 Not all suitable habitats for each species have been surveyed sufficiently to determine absence of 

the species. So the presence of all species is assumed if there is suitable habitat present. 

Data Sources 

1.	 Geographic Information System (GIS) layers with the following information: routes; habitats; 

and ‘designated’ or important wildlife areas. 

2.	 Site-specific surveys/assessments of any local sensitive wildlife habitats with routes proposed to 

be added to the NFTS. 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species Methodology by Action 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross country motorized vehicle travel 

Rationale: Studies have documented that motorized travel can affect wildlife species by 

increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat 

(Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA 2000b). 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

291 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Methodology: calculation of amount of habitat currently open to cross country travel. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect wildlife 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and 

modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA 2000b). Motorized 

routes have a “zone of influence” adjacent to those routes, within which habitat effectiveness or 

suitability is reduced and wildlife population densities are lower (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek 

and Frissell 2000). The degree of effect of the various factors associated with routes can be 

evaluated more effectively when considering the proportion of a given species’ habitat that occurs 

within this zone. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicator(s): (1) Density of motorized routes; (2) Miles of motorized routes; (3) Miles of ML 1 

roads converted to trails; (4) Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., Protected Activity 

Centers, nest sites, winter roost areas) within 1⁄4 mile of an added route; (5) The proportion of a 

species’ (or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to habitat and important/sensitive wildlife 

biota areas; site-specific surveys/assessments of any local sensitive wildlife habitats with routes 

proposed to be added to the NFTS. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the public use on existing NFTS routes 

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect wildlife 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and 

modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA 2000b). Changing the 

vehicle class on NFTS routes may also result in adverse impacts to wildlife. When routes that 

have historically been managed as ML1 roads are changed to ML2 or ML3 roads or to trails, they 

then become open to public use. Opening these roads for public use would essentially result in the 

same direct effects to wildlife as adding a route to the system. Therefore, the analysis of effects of 

changing ML1 roads on the existing NFTS to ML2 or ML3 roads or to motorized trails are 

analyzed in conjunction with the effects of additions to the NFTS. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicator(s): (1) Miles of ML1 road converted to trail within occupied wildlife habitat; (2) Miles 

of ML1 road converted to trail within suitable, preferred, and emphasis wildlife habitat; (3) Miles 

of ML1 road converted to trail near or within sensitive sites. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of converted routes in relation to habitat and important/sensitive 

wildlife biota areas. 

292 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

4. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the season of use on the existing NFTS 

Rationale: Limiting the seasons of use may provide beneficial effects to wildlife species and their 

habitat. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicator(s): (1) Amount of wildlife habitat receiving protection from seasonal closures; (2) 

Number/Percentage of sensitive areas receiving protection from seasonal closures. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of seasonal closures in relation to wildlife habitat. 

5. Direct and indirect effects of implementing the mitigation measures 

Rationale: The implementation of mitigation measures may result in various types of short-term 

adverse effects to wildlife species. Some of the mitigation measures may benefit some species in 

the long term. 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 5 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Indicator(s): (1) Number of mitigation measures proposed in occupied habitat; (2) Number of 

mitigation measures proposed in suitable, preferred, emphasis habitat. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of proposed mitigation measures in relation to habitat and 

important/sensitive wildlife biota areas. 

6. Cumulative Effects 

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect wildlife 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and 

modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA 2000b). 

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of past/current, added, and future routes in relation to habitat and 

important/sensitive wildlife areas and in context of other past/current and future management 

actions affecting habitat. 

Affected Environment – General Wildlife 

The Stanislaus National Forest (Stanislaus National Forest) provides habitat for numerous species of 

birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. There are currently 6 terrestrial and aquatic wildlife 

species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the ESA and 21 species listed as Forest Service 

Sensitive (Table 3.11-2) which could occur on the Stanislaus National Forest. These species and their 

habitats on the Stanislaus National Forest are described in detail in the Stanislaus National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management EIS BA/BE, which can be found in the project record and is herein 

incorporated by reference. Species-specific information is summarized below within the speciesspecific analysis for those species which could be more than nominally affected by the project. In 

addition, there are 12 MIS on the Stanislaus National Forest (Table 3.11-2). These species and their 

293 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

habitats are described in detail in the Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management 

Project MIS Report, which can be found in the project record and is herein incorporated by reference. 

Species-specific information is summarized below within the species-specific Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences sections for those MIS which could be more than nominally 

affected by the project. 

Table 3.11-2 Special Status Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Invertebrates 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus T 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Numerous Species MIS 

Fish 

Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus T 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi T 

Central Valley Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss T 

Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus S 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

California Red-legged Frog Rana aurora draytonii T 

California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense T 

Relictual (Hell Hollow) Slender Salamander Batrachoseps (diabolicus) relictus S 

Limestone Salamander Hydromantes brunus S 

Yosemite Toad Bufo canorus S 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii S 

Mountain (Sierra Nevada) Yellow-legged Frog Rana (sierrae) muscosa S 

Western Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata S 

Pacific Tree (Chorus) Frog Pseudacris regilla MIS 

Birds 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S 

California Spotted Owl Srix occidentalis occidentalis S, MIS 

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa S 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis S 

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni S 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus S 

Willow Flycatcher Epidonax traillii S 

Sooty (Blue) Grouse Dendragapus obscurus MIS 

Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus MIS 

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus MIS 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus MIS 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca MIS 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petchia MIS 

Mammals 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus MIS 

American Marten Martes americana S, MIS 

Pacific Fisher Martes pennanti pacifica S 

California Wolverine Gulo gulo luteus S 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes vulpes necator S 

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus MIS 

Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii S 

Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii S 

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus S 

The following species were considered, but will not be analyzed any further within this document 

because they are not known to occur within the analysis area and would not be affected by the project 

alternatives: delta smelt, central valley steelhead, hardhead, California tiger salamander, limestone 

salamander, and Swainson’s hawk. 

Some of the species listed in Table 3.11-2 are currently being affected by motorized use of the 

Stanislaus National Forest. Literature describing the effects of motorized roads and trails upon 

wildlife have often grouped or categorized species in various ways to describe these effects (Knight 

and Gutzwiller, ed. 1995, Gaines et al. 2003). Gaines et al. (2003) categorized species into groups 

based upon a combination of their biology and interactions with road- and motorized trail-associated 

294 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

factors. The following groups from Gaines et al. were used to assess potential impacts from motorized 

use on the Stanislaus National Forest: (1) old forest associated (or late-successional forest associated) 

species; (2) ungulates; (3) riparian-associated species; (4) cavity dependent species (for this analysis, 

species associated with snags in green forest); and (5) aquatic-associated species. In addition, species 

from the following 3 groups were also used to assess potential impacts: (6) shrubland-associated 

species, (7) early and mid seral coniferous forest species group, and (8) late seral open coniferous 

forest species group. Table 3.11-3 shows the species specifically considered for the analysis in each 

group. Effects on species from the cavity-dependent species group, the shrubland-associated species 

group, the early and mid seral coniferous forest group, and the late seral open coniferous forest 

species group are briefly summarized below. 

Table 3.11-3 Wildlife Group and Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 

Wildlife Group Species 

Late-successional forest associated species American marten, Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, 

northern goshawk, northern flying squirrel 

Ungulates Mule deer 

Riparian-associated species Bald eagle, great gray owl, yellow warbler 

Aquatic-associated species California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, 

mountain yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, 

Yosemite toad, macroinvertebrates, Pacific tree frog 

Shrubland-associated species Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, fox sparrow 

Species associated with early and mid seral coniferous forest Mountain quail 

Species associated with late seral open coniferous forest Sooty (blue grouse) 

Species associated with snags in green forest Hairy woodpecker 

The project BA/BE report contains the analysis of the effects of all project alternatives (Alternatives 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) to all TES species. Analysis of the effects of the project alternatives in this report 

indicated that the following species would not be affected by the action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 4, 

and 5). Therefore, they are not discussed in detail in this document: Townsend’s big-eared bat and 

western red bat. For further disclosure of the analysis of the project alternatives for these species, 

refer to the project BA/BE (project record). 

Analysis of the effects of the project alternatives documented in the BA/BE indicated that the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle, Lahontan cutthroat trout, California wolverine, Sierra Nevada red fox, 

pallid bat, peregrine falcon, willow flycatcher, and Hell Hollow slender salamander would be 

nominally impacted by Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. 

There are no elderberry plants with stem diameters greater than 1 inch (suitable habitat for the beetle) 

within 20 feet of any of the unauthorized routes proposed to be added to the system. The miles of 

route that could be added to the system below 3,000 feet in elevation (the elevation range for the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle) is minor—10.22 for Alternative 4, which would add the most 

miles. 

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, cross country travel would be prohibited and the direct and indirect 

effects of adding routes in Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat would be insignificant and discountable. 

Prohibiting cross country travel would prevent increases in disturbance and habitat 

modification/fragmentation. Under Alternative 3, cross country travel would be prohibited and there 

would be no addition of routes in habitat. 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 on the California wolverine 

would be minor because the majority of suitable habitat within the project area exists within 

wilderness areas that would not be impacted by the alternatives. 

For the Sierra Nevada red fox, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 

5 would be minor because, as with the wolverine, the majority of suitable habitat within the project 

area exists within wilderness areas that would not be impacted by those alternatives. 

295 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

There would be no direct effects from any of the alternatives on the pallid bat. Under Alternatives 1, 

4, and 5, some ML1 routes would be changed to ML2 or ML3 and some ML2 and ML3 routes would 

be changed to ML1. The Stanislaus National Forest has a policy of removing hazard trees (usually 

snags) along ML2 and ML3 roads, but not ML1 roads or trails. The bat uses snags for roosting. The 

change in miles of roads along which snags may be removed under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 would 

have an indirect effect on this species, but it would be small because the net change in miles would be 

small. The cumulative effects of these 3 alternatives would be minor. There would be no change in 

maintenance level under Alternative 3, so there would be no effect on the species from Alternative 3. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, cross country travel would be prohibited and there would not be any 

motorized routes added to the NFTS within one mile of peregrine falcon eyries or near foraging areas. 

Prohibiting cross country travel would prevent disturbance to eyries and near foraging areas over the 

long term. 

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, cross country travel would be prohibited and the direct and indirect 

effects of adding routes in willow flycatcher habitat would be insignificant and discountable. Under 

Alternative 3, no routes would be added in habitat. Prohibiting cross country travel would prevent 

habitat modification/fragmentation; providing beneficial effects over the long term. 

Hell Hollow slender salamander is found below 2,000 feet in elevation. The route proposed to be 

added to the NFTS removed very little habitat when they were created. The salamanders are primarily 

active at night when vehicle use of the routes being considered is low. Very few miles would be 

added to the system or converted from closed to open status in Hell Hollow salamander habitat under 

any of the alternatives. So the effects on the species would be very minor. 

These eight species will not be discussed further within this document. For a complete discussion of 

the effects of the project alternatives on these species, refer to the project BA/BE (project record). 

The project MIS report contains the analysis of the effects of the project alternative (Alternatives 1, 2, 

3, 4, and 5) to all MIS species. Analysis of the effects of the project alternatives in this report 

indicated that the habitat of the black-backed woodpecker (a MIS) would not be impacted by the 

action alternatives. For a complete discussion of the effects of the project alternatives on this species, 

refer to the project MIS Report (project record). 

Analysis of the effects of the project alternatives in the MIS report indicated that the following MIS 

species habitat would be nominally impacted by the action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 4, and 5): 

macroinvertebrates, fox sparrow, yellow warbler, Pacific tree frog, mountain quail, sooty (blue) 

grouse, and the hairy woodpecker. Following is a summary of those effects. For a complete 

discussion of the effects on the habitats of these species, refer to the project MIS Report (project 

record). 

Macroinvertebrates: The action alternatives would not alter the existing trend in macroinvertebrate 

habitat, nor would they lead to a change in the distribution of macroinvertebrates across the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion. This is based on the relatively low amount of lacustrine and riverine habitat 

affected (possible sedimentation from 19.3 miles of routes and 81 stream crossings in RCAs under 

Alternative 4, which would have the most miles of routes and the most crossings of the action 

alternatives) and the prohibition of cross country travel within 262,482 RCA acres. 

Fox sparrow: The Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Project would directly, indirectly, 

and cumulatively affect between 9,232 acres (highest) of fox sparrow shrubland habitat under 

Alternative 2 (No Action) and 0 acres (lowest) under Alternative 3. Based on the acres affected, 

which range from 0% to 1% of the total Sierra Nevada-wide, the Stanislaus National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management Project would not change the existing trend in the habitat, nor would 

it lead to a change in the distribution of fox sparrows across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

296 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Yellow warbler: The Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Project would directly, 

indirectly, and cumulatively affect between 25 acres (highest) of yellow warbler habitat under 

Alternative 2 (No Action) and 0 acres (lowest) under Alternative 3. Based on the acres affected, 

which range from 0% to 1% of the total Sierra Nevada-wide, the Stanislaus National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management Project would not change the existing trend in the habitat, nor would 

it lead to a change in the distribution of yellow warblers across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Pacific tree frog: The Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Project would directly, 

indirectly, and cumulatively affect between 1.27 acres (highest) of wet meadow habitat under 

Alternative 2 (No Action) and 0 acres (lowest) under Alternative 3. Based on the acres affected, 

which under all the alternatives are less than 0.01% of the total Sierra Nevada-wide, the Stanislaus 

National Forest Motorized Travel Management Project would not change the existing trend in the 

habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of Pacific tree frogs across the Sierra Nevada 

bioregion. 

Mountain quail: The Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Project would directly, 

indirectly, and cumulatively affect between 26,503 acres (highest) of early and mid seral coniferous 

habitat under Alternative 2 (No Action) and 0 acres (lowest) under Alternative 3. Based on the acres 

affected, which range from 0% to 1% of the total Sierra Nevada-wide, the Stanislaus National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management Project would not change the existing trend in the habitat, nor would 

it lead to a change in the distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Sooty grouse: The Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Project would directly, indirectly, 

and cumulatively affect between 1,924 acres (highest) of late seral open canopy coniferous forest 

habitat under Alternative 2 (No Action) and 0 acres (lowest) under Alternative 3. Based on the acres 

affected, which range from 0% to 2.6% of the total Sierra Nevada-wide, the Stanislaus National 

Forest Motorized Travel Management Project would not change the existing trend in the habitat, nor 

would it lead to a change in the distribution of sooty grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Northern flying squirrel: The effects on the habitat of the northern flying squirrel are the same as 

those for the spotted owl and marten (see discussions below under each of those two species), as the 

three species represent the same habitat (late seral closed canopy coniferous forest, or late 

successional). 

Hairy woodpecker: The potential reduction in medium-sized snags per acre on 66,600 to 72,000 

acres (depending on the alternative selected) out of 450,000 acres of habitat on the Stanislaus 

National Forest will not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem component, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of hairy woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

These species will not be discussed further within this document. 

Detailed discussions of the effects of the alternatives on the species shown in Table 3.11-4 follow. 

Table 3.11-4 Wildlife Groups and Species 

Wildlife Group Species 

Late-successional forest associated species American marten, Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, northern goshawk 

Ungulates Mule deer 

Riparian-associated species Bald eagle, great gray owl 

Aquatic-associated species California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged 

frog, western pond turtle, Yosemite toad 

297 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Terrestrial Biota 

Late-Successional Forest Species 

American Marten – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The American marten is a wide-ranging member of the Mustelidae family. Marten are widely 

distributed throughout the coniferous habitats of North America and currently occupy much of their 

historic range in California (Kucera and Zielinski 1995). Incidental observations of marten have been 

recorded throughout the higher elevations of the Stanislaus National Forest. Marten are 

morphologically adapted to be mobile in deep snow, and typically inhabit higher elevations receiving 

snow depths greater than 23 centimeters (approximately 9 inches) per winter month (Krohn et al. 

1997). Numerous mesocarnivore surveys have been completed on the Stanislaus National Forest with 

the use of baited camera stations and track plates. Results of these surveys further indicate that marten 

use higher elevations within the project area. Marten were not found at survey stations below 5,000 

feet in elevation and the majority of them were above 7,000 feet. Although the presence of marten has 

been documented within the project area, there are no known den sites on Stanislaus National Forest. 

Martens typically prefer late seral coniferous forests above 5,000 feet in elevation that have moderateto-high canopy closure interspersed with riparian areas and meadows (Freel 1991, Zeiner et al. 

1990b). These habitats typically contain an abundance of snags and downed logs needed to provide 

the coarse woody debris that is necessary for effective winter foraging (Sherburne and Bissonette 

1994). Marten den in cavities in large trees, snags, stumps, or logs or burrows, caves, and crevices in 

rocky areas (Zeiner et al. 1990b). Important habitat attributes consist of the following: vegetative 

diversity, with predominately mature forest; snags; dispersal cover; and large woody debris (Allen 

1987). One study found that martens selected stands with 40 to 60 percent canopy closure for both 

resting and foraging and avoided stands with less than 30 percent canopy closure (Spencer et al. 

1983). Martens generally avoid habitats that lack overhead cover, presumably because these areas do 

not provide protection from avian predators (Allen 1982, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Spencer et al. 

1983). Although martens tend to spend the majority of their time in mature forests, meadows are 

important components of foraging habitat. Spencer et al. (1983) found that marten preferred areas 

within 60 meters (approximately 200 feet) of meadows and were rarely found further than 400 meters 

(0.25 mile) from a meadow. For the purposes of this analysis, preferred marten habitat on the 

Stanislaus National Forest has been mapped as the following: CWHR types PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR; 

classes 5 and 6; canopy closures M and D (USDA 2007e). 

American Marten – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to marten. Although thresholds for these indicators have not 

been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the project alternatives may 

be compared. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, highway-legal-only {HLO} roads, all-vehicle trails, all-terrainvehicle {ATV} trails, motorcycle {MC} trails, or four-wheel-drive {4WD} trails {open}] 

MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, allvehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within preferred marten habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within meadows. 

298 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

 Existing density (mi/mi2) of NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat (outside wilderness 

areas). 

 Density (mi/mi2) of NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat (outside wilderness areas) with 

proposed designated routes. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” (percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter 

“zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of preferred marten habitat 

occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status 

MINUS percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” 

of routes converted from open to closed status) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General - All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to marten through the following 

activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on marten through human-caused mortality, 

changes in behavior, and habitat modification. 

Human-Caused Mortality: Opening routes to public use would improve access to marten habitat. 

Improving access to these habitats may result in increased instances of collisions with vehicles or in 

increased instances of incidental trapping. Marten are widely known for their vulnerability to trapping 

(Ruggerio et al. 1994). Since the State of California banned the use of body-gripping traps in 1998, 

the incidental loss of marten to trapping has been greatly reduced. Direct human effects on marten 

populations also include highway accidents (Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994). Collisions typically occur 

along well-maintained roadways that allow high rates of travel. Routes proposed for designation 

within the project alternatives are native-surfaced routes that only allow much slower rates of travel. 

These types of routes result in far fewer collisions than highways or paved routes. 

Changes in Behavior: Types of changes in behavior that may result from the project alternatives are 

displacement or avoidance or disturbance at a specific location. The use of motorized vehicles in 

marten habitat may result in disturbance to martens that are foraging or denning. Robitaille and 

Aubrey (2000), studying marten in an area of low road density and low traffic (primarily logging 

roads), found that marten use of habitat within 300 and 400 meters (approximately 0.2 and 0.25 mile) 

of roads was significantly less than habitat use 700 or 800 meters (approximately 0.4 or 0.5 mile) 

distance. However, in a study conducted in northern California, Zielinski et al. (2008) found that 

marten occupancy or probability of detection did not change in relation to the presence or absence of 

motorized routes and OHV use when the routes (plus a 50 meter [approximately 165 foot] buffer) did 

not exceed about 20 percent of a 50 square kilometer (approximately 19.5 square mile) area, and 

traffic did not exceed one vehicle every 2 hours. The study did not, however, measure behavioral 

changes or changes in use patterns and the study authors caution that application of their results to 

other locations would apply only if OHV/OSV use at the other locations is no greater than reported in 

their study. 

While there is little research disclosing the specific effects of disturbance to marten den sites, other 

forest carnivores have been shown to abandon the den site upon human disturbance (Copeland 1996). 

Wet meadows have been shown to be particularly important foraging areas for marten (USDA 2001). 

299 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Routes added to the NFTS near and through meadows may increase disturbance within the meadow, 

thereby reducing the meadow’s value as a foraging habitat for martens. 

Habitat Modification: Roads and trails modify marten habitat by directly removing it or indirectly by 

reducing its quality. While simple habitat loss is the most obvious, roads and trails also reduce habitat 

quality through fragmentation. Since marten have been found to be sensitive to changes in overhead 

cover, clearings associated with routes may reduce habitat quality near routes for foraging and may 

reduce marten movement between habitats that are separated by routes (Buskirk and Powell 1994, 

Hargis et al. 1999). 

Hazard tree removal along NFTS roads has the potential to reduce downed logs and suitable resting 

and denning sites for marten. Hazard tree removal is typically conducted along ML 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads 

(not along trails or ML 1 roads). Closures that are proposed on ML 1 and 2 roads within any of the 

project alternatives would result in a reduction in miles of road on which hazard trees may be 

removed. On the other hand, opening roads currently closed (converting ML1 routes to ML2) would 

result in an increase in miles of road on which hazard trees may be removed. The net amount of 

impact that the project alternatives may have on future hazard tree removal would be minor. 

Wet meadows have been shown to be particularly important foraging areas for marten (USDA 2001). 

Meadow habitat quality may be affected different ways by motorized travel. The most obvious way 

motorized vehicles may impair meadow quality is through direct mechanical damage (rutting). Since 

soil typically has lower bulk density and can be more easily penetrated when it is wet, mechanical 

damage often occurs in meadows that are naturally wet, in dry meadows after significant rainfall, or 

immediately following the retreat of the snow at higher elevations. When roads or trails are created in 

meadows they may intercept surface and subsurface flow (Kattelmann 1996). When flows are 

intercepted and redirected, meadow drying occurs which in turn results in changes to the fauna and 

flora associated with it. 

Changing the faunal community within meadows may impact their value as foraging areas for marten. 

Microtus species have been noted as being important prey items to martens at all times of the year 

(Zielinski et al. 1983). Winter (1982) found that Microtus were associated with moist areas that had 

good grass cover. Therefore, slight shifts in meadow hydrology caused by motorized travel may 

impact suitable habitat for mictrotines, thereby adversely affecting the marten prey source. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred marten habitat and near meadows. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to martens from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-5). Actions 

proposed in this alternative would not likely result in any human-caused mortality, but would likely 

increase disturbance to some marten within the project area. Although there are no documented den 

sites within the project area, it is assumed that they occur. The routes already exist on the ground, den 

sites are specifically selected by individuals of the species, and, as verified by field review for this 

and other projects, there are many suitable denning locations throughout the project area. So 

individuals can select and perhaps already have selected den sites that are not disturbed by motor 

vehicle travel. 

The disturbance from the existing NFTS is on-going. Disturbance to martens may reduce some 

individuals’ fitness, but, since only about 9% of the habitat would be subject to a net increase over the 

existing NFTS (Table 3.11-5), these impacts would not result in any population level impacts to the 

marten. 

300 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Field surveys were completed on all routes that were proposed to be added to the NFTS within 

meadows. The purpose of the field surveys was to determine whether the route would have the 

potential to affect hydrology within the meadow. These surveys indicated that the routes that were 

proposed to be added within meadows would not significantly alter their hydrology (see Chapter 3.10, 

Water Resources). However, some routes were identified as needing mitigation to improve 

hydrologic conditions. Effects of the mitigation measures on this species are discussed below. 

Season of Use: Marten typically inhabit higher elevations with greater amounts of snow. Therefore, 

preferred habitat primarily falls within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal closures (as identified for 

each route in Appendix I). Marten breed in the summer. Gestation is 220 to 290 days, including 

delayed implantation, wherein the fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the uterine wall until February. 

Most litters are born in March and April (Zeiner et al. 1990b). The proposed closures would reduce 

disturbance to denning and foraging martens, and to pregnant females in the last half or so of the 

gestation period. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season reduces soil 

perturbation and would protect meadows from mechanical damage. The season of use would not 

apply to wheeled over-snow use (WOS) routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance to individuals 

would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions prohibit WOS use. Ten WOS routes 

would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The types of mitigation measures that would be implemented within preferred 

marten habitat include tread hardening, drain dips, fence/log/rock barriers, and hardened stream 

crossings. Implementation of these mitigation measures would include hand tool and machine work 

that would result in short-term disturbance to individual marten within the project area. This amount 

of disturbance would not likely reduce any individual marten’s fitness. The proposed mitigation 

measures would in the long term improve hydrologic conditions (see 3.10 Water Resources), and 

therefore meadow habitat. Because of the low level of disturbance and the relatively minor 

improvements to marten habitat, the mitigation measures would not result in any population level 

impacts within the project area. 

Table 3.11-5 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (American marten) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within preferred marten habitat1 + 29.37 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within meadows1 + 0.83 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of open NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat 1.94 

Density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat with proposed designated routes 

(additional density) 2.08 (+ 0.15) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter 

“zone of influence” 2 9.13% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of preferred 

marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of preferred marten 

habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from open to closed status 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

301 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Approximately 143,100 acres of 

preferred marten habitat are open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of disturbance to marten and increased 

fragmentation/modification of their habitat. These effects would be similar to those discussed within 

Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated over the long term by the continued 

proliferation of routes. In addition, creation of new routes could alter habitat and increase 

fragmentation through the removal of vegetation. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although any seasonal closures implemented within this 

alternative would somewhat reduce potential disturbance to marten, these seasonal closures would not 

adequately protect all meadows from mechanical damage that may occur since cross country travel 

would be allowed. Therefore, it may be assumed that hydrology within some meadows may be 

affected and that it may result in impacts to marten prey base. 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures implemented as part of this 

alternative. Any damage to hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes identified as 

needing mitigation, causing a potential degradation of meadow habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred marten habitat and near meadows. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to marten from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to marten to a certain extent. 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures implemented as part of this 

alternative. Any damage to hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes identified as 

needing mitigation, causing a potential degradation of meadow habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred marten habitat and near meadows. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to martens from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-6). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight increase from Alternative 1 in the net change in the NFTS system 

within preferred marten habitat and within meadows, there would be a slight increase in the direct and 

indirect effects to marten within the project area. This alternative would result in a net increase over 

the existing NFTS of about 11% of preferred marten habitat lying within a 400-meter (1⁄4-mile) zone 

of influence (Table 3.11-6). Although these increases would result in more individuals being 

302 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

impacted, they would not likely be significant enough to result in impacts to marten populations 

within the project area. 

Season of Use: Marten typically inhabit higher elevations with greater amounts of snow. Therefore, 

preferred habitat primarily falls within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal closures (as identified for 

each route in Appendix I). Marten breed in the summer. Gestation is 220 to 290 days, including 

delayed implantation, wherein the fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the uterine wall until February. 

Most litters are born in March and April (Zeiner et al. 1990b). The proposed closures would reduce 

disturbance to denning and foraging martens and to pregnant females in the last few months of the 

gestation period. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season reduces soil 

perturbation and would protect meadows from mechanical damage. The season of use would not 

apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance to individuals would not be reduced along 

these routes except when conditions prohibit WOS use. Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-6 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (American marten) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within preferred marten habitat1 + 39.52 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within meadows1 + 1.33 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of open NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat 1.94 

Density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat with proposed designated routes 

(additional density) 2.13 (+ 0.19) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone 

of influence” 2 11.53% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of preferred 

marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of preferred marten 

habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from open to closed status 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred marten habitat and near meadows. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to martens from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-7). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a substantial decrease from Alternative 1 in the net change to the NFTS 

within preferred marten habitat and within meadows, there would be a substantial decrease in the 

direct and indirect effects to marten within the project area. These impacts would affect only about 

1% less of marten habitat than under the existing NFTS (Table 3.11-7), these actions would likely 

impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project area 

over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: Marten typically inhabit higher elevations with greater amounts of snow. Therefore, 

preferred habitat primarily falls within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal closures (as identified for 

each route in Appendix I). Marten breed in the summer. Gestation is 220 to 290 days, including 

delayed implantation, wherein the fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the uterine wall until February. 

Most litters are born in March and April (Zeiner et al. 1990b). The proposed closures would reduce 

disturbance to denning and foraging martens, and to pregnant females in the last half or so of the 

gestation period. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season reduces soil 

perturbation and would protect meadows from mechanical damage. 

303 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-7 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (American marten) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within preferred marten habitat1 -- 5.94 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within meadows1 + 1,33 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of open NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat 1.94 

Density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred marten habitat with proposed designated routes 

(additional density) 1.91 (-- 0.03) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone 

of influence” 2 -- 0.92% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of preferred marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of preferred 

marten habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of preferred marten 

habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from open to closed status 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

In 2001 and 2004, the Forest Service amended 11 Sierra Nevada Forest Plans to better address the 

needs of old forest-associated species (USDA 2001 and 2004). In this assessment, the following key 

risk factors were identified for marten in the Sierra Nevada: (1) habitat alteration, particularly the 

removal of overhead cover, large diameter trees, or coarse woody material; (2) livestock grazing and 

other activities that might reduce the availability of prey in meadows; and (3) the use of roads and 

associated human access. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable vegetation and fuels management projects on NFS lands and private lands within the 

Stanislaus National Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities have contributed to effects 

on marten and have the potential to impact marten in the near future. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest, several activities have influenced these risk factors for marten. Past 

timber harvest and more recent fuels reduction treatments have reduced important habitat components 

in marten habitats. Between 2000 and 2008, vegetation/fuels thinning treatments on NFS lands have 

occurred within less than 5% of marten habitat. These vegetation treatments have reduced habitat 

quality for marten by reducing canopy cover, structural complexity, and coarse woody material within 

treated units. At the larger landscape scale, these treatments may affect the size and connectivity of 

patches of high quality habitat. Vegetation/fuels reduction projects will continue to be one of the 

primary activities affecting marten habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest (Appendix B). These 

projects will likely occur on an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 

2006. Some, but not all of the projects will affect marten habitat. Over time, fuels treatments are 

expected to alter 20 to 30 percent of the landscape, with a resulting expectation that the amount of 

habitat removed by stand replacing wildfires will be reduced in response to these treatments (USDA 

2004). 

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) currently lists approximately 2,365 

acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber 

harvest plans have been submitted. The portion of these projects occurring within the marten’s range 

has not been determined. Timber harvest on private lands is generally more intensive and does not 

typically result in suitable habitat for marten. 

Livestock grazing occurs on 35 active grazing allotments on the Stanislaus National Forest, totaling 

approximately 792,042 acres of NFS and private lands. In some meadows, livestock grazing has 

reduced the suitability of meadow vegetation for microtine rodents and other marten prey (USDA 

2001). On the Stanislaus National Forest, the impacts of livestock grazing on meadows has been 

steadily decreasing as fewer allotments are grazed and as forage utilization levels are being reduced 

304 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

by stricter standards established by the SNFPA. These past and present effects contribute to the 

effects of the project alternatives on meadow habitat and condition. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources, Affected Environment), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude 

of human disturbance to wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other 

forms of recreation based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). 

Approximately 5 miles of new trail construction, as well as numerous short route segments for 

dispersed camping access, have been proposed for the future (separate from the this project). These 

trails are proposed to provide “connector routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access 

to historical dispersed camping opportunities. The effects of these routes would be similar to those 

described under direct and indirect effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior; and habitat 

modification through loss of habitat and further fragmentation of habitat. 

Unauthorized motorized routes that are prohibited to motorized use may receive non-motorized use 

(hiking, mountain bicycling, equestrian). It is generally considered that non-motorized use would 

result in fewer disturbances to marten. The extent and magnitude of non-motorized use is unknown. 

However, it is expected that, over time, unauthorized routes that are prohibited to motorized use will 

eventually become revegetated and recover either through active or passive restoration means. 

Direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives, as described previously, cumulatively contribute 

to each of the risk factors identified for marten. Table 3.11-8 shows the drivable routes under each 

alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 are the conditions existing at the time the route data 

base was last updated. As can be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of 

routes, and therefore would cause the most disturbance to individuals. Because Alternative 2 does not 

prohibit cross country travel, there is a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation and 

associated cumulative impacts upon marten. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 contribute cumulatively to the 

disturbance and habitat alteration from fuels treatments and habitat alteration from livestock grazing 

in meadows. Alternatives 4, 1, 3, and 5 would result in progressively lower risk to martens due to the 

amount of motorized routes under each alternative. While Alternative 3 would not add any routes to 

the NFTS, Alternative 5 would have fewer miles of routes in preferred marten habitat because of the 

miles of NFTS routes closed under this alternative. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 do not result in a loss of 

habitat (no route construction), but may influence marten habitat. This influence, combined with fuels 

treatment and livestock grazing effects upon marten habitat, would likely impact individuals 

throughout the project area. Inventoried Roadless Areas and adjacent wilderness areas may become 

increasingly important as the cumulative effect of fuels treatment activities expand within other 

portions of marten habitat. Considering the proportion of marten habitat influenced by motorized 

routes and projections for future increases in recreation uses and OHV activity, the alternatives could 

result in cumulative impacts when combined with other factors affecting marten habitat (Zielinski et 

al. 2008). Although the action alternatives may result in cumulative impacts, they are very minor in 

comparison to existing road densities and other potentially significant impacts (fire, fuels/vegetation 

treatments). 

Table 3.11-8 Drivable Routes in American marten habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Miles of routes within preferred marten habitat1 627.81 853.23 594.81 638.83 589.202 

Miles of routes within meadows1 45.8 57.29 44.59 46.34 44.25 

Density (mi/mi2

) of all routes within preferred marten habitat1 2.81 3.82 2.66 2.86 2.64 

Preferred marten habitat % occurring within a 400 meter (0.25 mile) “zone 

of influence” of all routes1 

46.54 62.25 45.59 47.04 45.17 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

305 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The American marten occupies most of its historic range in the Sierra Nevada and is well distributed 

on the Stanislaus National Forest, though trends in populations or habitat are not well known (Kucera 

et al. 1995). The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with 

the cumulative effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for 

this species. As can be seen from Table 3.11-9, of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least 

negative impact. As described in the project MIS report (see project record), based on the small 

proportion of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat that is directly, indirectly and 

cumulatively affected (0% to 3% of Sierra Nevada habitat) by the alternatives within a 200-meter 

(approximately 1

/8 mile) zone of influence of proposed motorized route additions, the Stanislaus 

National Forest Motorized Travel Management Project will not alter existing trend in the habitat, nor 

will it lead to a change is the distribution of American marten across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. For 

further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the project MIS and BA/BE reports 

(project record). 

Table 3.11-9 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (American marten) 

Indicators Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of routes within preferred marten habitat2 3 1 4 2 5 

Miles of routes within meadows2 3 1 4 2 5 

Density (mi/mi2) of all routes within preferred marten habitat2 3 1 4 2 5 

Preferred marten habitat % occurring within a 400 meter (0.25 

mile) “zone of influence” of all routes2 

3 1 4 2 5 

Average 3 1 4 2 5 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the public.
 

Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public right-of-way.
 

Pacific Fisher – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The fisher is a wide-ranging forest mustelid that historically occurred throughout much of the Sierra 

Nevada. Currently, they occupy a very small portion of their historical range in California and are 

isolated in two remnant populations (Zielinski et al. 1995, Zielinski et al. 2004). One of these 

populations is located in the southern Sierras, south of the Stanislaus National Forest. Numerous 

mesocarnivore surveys have been completed on the Stanislaus National Forest with the use of baited 

camera stations and track plates, but there have been no recent detections or verified sightings of 

fisher on the Stanislaus National Forest. Although there are currently no known populations of fisher 

within the project area, over the long term they may become naturally re-established from known 

populations located south of the project area. 

The fisher typically occupies mature forests with relatively high canopy closure, significant amounts 

of downed woody debris and snags, and adequate habitat connectivity. Green et al. (submitted) 

provide detailed discussions and an overview of the existing literature pertaining to the Pacific fisher. 

Suitable habitat for the fisher is located throughout the Forest, but there are no known den sites on the 

Stanislaus National Forest. Since fisher are not known to currently occupy the Stanislaus National 

Forest, it is unlikely that there are any existing den sites. For the purposes of this analysis, preferred 

fisher habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest has been mapped as the following: CWHR types 

ASP, PPN, JPN, MHC; classes 4, 5 and 6; canopy closures M and D. 

306 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Pacific Fisher – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to fisher. Although thresholds for these indicators have not 

been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the project alternatives may 

be compared. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open}] MINUS 

miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle 

trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or administrative 

roads {closed}]) within preferred fisher habitat. 

 Existing density (mi/mi2) of NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat. 

 Density (mi/mi2) of NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat with proposed designated routes. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General - All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to fisher by: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on fisher through the following: human-caused 

mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification. 

Human-Caused Mortality: Based upon a review of the literature, fisher were found to likely be 

affected by the same road and motorized trail-associated direct effects as marten. Refer to the 

previous discussion for marten. 

Changes in Behavior: Based upon a review of the literature, fisher were found to likely be affected 

by the same road and motorized trail-associated direct effects as marten. Refer to the previous 

discussion for marten. 

Habitat Modification: Roads and trails modify fisher habitat by directly removing it or indirectly by 

reducing its quality. While simple habitat loss is the most obvious, roads and trails also reduce habitat 

quality through fragmentation. Since fisher have been found to be sensitive to changes in overhead 

cover; clearings associated with routes may reduce habitat quality near routes for foraging and may 

reduce fisher movement between habitats that are separated by routes (Buskirk and Powell 1994, 

Hargis et al. 1999). 

Hazard tree removal along NFTS roads has the potential to reduce downed logs and suitable resting 

and denning sites for fisher. Hazard tree removal is typically conducted along ML 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads 

(not trails or ML 1 roads). Closures that are proposed on ML 1 and 2 roads within any of the action 

alternatives would result in a reduction in miles of road on which hazard trees may be removed. On 

the other hand, opening roads currently closed (converting ML1 routes to ML2) would result in an 

increase in miles of road on which hazard trees may be removed. The net amount of impact that the 

project alternatives may have on future hazard tree removal would be minor. 

307 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred fisher habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects 

to fisher from motorized travel over the long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-10). Actions 

proposed in this alternative would not likely result in any human-caused mortality, but would likely 

increase disturbance to some fisher (if re-established) within the project area over the long term. 

There are no documented fisher den sites within the project area. Since fisher are not known to 

currently occupy the Stanislaus National Forest, it is unlikely that there are any existing den sites. 

Therefore, this alternative would not have the potential to disturb fisher den sites. 

The disturbance from the existing NFTS is on-going. Potential increases in disturbance to foraging 

fisher may reduce some individuals’ fitness over the long term (if fisher were re-established), but 

these impacts would not likely result in any population level impacts. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Preferred fisher habitat is primarily located throughout mid-elevations within the 

project area. Therefore, motorized use would be seasonally restricted in approximately 50% of 

preferred fisher habitat. These closures would reduce disturbance to foraging fisher over the long term 

(if fisher were re-established). The season of use would not apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), 

so disturbance to individuals would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions 

prohibit WOS use. Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The types of mitigation measures that would be implemented within preferred 

fisher habitat include the following: tread hardening, drain dips, fence/log/rock barriers, and 

hardened stream crossings. Implementation of these mitigation measures would include hand tool and 

machine work that would result in short-term disturbance to individual fisher within the project area 

(if re-established). This amount of disturbance would not likely reduce any individual fisher’s fitness 

and would not result in any population level impacts within the project area. 

Table 3.11-10 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Pacific fisher) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within preferred fisher habitat1 + 19.08 

Existing density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat 1.02 

Density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat with proposed designated 

routes (additional density) 1.14 (+ 0.12) 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Approximately 130,700 acres of 

preferred fisher habitat is open to cross country travel. 

308 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing unauthorized routes because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed 

that wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously 

identified and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of 

new routes would result in increasing amounts of disturbance to fisher (if re-established) and 

increased fragmentation/modification of their habitat. These effects would be similar to those 

discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated over the long term by the 

continued proliferation of routes. In addition, creation of new routes could alter habitat and increase 

fragmentation through the removal of vegetation. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to fisher (if re-established). 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures implemented as part of this 

alternative. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred fisher habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects 

to fisher from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to fisher (if re-established). 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures implemented as part of this 

alternative. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred fisher habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects 

to fisher from motorized travel over the long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-11). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight increase from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added to the 

system or converted to a trail within preferred fisher habitat, there would be a slight increase in the 

direct (if the fisher were re-established) and indirect effects to fisher within the project area. Although 

these increases would result in more individuals being impacted, these increases would not likely be 

significant enough to result in impacts to fisher populations within the project area. 

Season of Use: Preferred fisher habitat is primarily located throughout mid-elevations within the 

project area. Therefore, motorized use would be seasonally restricted in approximately 50% of 

preferred fisher habitat. These closures would reduce disturbance to foraging fisher (if re-established) 

over the long term. The season of use would not apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), so 

disturbance to individuals would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions prohibit 

WOS use. Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

309 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Table 3.11-11 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Pacific fisher) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within preferred fisher habitat1 + 33.47 

Existing density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat 1.02 

Density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat with proposed designated 

routes (additional density) 1.21 (+ 0.18) 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within preferred fisher habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects 

to fisher from motorized travel over the long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-12). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a substantial decrease from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added 

to the system or converted to a trail within preferred fisher habitat, there would be a substantial 

decrease in the direct (if fisher were re-established) and indirect effects to fisher within the project 

area. These decreases would result in fewer individuals being impacted and less habitat being 

fragmented, and this alternative is unlikely to result in impacts to fisher populations within the project 

area. 

Season of Use: Preferred fisher habitat is primarily located throughout mid-elevations within the 

project area. Therefore, motorized use would be seasonally restricted in approximately 50% of 

preferred fisher habitat. These closures would reduce disturbance to foraging fisher over the long term 

(if fisher were re-established). 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-12 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Pacific fisher) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within preferred fisher habitat1 + 5.02 

Existing density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat 1.02 

Density (mi/mi2) of open NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat with proposed designated 

routes (additional density) 1.00 (-- 0.02) 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

In 2004, the USFWS determined that listing of the West Coast population of the fisher was 

warranted, and identified the following primary threats from activities on NFS lands: (1) loss and 

fragmentation of habitat due to timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction; (2) increased predation 

resulting from canopy cover reductions; (3) mortality from vehicle collisions; and (4) increased 

human disturbance. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects on the Stanislaus National Forest and private lands within the Forest boundary. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest, past timber harvest and more recent hazardous fuels reduction 

projects have reduced large trees, canopy cover, structural complexity, and coarse woody material 

within treated units. Between 2000 and 2008, vegetation/fuels thinning treatments on NFS lands have 

310 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

occurred within less than 4% of fisher habitat. These vegetation treatments have reduced habitat 

quality for fisher by reducing canopy cover, structural complexity, and coarse woody material within 

treated units. At the larger landscape scale, these treatments may affect the size and connectivity of 

patches of high quality habitat. Vegetation/fuels reduction projects will continue to be one of the 

primary activities affecting fisher habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest (Appendix B). These 

projects will likely occur on an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 

2006. Some, but not all, of them will affect fisher habitat. Over time, fuels treatments are expected to 

alter 20 to 30 percent of the landscape, with a resulting expectation that the amount of habitat 

removed by stand replacing wildfires will be reduced in response to these treatments (USDA 2004). 

CDF currently lists approximately 2,365 acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest 

administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans have been submitted. The portion of these 

projects occurring within the fisher’s range has not been determined. Timber harvest on private lands 

is generally more intensive and does not typically result in suitable habitat for fisher. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources, Affected Environment), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude 

of human disturbance to wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other 

forms of recreation based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). 

Approximately 5 miles of new trail construction, as well as numerous short route segments for 

dispersed camping access, have been proposed for the future (separate from the this project). These 

trails are proposed to provide “connector routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access 

to historical dispersed camping opportunities. The effects of these routes would be similar to those 

described under direct and indirect effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior; and habitat 

modification through loss of habitat and further fragmentation of habitat. 

Table 3.11-13 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. Since routes proposed 

within the action alternatives are native surfaced routes that do not generally have high rates of travel, 

these road-related effects are expected to be minimal. As can be seen from the table, Alternative 2 

would have the most miles of routes, and therefore would cause the most disturbance to individuals. 

Because this alternative does not prohibit cross country travel, there is a high degree of uncertainty 

about future route proliferation and associated cumulative impacts upon fisher. The action alternatives 

do not result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but noise and traffic disturbance would 

influence habitat use and availability where fisher may be present (if re-established). If fisher were to 

recolonize or to be reintroduced on the Stanislaus National Forest, project alternatives would still 

contribute to the past, current, and reasonably foreseeable conditions described above. While 

Alternative 3 would not add any routes to the NFTS, Alternative 5 would have fewer miles of routes 

in preferred fisher habitat because of the miles of routes closed under this alternative. The greatest 

influence upon fisher habitat occurs under Alternative 2 and progressively lower levels of impact 

occur under Alternatives 4, 1, 3, and 5. Thus, the combined effect of the project alternatives and 

current levels of hazardous fuels reduction treatments may result in adverse cumulative effects to a 

few individual fisher (if re-established). 

In the upper Tule River Basin, six female fisher home ranges were established through radio 

telemetry methods (minimum convex polygon) from 1994 to 1998. At least three of the six females 

were observed to successfully reproduce during the study period. Values for road density within the 

observed home ranges varied from 2.3 to 6.9 miles per square mile, depending on the individual (R. 

Galloway 2008 pers. com. with D. Craig). Under the alternatives for this project, the route density 

varies from 2.28 (Alternative 5) to 3.13 (Alternative 2), at the lower end of the range in the six Tule 

River Basin home ranges. 

311 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Spencer et al. (2008) stated that, “it appears that northward expansion of the [fisher] population onto 

the Stanislaus National Forest has strong potential to significantly increase population size and extent, 

and hence viability. However, there is uncertainty about the likelihood of such expansion occurring 

naturally, due to potential dispersal impediments (e.g., steep canyon slopes, open habitats, the Merced 

River, and heavily traveled roads).” The project alternatives do not include the addition of or the 

opening of heavily traveled roads. Thus, the alternatives are not likely to increase dispersal barriers. 

Table 3.11-13 Drivable Routes in Pacific fisher habitat 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Miles of routes within preferred fisher habitat1 492.61 639.32 468.77 508.67 465.22 

Density (mi/mi2

) of all routes within preferred fisher habitat1 2.41 3.13 2.30 2.49 2.28 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

Although the action alternatives may result in cumulative impacts, they are very minor in comparison 

to dispersal impediments and other potentially significant impacts (fire, fuels/vegetation treatments). 

The project effects could potentially have minor impacts on the ability or likelihood for fisher to reoccupy suitable habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The Pacific fisher has a limited distribution in the Sierra Nevada of California and is not known to 

occur within the project area. The direct and indirect effects (if fisher were re-established) of the 

project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative effects are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability for this species that has been found warranted for federal listing. As can be seen from 

Table 3.11-8, of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative impact on the species. 

For further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the project BA/BE (project 

record). 

Table 3.11-14 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (Pacific fisher) 

Indicators Rankings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of routes within preferred fisher habitat2 3 1 4 2 5 

Density (mi/mi2

) of all routes within preferred fisher habitat2 3 1 4 2 5 

Average 3 1 4 2 5 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; a score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most
 

impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the public.
 

Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public right-of-way.
 

California Spotted Owl – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The California spotted owl is one of three recognized subspecies of spotted owls. They are currently 

found throughout most of their historic range, which primarily occurs on the west side of the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains of California. The Stanislaus National Forest is located in the central portion of 

their range, and they are dispersed throughout the Forest. Surveys for spotted owls have been 

conducted on the Forest for approximately 20 years. Although these surveys have not covered the 

Forest in its entirety, they have covered a large majority of it. Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and 

Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) are comprised of the best available habitat around to known 

spotted owl pairs or territorial singles. PACs encompass approximately 300 acres, and HRCAs 

encompass approximately 1000 acres, including the associated PAC. Based on systematic surveys 

and incidental sightings, there are currently 218 documented PACs on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Spotted owls inhabit a wide variety of forest types generally characterized by dense forest, high 

312 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

canopy closure, high structural diversity, large residual trees, and downed woody debris (Call et al. 

1992, Moen and Gutierrez 1997). For the purposes of this analysis, preferred California spotted owl 

habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest has been mapped as the following: CWHR types PPN, 

SMC, WFR, RFR; classes 5 and 6; canopy closures M and D. 

California Spotted Owl – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the California spotted owl. Although thresholds for these 

indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within PACs 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of PACs affected by NFTS routes (Percentage of all 

PACs in Project Area) 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of Activity Centers within 400 meters of NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of Activity Centers within 60 meters of NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of spotted owl PACs (total acres) occurring within 

a 400 meter “zone of influence” 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred spotted owl habitat occurring within a 

400 meter “zone of influence” 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General - All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the California spotted owl through 

the following activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on spotted owls through the following: humancaused mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification. 

Human-Caused Mortality: Allowing cross country travel or adding routes to the NFTS may result in 

collisions with spotted owls. Although it may not be as prevalent in spotted owls as some other bird 

species, it has been documented. The Cascade Raptor Center (2007) reported that collisions with 

vehicles were one of the most common problems in northern spotted owls. Collisions with vehicles 

typically occur along well maintained roadways that allow high rates of travel. Routes proposed for 

designation within the project alternatives are native surfaced routes that only allow much slower 

rates of travel. These types of routes would result in far fewer, if any collisions. 

313 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Changes in Behavior: Types of changes in behavior that may result from the project alternatives 

include the following: displacement or avoidance, disturbance at a specific location, or physiological 

response. The use of motorized vehicles in spotted owl habitat may result in disturbance to owls that 

are nesting, roosting, or foraging. The Forest Service, Region 5, has generally assumed that activities 

(including road and trail use) occurring farther than 0.25 miles (400 meters) from California spotted 

owl nest sites have little potential to affect owl nesting (USDA 2004). Delaney et al. (1999) found 

that Mexican spotted owls were found to show an alert response to chainsaws at distances less than 

400 meters. Available literature indicates that the likelihood of owls flushing from a nest is greater 

when disturbance occurs within 60 meters (approximately 200 feet) (Delaney et al. 1999, Swarthout 

and Steidl 2001). Although it is unclear whether these levels of disturbance would result in high 

levels of stress, Marra and Holberton (1998) found that chronic high levels of stress hormone may 

have negative effects on reproduction. A study by Wasser et al. (1997) found that stress hormone 

levels were significantly higher in male northern spotted owls (but not females) when they were 

located <0.41 km (0.26 mile) from a major logging road compared to spotted owls in areas >0.41 km 

from a major logging road. In the absence of further research, it is assumed that motorized use along 

all routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of activity centers would result in some disturbance to nesting 

owls and that effects from motorized activities within 60 meters of an activity center would result in 

negative effects to reproduction over the short term. California spotted owls have been known to shift 

their nest site. Over the long term, spotted owls that were experiencing significant disturbance at their 

current nest site would likely move to another suitable nest site within the PAC. 

Habitat Modification: Roads and trails modify habitat by directly removing it or indirectly by 

reducing its quality. While simple habitat loss is the most obvious, roads and trails also reduce habitat 

quality through fragmentation. California spotted owls may be affected by edge effects from roads 

when roads and trails fragment suitable habitat. Several studies indicate the California spotted owl are 

sensitive to changes in forest canopy closure and habitat fragmentation (Seamans 2005, Blakesley 

2003) that could result from a network of roads. Roads and trails can result in a reduction in interior 

forest patch size which decreases the amount of habitat available and increases the distance between 

suitable interior forest patches for late-successional species such as the California spotted owl. 

Hazard tree removal along NFTS roads has the potential to reduce canopy closure and increase 

habitat fragmentation for spotted owls. Hazard tree removal is typically conducted along ML2, 3, 4 

and 5 roads (not trails or ML1 roads). Closures that are proposed on ML 1 and 2 roads within any of 

the project alternatives would result in a reduction in miles of road on which hazard trees may be 

removed. On the other hand, opening roads currently closed (converting ML1 routes to ML2) would 

result in an increase in miles of road on which hazard trees may be removed. The net amount of 

impact that the project alternatives may have on future hazard tree removal would be minor. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near spotted owl activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the 

risk of direct and indirect effects to the spotted owl from motorized travel over the short and long 

term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-16). Standards and 

guidelines in the Forest Plan direct that impacts be mitigated where there is documented evidence of 

disturbance to a spotted owl nest site from existing road or motorized trail use. The Forest has not 

monitored spotted owl nest sites in proximity to roads or trails and has not documented specific 

instances of disturbance. Actual nest locations are often difficult to locate and may move around from 

year-to-year within a PAC. Therefore, actual nest locations remain unknown for many of the PACs 

and those nests that have been located may have moved since it was last located. Furthermore, it is 

314 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

not well known why owls choose certain nest sites from year to year but it is likely that the nest sites 

will continue to move within the PAC over the long term. Therefore, activity centers may be defined 

as a nest site, a pair roost location, or a territorial single located within the PAC. In the absence of 

recent nest site locations for every PAC, the relative risk of project alternatives resulting in 

disturbance to nesting spotted owls is evaluated by considering the following: (1) the number of 

spotted owl activity centers occurring within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of proposed routes, (2) the 

number of spotted owl activity centers occurring within 400 meters of ML1 roads that are being 

converted to trails, (3) the miles of routes that are being added to the NFTS within PACs, and (4) the 

miles of ML1 roads that are being converted to trails within PACs (Table 3.11-15). 

Table 3.11-15 Alternative 1: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (California spotted owl) 

Disturbance Rationale PACs % of total 

High Route being added within 60 meters (200 feet) of activity center. A lot of other routes 

being added. 

1 <1% 

Moderate Routes being added or converted from closed to open less than 400 meters and more 

than 60 meters from activity center, and no intervening topography 

20 9% 

Low Routes being added less than 60 meters but more 400 meters from activity center. 

Activity center on other side of ridge from loop. Additions less than 10% of total mileage 

currently drivable in PAC. 

1 <1% 

Low Route being added 320 meters from activity center. Less than 6% of drivable miles now 

in PAC. Existing routes less than 60 meters on either side of activity center, so 

disturbance from the existing routes would greatly outweigh the potential increased 

disturbance from the addition 

1 <1% 

Low Route that is less than 400 meters from activity center is short spur (<0.01 mile) off 

existing route on edge of PAC 230 meters from activity center 

1 <1% 

Low All additions and conversions from closed to open >400 meters from activity center 24 11% 

Low Route being added >400 meters from activity center, and route being closed in PAC 1 <1% 

total of Low 28 13% 

None--Decrease No routes being added or converted from closed to open, but routes are being 

converted from open to closed 

3 1% 

PACs in which routes are being added and/or being converted from closed to open 49 22% 

Since routes proposed within this alternative are native surface routes with slower rates of travel, they 

would not likely result in any human-caused mortality. They would likely increase disturbance to 

some nesting and roosting owls within the project area over that from the existing NFTS. Although 

actual disturbance effects will be largely influenced by site-specific factors, it is assumed that all 

routes within a PAC may result in disturbance to nesting and roosting owls. 

A detailed PAC-by-PAC analysis was conducted on the routes proposed to be added to PACs, 

proposed to be converted from a closed to open status within PACs, and proposed to be converted 

from open to closed status within PACs. The BA/BE discusses the details of that analysis. Following 

is a summary of that discussion. 

The routes proposed to be added to the NFTS and the routes proposed to be converted from closed to 

open contribute a certain amount of disturbance to the activity center on which each PAC is based. 

Disturbance could result in flushing from nests, roosts, or perches, in alarm responses, and in 

increased stress hormone levels in individual spotted owls. In the absence of further research, it is 

assumed that motorized use along all routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of activity centers would 

result in some disturbance to nesting owls. Based on that assumption, approximately 13% of activity 

centers would receive some disturbance from routes added to the NFTS and routes that would be 

opened. Without further research, this analysis assumes that effects within 60 meters (approximately 

200 feet) of an activity center will result in negative effects to reproduction over the short term. 

Therefore, if all the routes proposed to be added to the NFTS or proposed to be converted from closed 

to open are further than 400 meters from the activity center on which a given PAC is based, it is 

assumed that the routes under this alternative in that PAC would contribute a low level of disturbance 

to the owls at that activity center. If any of the routes proposed to be added to the NFTS or proposed 

to be converted from closed to open are between 60 meters and 400 meters from the activity center on 

315 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

which the PAC is based, it is generally assumed that the routes under this alternative in that PAC 

would contribute a moderate level of disturbance to the owls at that activity center. Within certain 

PACs meeting that criterion, the contribution to disturbance was rated as low for the reasons given 

below. If any of the routes proposed to be added to the NFTS or proposed to be converted from 

closed to open are within 60 meters of the activity center, it is assumed that the routes under this 

alternative in that PAC would contribute a high level of disturbance to the owls at that activity center. 

The following table summarizes the findings from the analysis. In the table, the column labeled 

“Disturbance” refers to the contribution of the routes under the alternative to the disturbance to the 

owls at each PAC’s activity center. 

Routes would be added and/or converted from closed to open in 49 PACs, 22% of the PACs in the 

project area. One PAC (TL041) would have a route added to the NFTS within 60 meters (200 feet) of 

the activity center. This route (16EV79) is rated as 4 and is not recommended for inclusion in the 

NFTS. Because of the proximity of the route to the activity center, there would be a high level of 

contribution to disturbance of the owls at this PAC’s activity center (less than 1% of the total). 

In 24 of the PACs, the routes to be added and the routes to be converted from a closed to open status 

would be more than 400 meters from the activity center at their closest point. The level of 

contribution to disturbance of the owls at these PACs’ activity centers is considered low because of 

the distance of these routes from the PACs’ activity centers. 

One PAC (TL206) in which the one route to be added would be more than 400 meters from the 

activity center also has a route which would be closed. The level of contribution to disturbance of the 

owls at this PAC’s activity center is considered low because of the distance of the one addition from 

the PAC’s activity center. 

In one PAC (TL055), while the routes to be added are less than 400 meters from the PAC’s activity 

center, the level of contribution to disturbance at this PAC’s activity center is considered low for the 

following reasons: (1) the routes form parts of a loop that is on the other side of a ridge from the 

activity center; (2) the closest part of the loop is 320 meters from the activity center; (3) the additions 

are less than 10% of the total mileage currently drivable in the PAC. 

The level of contribution to disturbance at PAC TL057’s activity center, while the one route to be 

added is within 400 meters of the activity center, is also considered low for the following reasons: (1) 

the addition is less than 6% of the total mileage currently drivable in the PAC; (2) there are existing 

routes that would still be part of the system less than 60 meters on either side of the activity center, so 

disturbance from the existing routes would greatly outweigh the potential increased disturbance from 

the addition; (3) the route being added is 320 meters from the activity center. 

The route that is being added in PAC TL012 within 400 meters of the PAC’s activity center 

contributes a low level of disturbance to the PAC’s activity center, because it is a short spur (less than 

0.01 mile in length) off an existing route on the edge of a PAC 230 meters from the activity center. 

Overall, the level of contribution to disturbance in 28 PACs (13% of the total) is considered low. 

The contribution to disturbance in 20 PACs (9% of the total) is considered at a moderate level 

because there are additions and/or conversion from a closed to open status from 60 meters to 400 

meters from the PACs’ activity centers, and there is no intervening topography to shield the activity 

centers from the noise along those routes. 

The total number of PACs in which the level of contribution to disturbance is moderate to high is 21 

PACs, 10% of the total. 

There are 3 PACs (1% of the total in the project area) in which no routes would be added, no routes 

would be converted from a closed to open status, and routes would be converted from an open to 

closed status. In these PACs the disturbance would be decreased. 

316 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Although disturbance effects would impact individuals and some reproducing pairs over the short 

term, the changes proposed under this alternative would reduce the effects from the existing 

condition, and would not result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long 

term for the following reasons: 

 It is assumed that motorized use along all routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of activity centers 

would result in some disturbance to nesting owls and that effects from motorized activities within 

60 meters of an activity center would result in negative effects to reproduction over the short 

term. 

 Only one PAC (less than 1% of the total number of PACs in the project area) would have routes 

added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open within 60 meters of that PAC’s 

activity center. 

 In three PACs disturbance would be reduced from that currently existing because the only change 

within those PACs would be route closures. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, California spotted owls may start nesting in 

early March. Seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) 

would overlap the beginning of the nesting period. Since approximately 80% of the PACs would be 

within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to those individuals during the early 

nesting period. The season of use would not apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance 

to individuals would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions prohibit WOS use. 

Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Table 3.11-16 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California spotted owl) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within PACs 1 + 18.79 

PACs affected by additions to NFTS and by conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all PACs 

in Project Area) + 48 (22%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 1 + 5.53 

Activity Centers within 400 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) + 27 (+ 13%) 

Activity Centers within 60 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) + 2 (+ 1%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of spotted owl PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence”2 + 13% 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred spotted owl habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” 2 + 8% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

Mitigation Measures: The types of mitigation measures that would be implemented within PACs 

include the following: tread hardening, drain dips, fence/log/rock barriers, and hardened stream 

crossings. The types of mitigation measures that would be implemented within 400 meters (0.25 mile) 

of an activity center include the following: tread hardening, drain dips, and fence/log/rock barriers. 

Implementation of these mitigation measures would include hand tool and machine work that may 

result in short-term disturbance to individual foraging or roosting owls within the project area. To 

317 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

prevent potential disturbance to nesting owls, machine work on routes through PACs or within 400 

meters of activity centers would not be completed until the end of the nesting season. Disturbance to 

foraging and roosting owls outside of the nesting season would not likely reduce any individual owl’s 

fitness and would not result in any population level impacts within the project area. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. It is 

assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects would be 

similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Approximately 161,200 acres of preferred 

spotted owl habitat are open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. It is assumed that wheeled 

motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified and 

continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new routes 

would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to spotted owls. These effects would 

be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated over 

the long term by continued route proliferation. In addition, creation of new routes could alter habitat 

and increase fragmentation through the removal of vegetation. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to spotted owls. 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures implemented as part of this 

alternative. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near spotted owl activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the 

risk of direct and indirect effects to the spotted owl from motorized travel over the short and long 

term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to spotted owls. 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures implemented as part of this 

alternative. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near spotted owl activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the 

risk of direct and indirect effects to the spotted owl from motorized travel over the short and long 

term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-18). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. For further discussion regarding those effects please see discussion above. 

318 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

The same detailed PAC-by-PAC analysis was conducted for Alternative 4 as for Alternative 1 on the 

routes proposed to be added to PACs, proposed to be converted from a closed to open status within 

PACs, and proposed to be converted from open to closed status within PACs. The same assumptions 

were used in ranking the routes within the alternative as contributing a high, moderate, or low level of 

disturbance to the owls at each activity center. The BA/BE discusses the details of that analysis. 

Following is a summary of that discussion. 

Table 3.11-17 Alternative 4: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (California spotted owl) 

Disturbance Rationale PACs % of total 

High Route being added within 60 meters (200 feet) of activity center. A lot of other routes 

being added. 

1 <1% 

Moderate Routes being added or converted from closed to open less than 400 meters and more 

than 60 meters from activity center, and no intervening topography 

25 11% 

Low Routes being added less than 400 meters but more than 320 meters from activity 

center. Activity center on other side of ridge from loop. Additions less than 10% of total 

mileage currently drivable in PAC. 

1 <1% 

Low Route being added 320 meters from activity center. Less than 6% of drivable miles now 

in PAC. Existing routes less than 60 meters on either side of activity center, so 

disturbance from the existing routes would greatly outweigh the potential increased 

disturbance from the addition 

1 <1% 

Low Route that is less than 400 meters from activity center is short spur (<0.01 mile) off 

existing route on edge of PAC 230 meters from activity center 

1 <1% 

Low All additions and conversions from closed to open >400 meters from activity center 26 12% 

total of Low 29 13% 

PACs in which routes are being added and/or being converted from closed to open 55 25% 

There are some PACs under Alternative 4 which would have additions and/or conversions from a 

closed to open status in them but which would not have either of those types of changes under 

Alternative 1. Some PACs which would have those types of changes under Alternative 1 would have 

more changes under Alternative 4. Some PACs which would have changes from an open to a closed 

status under Alternative 1 would have none of or fewer than those types of changes under Alternative 

4. For information on PACs in which the changes under Alternative 4 would be the same as the 

changes under Alternative 1, please see the BA/BE. 

Routes would be added and/or routes would be converted from a closed to open status in 55 PACs, 

25% of the PACs in the project area. One PAC (TL041) would have a route added to the NFTS 

within 60 meters (200 feet) of the activity center on which the PAC is based. Because of the 

proximity of the route to the activity center, there would be a high level of contribution to disturbance 

to the owls at this PAC’s activity center (less than 1% of the total). 

In 26 of the PACs (12% of the PACs), the routes to be added and the routes to be converted from a 

closed to open status would be more than 400 meters from the activity center at their closest point. 

The level of contribution to disturbance is considered low because of the distance of these routes from 

the PACs’ activity centers. 

One PAC (TL206) in which the one route to be added would be more than 400 meters from the 

activity center also has a route which would be closed. The level of contribution to disturbance in this 

PAC is considered low because of the distance of the one addition from the PAC’s activity center. 

In one PAC (TL055), while the routes to be added are less than 400 meters from the PAC’s activity 

center, level of contribution to disturbance is considered low for the following reasons: (1) the routes 

form parts of a loop that is on the other side of a ridge from the activity center; (2) the closest part of 

the loop is 320 meters from the activity center; (3) the additions are less than 10% of the total mileage 

currently drivable in the PAC. 

The level of contribution to disturbance in PAC TL057, while the one route to be added is within 400 

meters of the activity center, is also considered low for the following reasons: (1) the addition is less 

than 6% of the total mileage currently drivable in the PAC; (2) there are existing routes that would 

319 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

still be part of the system less than 60 meters on either side of the activity center, so disturbance from 

the existing routes would greatly outweigh the potential increased disturbance from the addition; (3) 

the route being added is 320 meters from the activity center. 

The level of contribution to disturbance is considered low in PAC TL012 because, although the route 

that is being added in PAC TL012 within 400 meters of the PAC’s activity center, it is a short spur 

(less than 0.01 mile in length) off an existing route on the edge of a PAC 230 meters from the activity 

center. 

Overall, the level of contribution to disturbance to owls at the activity centers of 29 PACs (13% of the 

total) is considered low. 

The level of contribution to disturbance to owls at the activity centers of twenty-five PACs (11% of 

the total) is considered moderate because there are additions and/or conversion from a closed to open 

status from 60 meters to 400 meters from the PACs’ activity centers, and there is no intervening 

topography to shield the activity centers from the noise along those routes. 

The total number of PACs in which the level of contribution to disturbance is moderate to high is 26 

PACs, 12% of the total. 

Although disturbance effects would impact individuals and some reproducing pairs over the short 

term, the changes proposed under this alternative would reduce the effects from the existing 

condition, and would not result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long 

term for the following reasons: 

 It is assumed that motorized use along all routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of activity centers 

would result in some disturbance to nesting owls and that effects from motorized activities within 

60 meters of an activity center would result in negative effects to reproduction over the short 

term. 

 Only one PAC (less than 1% of the total number of PACs in the project area) would have routes 

added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open within 60 meters of that PAC’s 

activity center. 

Table 3.11-18 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California spotted owl) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes 1 + 28.97 

PACs affected by additions to NFTS and by conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all PACs in 

Project Area) 

+ 56 (+ 26%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 1 + 9.56 

Activity Centers within 400 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

+ 34 (+ 16%) 

Activity Centers within 60 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

+ 4 (+ 2%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of spotted owl PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence”2 

+ 17% 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred spotted owl habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” 2 

+ 10% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, California spotted owls may start nesting in 

early March. Therefore, seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in 

Appendix I) would overlap the beginning of the nesting period. Since approximately 80% of the 

PACs would be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to those individuals 

during the early nesting period. The season of use would not apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), 

320 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

so disturbance to individuals would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions 

prohibit WOS use. Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near spotted owl activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the 

risk of direct and indirect effects to the spotted owl from motorized travel over the short and long 

term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-18). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. For further discussion regarding those effects please see discussion above. In the 

absence of further research, it is assumed that motorized use along all routes within 400 meters (0.25 

mile) of activity centers would result in some disturbance to nesting owls. Based on that assumption, 

less than 1% of activity centers would receive some disturbance from adding routes to the NFTS and 

opening routes currently closed. Without further research, this analysis will assume that effects within 

60 meters (approximately 200 feet) of an activity center will result in negative effects to reproduction 

over the short term. This alternative would not result in increased amounts of motorized use over the 

existing NFTS within 60 meters of any activity centers. Since there is a decrease from Alternative 1 

in the number of routes added to the system or converted to a trail within PACs, near activity centers, 

and within preferred habitat, there would be a decrease in the direct and indirect effects to individual 

spotted owls within the project area. Although these effects would impact individuals over the short 

term, they would not result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long 

term. 

The same detailed PAC-by-PAC analysis was conducted for Alternative 5 as for Alternative 1 on the 

routes proposed to be added to PACs, proposed to be converted from a closed to open status within 

PACs, and proposed to be converted from open to closed status within PACs. The same assumptions 

were used in ranking the routes within the alternative as contributing a high, moderate, or low level of 

disturbance to the owls at each activity center. The BA/BE discusses the details of that analysis. 

Following is a summary of that discussion. 

There are some PACs under Alternative 1 which would have additions and/or conversions from a 

closed to open status in them but which would not have either of those types of changes under 

Alternative 5. Some PACs which would have those types of changes under Alternative 1 would have 

fewer changes under Alternative 5. Some PACs which would have changes from an open to a closed 

status under Alternative 5 would have none of or fewer than those types of changes under Alternative 

1. Table 3.11-19 summarizes the findings from the analysis. 

Table 3.11-19 Alternative 5: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (California spotted owl) 

Disturbance Rationale PACs % of total 

Low All additions and conversions from closed to open >400 meters from activity center 4 2% 

None--Decrease No routes being added or converted from closed to open, but routes are being 

converted from open to closed 

8 4% 

PACs in which routes are being added and/or being converted from closed to open 4 2% 

Routes would be added and/or routes would be converted from a closed to open status in 4 PACs, 2% 

of the PACs in the project area. In those 4 PACs, the routes to be added and the routes to be converted 

from a closed to open status would be more than 400 meters from the activity center at their closest 

321 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

point. The level of contribution to disturbance is considered low because of the distance of these 

routes from the PACs’ activity centers. 

There would not be any PACs in which the level of contribution to disturbance would be moderate to 

high. 

There are 8 PACs (4% of the total in the project area) in which no routes would be added, no routes 

would be converted from a closed to open status, and routes would be converted from an open to 

closed status. In these PACs the disturbance would be decreased. 

Although disturbance effects would impact individuals and some reproducing pairs over the short 

term, the changes proposed under this alternative would reduce the effects from the existing 

condition, and would not result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long 

term because the level of contribution to disturbance would not be moderate or high in any PACs. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, California spotted owls may start nesting in 

early March. Therefore, seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in 

Appendix I) would overlap the beginning of the nesting period. Since approximately 80% of the 

PACs would be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to those individuals 

during the early nesting period. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-20 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California spotted owl) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes 1 -- 6.5 

PACs affected by additions to NFTS and by conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all PACs in Project 

Area) 

+ 4 (+ 2%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 1 -- 4.01 

Activity Centers within 400 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open (Percentage of 

all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

+ 1 (< 1%) 

Activity Centers within 60 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all 

Activity Centers in Project Area) 

0 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of spotted owl PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 meter 

“zone of influence”2 

-- 1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of preferred spotted owl habitat occurring within a 400 meter 

“zone of influence” 2 

-- 1% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

In its Notice of Finding on a petition to list the California spotted owl, the USFWS identified that loss 

of habitat to stand-replacing fires and habitat modification for fuels reduction were the primary risk 

factors to California spotted owls occurring on NFS lands (USDI 2006). Appendix B provides a list 

and description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Stanislaus National Forest 

and private lands within the Stanislaus National Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities 

will contribute to effects upon California spotted owls. 

Based on GIS analysis, 14 wildfires have burned through 17 or 8% of spotted owl PACs affecting 

approximately 971 acres or 2% of those PACs since 2000. Forest vegetation/fuels thinning projects 

(designed to reduce the risk of additional habitat loss to wildfires) have treated within approximately 

1,410 acres or 2% of spotted owl PACs between 2000 and 2008. CDF currently lists a total of 2,365 

acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber 

322 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

harvest plans have been submitted. Timber harvest on private lands is generally more intensive and 

does not typically maintain habitat suitability for spotted owls. These wildfires, fuels treatment, and 

timber harvest projects have resulted in reduction in the amount and quality of spotted owl habitat 

within the Stanislaus National Forest boundary. 

Vegetation/fuels reduction projects will continue to be the primary activity affecting spotted owl 

habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest (see Appendix B). These projects will likely occur on an 

estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Although these treatments 

will degrade habitat in the short term, it is anticipated that over time, the amount of habitat removed 

in stand-replacing wildfires will be reduced as a result of these treatments (USDA 2004c). 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources, Affected Environment), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude 

of human disturbance to wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other 

forms of recreation based upon State figures for OHV sales (see Chapter 3.04 Recreation). 

Approximately 5 miles of new trail construction, as well as numerous short route segments for 

dispersed camping access, have been proposed for the future (separate from the this project). These 

trails are proposed to provide “connector routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access 

to historical dispersed camping opportunities. The effects of these routes would be similar to those 

described under direct and indirect effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior; and habitat 

modification through loss of habitat and further fragmentation of habitat. 

Table 3.11-21 Drivable Routes in California spotted owl habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Miles of routes within PACs1 266.59 345.72 244.40 278.55 237.78 

PACs intersected by routes (Percentage of all PACs in Project Area) 1 185 

(85%) 

188 

(86%) 

180 

(83%) 

185 

(85%) 

181 

(83%) 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers1 122.59 163.42 114.86 127.06 110.89 

Activity Centers occurring within 400 meters of all routes (Percentage of 

all Activity Centers in Project Area) 1 

151 

(69%) 

172 

(79%) 

147 

(67%) 

152 

(70%) 

143 

(66%) 

Activity Centers occurring within 60 meters of all routes (Percentage of 

all Activity Centers in Project Area) 1 

31 

(14%) 

41 

(19%) 

31 

(14%) 

33 

(15%) 

29 

(13%) 

Percentage of spotted owl PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of all routes1 

71% 79% 70% 72% 69% 

Percentage of preferred spotted owl habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of all routes1 

65% 82% 61% 70% 61% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and 

NFTS routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the 

data base was last updated. 

Table 3.11-21 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. The effect of open 

motorized routes on spotted owl populations or habitats was not identified as a significant risk factor 

by either the Forest Service (USDA 2004c) or the USFWS (USDI 2006). However, given the 

proportion of spotted owl nest sites and habitat potentially affected, as indicated in the table, and 

considering the projections for future increases in recreation uses and OHV activity, Alternative 2 

may, over time, contribute to measurable cumulative effects upon spotted owl populations. Because 

Alternative 2 does not restrict vehicles to designated routes, there is a high degree of uncertainty 

about where future route proliferation in owl habitat may occur that may have disturbance and habitat 

effects beyond the effects of routes open to motorized use. Alternative 2 presents the greatest risk of 

contributing to adverse cumulative effects upon spotted owl habitat and populations because there 

would not be a prohibition on cross country travel. Alternative 5 contributes the least to cumulative 

effects because cross country travel would be prohibited and open route densities in spotted owl 

habitat would be lowest. Alternatives 4, 1, and 3 would result in progressively lower risk to spotted 

owls due to the amount of motorized routes resulting from each alternative. Considering the 

323 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

proportion of spotted owl habitat influenced by motorized routes and projections for future increases 

in recreation uses and OHV activity, the alternatives may result in minor cumulative impacts when 

combined with other factors affecting spotted owl habitat. Although adding routes to the NFTS and 

opening routes currently closed may result in cumulative impacts, they are very minor in comparison 

to total route densities and other potentially significant impacts (fire, fuels/vegetation treatments). 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The California spotted owl is widespread throughout the Sierra Nevada and the project area. The 

direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative 

effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species. As 

described in the project MIS report (see project record), based on the small proportion of late seral 

closed canopy coniferous forest habitat that is directly, indirectly and cumulatively affected (0% to 

3% of Sierra Nevada habitat) by the alternatives, the Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel 

Management Project will not alter existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the 

distribution of California spotted owl across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. As can be seen from Table 

3.11-22, of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative impact on the species. For 

further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the project MIS and BA/BE reports 

(project record). 

Table 3.11-22 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (California spotted owl) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of routes within PACs2 3 1 4 2 5 

PACs intersected by all routes2 3 1 5 3 4 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers2 3 1 4 2 5 

Activity Centers occurring within 400 meters of routes added to the NFTS or ML1 

roads converted to trails2 

3 1 5 2 4 

Activity Centers occurring within 400 meters of all routes (Percentage of all 

Activity Centers in Project Area) 2 

3 1 4 2 5 

Activity Centers occurring within 60 meters of all routes (Percentage of all Activity 

Centers in Project Area) 2 

4 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of spotted owl PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 meter “zone 

of influence” of all routes2 

3 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of preferred spotted owl habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes2 

3 1 5 2 5 

Average 3.13 1 4.38 2.13 4.78 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has the 

most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) ranking. 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the public. 

Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public right-of-way. 

Northern Goshawk – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The northern goshawk is a large raptor that is found throughout forested habitats of the United States 

(Keane 1999). Although goshawks remain widely distributed throughout their historic range, current 

sampling techniques are inadequate to determine population status or trends of this species (63 FR 

35183). It is estimated that there are around 600 known goshawk territories on NFS lands in the 

Sierra Nevada (USDA 2001). Surveys for goshawks have been conducted on the Forest for 

approximately 20 years. Although these surveys have not covered the Forest in its entirety, they have 

covered a large majority of it. PACs are comprised of the best available habitat encompassing 

approximately 200 acres around to goshawk pairs or territorial singles. Based on systematic surveys 

and incidental sightings, there are currently 76 documented PACs on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Suitable goshawk habitat in the Sierra Nevada consists of dense, multi-layered mature forested stands 

with dense canopy cover for nesting, and dense to moderately open overstories, and open understories 

324 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

interspersed with meadows, shrub patches, riparian areas, or other openings for foraging. Goshawks 

use nest-sites with greater canopy cover, greater basal area, greater numbers of large diameter trees, 

and lower shrub/understory cover relative to random sites. High canopy cover is the most consistent 

structural feature similar across studies of northern goshawk nesting habitat. Goshawks typically nest 

in stands with canopy cover between 60% and 80% (Keane 1999, Maurer 2000). 

Northern Goshawk – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the northern goshawk. Although thresholds for these 

indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within PACs 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of PACs affected by NFTS routes (Percentage of all 

PACs in Project Area) 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of Activity Centers within 400 meters of NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of goshawk PACs (total acres) occurring within a 

400 meter “zone of influence” 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the northern goshawk through the 

following activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on goshawks through changes in behavior and 

habitat modification. 

Changes in Behavior: Types of changes in behavior that may result from the project alternatives 

include the following: displacement or avoidance, disturbance at a specific location, or physiological 

response. Critical times for human disturbance are through the nesting and post fledging period 

(February 15 through September 15). Because goshawks initiate breeding when the ground is still 

covered with snow and roads and trails are not in use, nests are sometimes directly located along 

roads and trails that provide flight access. Following melt-out these sites can be prime candidates for 

conflict as humans begin using the roads and trails (USDA 2001). Northern goshawks are aggressive 

nest defenders that will attack humans that venture into active nest stands. The potential for negative 

human interactions increases where motorized routes or dispersed campsites are in proximity to 

goshawk nest stands (USDA 2001). 

325 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

The Forest Service, Region 5, has generally assumed that activities (including road and trail use) 

occurring farther than 400 meters from a goshawk nest site have little potential to affect goshawk 

nesting (USDA 2004). Grubb et al. (1998) reported that vehicle traffic from roads caused no 

discernable behavioral response by goshawks at distances greater than 400 meters (0.25 miles) from 

nests. Little information is available on disturbance distances for goshawks but, as with other raptors, 

the risk of flushing from the nest or even nest abandonment is likely to increase as the disturbance 

distance decreases. 

Habitat Modification: Roads and trails modify habitat by directly removing it or indirectly by 

reducing its quality. While simple habitat loss is the most obvious, roads and trails also reduce habitat 

quality through fragmentation. Northern goshawks may be affected by edge effects from roads when 

roads and trails fragment suitable habitat. Several studies indicate that goshawks are sensitive to 

changes in forest canopy closure and habitat fragmentation that could result from a network of roads 

(Beier and Drennan 1997, Daw and DeStefano 2001). Roads and trails can result in a reduction in 

interior forest patch size which decreases the amount of habitat available and increases the distance 

between suitable interior forest patches for late-successional species such as the goshawk. 

Hazard tree removal along NFTS roads has the potential to reduce canopy closure and increase 

habitat fragmentation for goshawks. Hazard tree removal is typically conducted along ML 2, 3, 4 and 

5 roads (not trails or ML 1 roads). Closures that are proposed on ML 1 and 2 roads within any of the 

project alternatives would result in a reduction in miles of road on which hazard trees may be 

removed. On the other hand, opening roads currently closed (converting ML1 routes to ML2) would 

result in an increase in miles of road on which hazard trees may be removed. The net amount of 

impact that the project alternatives may have on future hazard tree removal would be minor. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near goshawk activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the risk 

of direct and indirect effects to goshawks from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-24). Standards and 

guidelines in the Forest Plan direct that impacts be mitigated where there is documented evidence of 

disturbance to the nest site from existing road or motorized trail use. The Forest has not monitored 

goshawk nest sites in proximity to roads or trails and has not documented specific instances of 

disturbance. Actual nest locations are often difficult to locate and may move around from year to year 

within a PAC. Therefore, actual nest locations remain unknown for many of the PACs and those nests 

that have been located may have moved since they were last located. Furthermore, it is not well 

known why goshawks choose certain nest sites from year to year, but it is likely that the nest sites will 

continue to move within the PAC over the long term. Activity centers may be defined as a nest site, a 

pair roost location, or a territorial single located within the PAC. In the absence of recent nest site 

locations for every PAC, the relative risk of project alternatives resulting in disturbance to nesting 

goshawks is evaluated by considering the following: (1) the net change in miles of routes within 

PACs, (2) the net change from existing NFTS in number of PACs affected by NFTS routes, (3) the 

net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers, (4) the net 

change from existing NFTS in number of Activity Centers within 400 meters of NFTS routes, and (5) 

the net change from existing NFTS in percentage of goshawk PACs (total acres) occurring within a 

400 meter “zone of influence” (Table 3.11-24). 

Since routes proposed within this alternative are native surface routes with slower rates of travel, they 

would not likely result in any human-caused mortality, but would likely increase disturbance to some 

roosting goshawks within the project area. 

326 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

A detailed PAC-by-PAC analysis was conducted on the routes proposed to be added to PACs, 

proposed to be converted from a closed to open status within PACs, and proposed to be converted 

from open to closed status within PACs. The BA/BE discusses the details of that analysis. Following 

is a summary of that discussion. 

The routes proposed to be added to the NFTS and the routes proposed to be converted from closed to 

open contribute a certain amount of disturbance to the activity center on which each PAC is based. 

Disturbance could result in flushing from nests, roosts, or perches, in alarm responses, and in 

increased stress hormone levels in some individual goshawks. Although actual disturbance effects 

will be largely influenced by site-specific factors, it is assumed that all routes within a PAC may 

result in disturbance to some goshawks. Therefore, if all the routes proposed to be added to the NFTS 

or proposed to be converted from closed to open are further than 400 meters from the activity center 

on which a given PAC is based, it is assumed that the routes under this alternative in that PAC would 

contribute a low level of disturbance to the goshawks at that activity center. If any of the routes 

proposed to be added to the NFTS or proposed to be converted from closed to open are within 400 

meters of the activity center, or if the location of the nest stand is unknown, it is assumed that the 

routes under this alternative in that PAC would contribute a high level of disturbance to the goshawks 

at that activity center. Within certain PACs meeting that criterion, the contribution to disturbance was 

rated as moderate for the reasons given below. 

The following table summarizes the information from the analysis. In the table, the column labeled 

“Disturbance” refers to the contribution of the routes under the alternative to the disturbance to the 

goshawks at each PAC’s activity center. 

Table 3.11-23 Alternative 1: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (Northern goshawk) 

Disturbance Rationale PACs % of total 

High Nest stand not known, so routes could be close to or cross through nest stand 1 1% 

High Routes being added or converted from closed to open less than 400 meters, and no 

intervening topography 

2 3% 

Total of High 3 4% 

Moderate Routes being added or being converted from closed to open nearly 400 meters from 

activity center. Additions less than 10% of total mileage currently drivable in PAC. 

2 3% 

Low Additions >400 meters from activity center 2 3% 

None--Decrease No routes being added or converted from closed to open, but routes are being 

converted from open to closed 

1 1% 

PACs in which routes are being added and/or being converted from closed to open 7 9% 

Routes would be added and/or routes would be converted from a closed to open status in 7 PACs, 9% 

of the PACs in the project area. 

The nest stand location in one PACs (R05F16D51T03 - CLAVEY) is unknown. Because of the 

uncertainty of the nest stand location, the level of contribution to disturbance to the goshawks at this 

PAC’s activity center is deemed high. 

The routes to be added in two PACs (R05F16D54T07 - BIG CREEK BASIN and R05F16D54T25 - 

WOLFIN MEADOW) are within 400 meters of the activity centers, and there is no intervening 

topography to shield the activity centers from the noise generated those routes. Because of these 

reasons, the level of contribution to disturbance to the goshawks at these PACs’ activity centers is 

considered high. 

The level of contribution to disturbance at the activity centers of two PACs (R05F16D51T20 ­

UPPER HULL CREEK and R05F16D54T40 - RUSH CREEK), while the routes to be added are 

within 400 meters of the activity center and the intervening topography would not shield the activity 

centers from the noise generated those routes, is considered moderate because (1) the additions are 

less than 10% of the total mileage currently drivable in the PACs, and (2) the routes being added are 

327 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

nearly 400 meters from the activity center, 350 meters from the Upper Hull Creek PAC’s activity 

center and 370 meters from the Rush Creek PAC’s activity center.. 

In two of the PACs (R05F16D52T26 - LONG GULCH and R05F16D51T09 - TROUT CREEK), the 

routes to be added would be more than 400 meters from the activity center. The level of contribution 

to disturbance is considered low because of the distance of these routes from the PACs’ activity 

centers. 

The total number of PACs in which the level of contribution to disturbance is moderate to high is 5 

PACs, 7% of the total. 

There is one PACs (1% of the total in the project area) in which no routes would be added, no routes 

would be converted from a closed to open status, and a route would be converted from an open to 

closed status. The disturbance to goshawks in the PAC would be decreased. 

An assumption, given earlier in this document that based on existing research, motorized use along all 

routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of activity centers would result in some disturbance to nesting 

goshawks. However, there is no current research showing at what distance disturbance could cause 

reproductive failure. There is anecdotal information showing that goshawks do reproduce even when 

there are motorized routes within 400 meters of the activity center. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest, there are 76 known goshawk activity centers. There is available 

data on 23, or 30%, of those activity centers. The 23 activity centers are located on the Summit and 

Groveland Ranger Districts, 11 on Summit and 12 on Groveland. Of those 23, the goshawks at 17 

(74% of the 23) had young in at least one year recorded in the database consulted. The number of 

years in which surveys of the activity centers were recorded varied from 1 to 8 years. Most have 

records of surveys from two to four years. Of those 17, 13 (76% of the 17) have at least one route that 

is considered drivable. That is, the route is (1) ML1 (closed), (2) ML2, (3) ML3, (4) administrative 

use, (5) unauthorized, (6) other public, or (7) private. (Not included are routes that (1) have been 

closed by NEPA, (2) have been decommissioned, or (3) are overgrown.) Details on this analysis can 

be found in the project record. 

This data is not sufficient to offer statistically valid proof that goshawks nesting within 400 meters of 

routes successfully reproduce. However, if certain assumptions are accepted, this data supports the 

conclusion that, while the level of contribution of disturbance from routes in a goshawk PAC within 

400 meters of the activity center is considered high, the disturbance would be likely to disrupt 

goshawk reproduction in only a limited number of PACs. Two assumptions apply to all the analyses 

in this document, and are stated in the list of assumptions at the beginning of Chapter 3.11: 

 All vehicle classes result in the same amount of disturbance effects to wildlife, unless there is 

local information enabling a separate analysis by vehicle class. 

 Location of a route is equal to disturbance effects from that route (i.e., assume all routes provide 

the same level of disturbance), unless local data or knowledge indicate otherwise. 

Additional assumptions are as follows: 

 The activity centers on which data is available is representative of all the activity centers on the 

Forest. Summit District includes the higher elevation activity centers, and Groveland includes the 

lower elevation activity centers. Thus, in terms of elevation, the activity centers are representative 

of the activity centers on the Forest. 

 Routes that are classed as ML1 and routes that are unauthorized are currently being used. Field 

review for this and other projects has shown that many ML1 routes are not physically closed, and 

so are often being used. The routes designated as unauthorized exist on the ground, and were 

created by users. 

328 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

 The quality of the habitat in the 17 PACs in which reproduction has been noted is similar to that 

in the 6 PACs in which reproduction has not been noted. 

The changes proposed under this alternative would reduce the effects from the existing condition 

because cross country travel would be prohibited, not all unauthorized routes would be added to the 

NFTS, and some routes would be converted from an open to closed status. Since in only 7% of the 

PACs would routes be added to the NFTS or converted from a closed to open status within 400 

meters of the activity center, and since it is believed that disturbance within 400 meters of the activity 

center would be likely to affect goshawk reproduction in a limited number of PACs, it is concluded 

that the alternative would not result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or 

long term. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, goshawks may start nesting in February. 

Therefore, seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) would 

overlap the beginning of the nesting period. Since approximately 96% of the goshawk PACs would 

be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to most goshawks during the early 

nesting period. The season of use would not apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance 

to individuals would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions prohibit WOS use. 

Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The types of mitigation measures that would be implemented within PACs and 

within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of activity centers include the following: tread hardening, drain dips, 

and fence/log/rock barriers. Implementation of these mitigation measures would include hand tool 

and machine work that may result in short-term disturbance to individual foraging or roosting 

goshawks within the project area. To prevent potential disturbance to nesting goshawks, machine 

work on routes through PACs or within 400 meters of activity centers would not be completed until 

the end of the nesting season. Disturbance to foraging and roosting goshawks outside of the nesting 

season would not likely reduce any individual goshawk’s fitness and would not result in any 

population level impacts within the project area. 

Table 3.11-24 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (northern goshawk) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within PACs1 + 1.43 

PACs affected by additions to NFTS and by conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all PACs in 

Project Area) 

+ 7 (+ 9%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 1 + 1.55 

Activity Centers within 400 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

+ 7 (+ 9%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of goshawk PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence”2 

+ 8% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

329 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Approximately 161,200 acres of 

preferred goshawk habitat (the same habitat in broad-scale terms as that for the California spotted 

owl) are open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to goshawks. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. In addition, creation of new routes could 

alter habitat and increase fragmentation through the removal of vegetation. 

Season of Use: The seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only 

those that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to goshawks. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near goshawk activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the risk 

of direct and indirect effects to goshawks from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to goshawks. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near goshawk activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the risk 

of direct and indirect effects to goshawks from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-26). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. For further discussion regarding those effects please see discussion above. 

The same detailed PAC-by-PAC analysis was conducted for Alternative 4 as for Alternative 1 on the 

routes proposed to be added to PACs, proposed to be converted from a closed to open status within 

PACs, and proposed to be converted from open to closed status within PACs. The same assumptions 

were used in ranking the routes within the alternative as contributing a high, moderate, or low level of 

disturbance to the owls at each activity center. The BA/BE discusses the details of that analysis. 

Following is a summary of that discussion. 

330 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

There are some PACs under Alternative 4 which would have additions and/or conversions from a 

closed to open status in them but which would not have either of those types of changes under 

Alternative 1. Some PACs which would have those types of changes under Alternative 1 would have 

more changes under Alternative 4. Some PACs which would have changes from an open to a closed 

status under Alternative 1 would have none of or fewer than those types of changes under Alternative 

4. Table 3.11-25 summarizes the findings from the analysis. 

Table 3.11-25 Alternative 4: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (Northern goshawk) 

Disturbance Rationale PACs % of total 

High Nest stand not known, so routes could be close to or cross through nest stand 2 3% 

High Routes being added or converted from closed to open less than 400 meters, and no 

intervening topography 

5 7% 

Total of High 7 9% 

Moderate Routes being added or being converted from closed to open nearly 400 meters from 

activity center. Additions less than 10% of total mileage currently drivable in PAC. 

2 3% 

Low Additions >400 meters from activity center 3 4% 

PACs in which routes are being added and/or being converted from closed to open 12 16% 

Routes would be added and/or routes would be converted from a closed to open status in 12 PACs, 

16% of the PACs in the project area. 

The nest stand locations in two PACs (R05F16D51T03 - CLAVEY RIVER and R05F16D51T03 - 

CLAVEY RIVER) are unknown. Because of the uncertainty of the nest stand location, the level of 

contribution to disturbance to the goshawks in this PAC is deemed high. 

The routes to be added in five PACs are within 400 meters of the activity centers, and there is no 

intervening topography to shield the activity centers from the noise generated those routes. Because 

of these reasons, the level of contribution to disturbance to the goshawks in the PACs is considered 

high. 

The level of contribution to disturbance at the activity centers of two PACs (R05F16D51T20 ­

UPPER HULL CREEK and R05F16D54T40 - RUSH CREEK), while the routes to be added are 

within 400 meters of the activity center and the intervening topography would not shield the activity 

centers from the noise generated those routes, is considered moderate because (1) the additions are 

less than 10% of the total mileage currently drivable in the PACs, and (2) the routes being added are 

nearly 400 meters from the activity center, 350 meters from the Upper Hull Creek PAC’s activity 

center and 370 meters from the Rush Creek PAC’s activity center.. 

In three PACs the routes to be added or converted from closed to open would be more than 400 

meters from the activity center at its closest point. The level of contribution to disturbance is 

considered low because of the distance of this route from the PACs’ activity centers. 

The total number of PACs in which the level of contribution to disturbance is moderate to high is 9 

PACs, 12% of the total. 

The changes proposed under Alternative 4 would reduce the effects from the existing condition 

because cross country travel would be prohibited, not all unauthorized routes would be added to the 

NFTS, and some routes would be converted from an open to closed status. Since in only 12% of the 

PACs would routes be added to the NFTS or converted from a closed to open status within 400 

meters of the activity center, and since it is believed that disturbance within 400 meters of the activity 

center would be likely to affect goshawk reproduction in a limited number of PACs (see discussion 

under Alternative 1 above), it is concluded that the alternative would not result in impacts to 

populations within the project area over the short or long term. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

331 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, goshawks may start nesting in February. 

Therefore, seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) would 

overlap the beginning of the nesting period. Since approximately 96% of the goshawk PACs would 

be within these zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to most goshawks during the early 

nesting period. The season of use would not apply to WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance 

to individuals would not be reduced along these routes except when conditions prohibit WOS use. 

Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-26 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (northern goshawk) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within PACs1 + 3.48 

PACs affected by additions to NFTS and by conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all PACs 

in Project Area) 

+ 12 (16%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers 1 + 3.30 

Activity Centers within 400 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

+ 10 (+ 13%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of goshawk PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” 2 

+ 12% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near goshawk activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce the risk 

of direct and indirect effects to goshawks from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-28). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. For further discussion regarding those effects please see discussion above. In the 

absence of further research, it is assumed that motorized use along all routes within 400 meters (0.25 

mile) of activity centers would result in some disturbance to nesting goshawks. Based on that 

assumption, approximately 1% of activity centers would receive some disturbance from routes added 

to the NFTS and routes that would be opened. Since the change to the existing NFTS is a decrease in 

the miles of NFTS within PACs and near activity centers, there would be a decrease from the other 

alternatives in the direct and indirect effects on goshawks within the project area. Although these 

effects would impact individuals and some reproducing pairs over the short term, they would not 

result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long term. 

The same detailed PAC-by-PAC analysis was conducted for Alternative 5 as for Alternative 1 on the 

routes proposed to be added to PACs, proposed to be converted from a closed to open status within 

PACs, and proposed to be converted from open to closed status within PACs. The same assumptions 

were used in ranking the routes within the alternative as contributing a high, moderate, or low level of 

disturbance to the owls at each activity center. The BA/BE discusses the details of that analysis. 

Following is a summary of that discussion. 

332 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

There are some PACs under Alternative 1 which would have additions and/or conversions from a 

closed to open status in them but which would not have either of those types of changes under 

Alternative 5. Some PACs which would have those types of changes under Alternative 5 would have 

more changes under Alternative 1. Some PACs which would have changes from an open to a closed 

status under Alternative 5 would have none of or fewer than those types of changes under Alternative 

1. Table 3.11-27 summarizes the findings from the analysis. 

Table 3.11-27 Alternative 5: Summary of PAC-by-PAC Analysis (Northern goshawk) 

Disturbance Rationale PACs % of total 

High Nest stand not known, so routes could be close to or cross through nest stand 1 1% 

Moderate Routes being added or being converted from closed to open nearly 400 meters from 

activity center. Additions less than 10% of total mileage currently drivable in PAC. 

1 1% 

None--Decrease No routes being added or converted from closed to open, but routes are being 

converted from open to closed 

3 4% 

PACs in which routes are being added and/or being converted from closed to open 3 3% 

Routes would be added and/or routes would be converted from a closed to open status in 2 PACs, 3% 

of the PACs in the project area. 

The route being converted from a closed to open status in one PAC (R05F16D54T07 - BIG CREEK 

BASIN) is within 400 meters of the activity centers, and there is no intervening topography to shield 

the activity center from the disturbance generated on that route. Because of these reasons, the level of 

contribution to disturbance to the goshawks in the PAC is considered high. 

The level of contribution to disturbance at the activity center for one PAC (R05F16D51T20 - UPPER 

HULL CREEK), while the route to be added is within 400 meters of the activity center and the 

intervening topography would not shield the activity center from the disturbance generated by that 

route, is considered moderate because (1) the addition is less than 4% of the total mileage currently 

drivable in the PAC, and (2) the route being added is nearly 400 meters (350 meters) from the activity 

center.. 

The total number of PACs in which the level of contribution to disturbance is moderate to high is 2 

PACs, 3% of the total. 

There are three PACs (4% of the total in the project area) in which no routes would be added, no 

routes would be converted from a closed to open status, and routes would be converted from an open 

to closed status. The disturbance to goshawks in these PACs would be decreased. 

The changes proposed under Alternative 5 would reduce the effects from the existing condition 

because cross country travel would be prohibited, not all unauthorized routes would be added to the 

NFTS, and some routes would be converted from an open to closed status. Since in only 3% of the 

PACs would routes be added to the NFTS or converted from a closed to open status within 400 

meters of the activity center, and since it is believed that disturbance within 400 meters of the activity 

center would be likely to affect goshawk reproduction in a limited number of PACs (see discussion 

under Alternative 1 above), it is concluded that the alternative would not result in impacts to 

populations within the project area over the short or long term. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, goshawks may start nesting in February. 

Therefore, seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) would 

333 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

overlap the beginning of the nesting period. Since approximately 96% of the goshawk PACs would 

be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to most goshawks during the early 

nesting period. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-28 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (northern goshawk) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within PACs1 -- 1.74 

PACs affected by additions to NFTS and by conversion from closed to open (Percentage of all PACs in 

Project Area) 

+ 1 (+ 1%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers1 -- 2.00 

Activity Centers within 400 meters of additions to NFTS and of conversion from closed to open 

(Percentage of all Activity Centers in Project Area) 

+ 1 (+ 1%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of goshawk PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence”2 

-- 2% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 400 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

In 2001 and 2004 the Forest Service amended 11 Sierra Nevada Forest Plans to better address the 

needs of old forest-associated species (USDA 2001 and 2004c). During this assessment, the following 

risk factors were identified for northern goshawks in the Sierra Nevada: (1) changes to the amount 

and quality of goshawk habitat from timber harvest and fuels treatments; (2) loss of breeding 

territories due to stand replacing fires; and (3) breeding site disturbance from vegetation treatments, 

human recreation, or falconry harvest. Fuels reduction treatments and wildfire effects are identified as 

the predominant effectors of goshawk habitat. Appendix B provides a list and description of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Stanislaus National Forest and private lands 

within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these activities will contribute to effects upon 

northern goshawks. 

Based on GIS analysis, 3 wildfires have burned through 3 goshawk PACs (4%) affecting 

approximately 28 acres or less than 1% of those PACs since 2000. Forest vegetation/fuels thinning 

projects (designed to reduce the risk of additional habitat loss to wildfires) have treated approximately 

788 acres or 5% of goshawk PACs between 2000 and 2008. CDF currently lists a total of 2,365 acres 

of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber 

harvest plans have been submitted. Timber harvest on private lands is generally more intensive and 

does not typically maintain habitat suitability for spotted owls. These wildfires, fuels treatment, and 

timber harvest projects have resulted in reduction in the amount and quality of goshawk habitat within 

the Stanislaus National Forest boundary. 

Vegetation/fuels reduction projects will continue to be the primary activity affecting goshawk habitat 

on the Stanislaus National Forest (Appendix B). These projects will likely occur on an estimated 

3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Although these treatments will degrade 

habitat in the short term, it is anticipated that, over time, the amount of habitat removed in stand 

replacing wildfires will be reduced as a result of these treatments (USDA 2004c). 

The effect of open motorized routes on goshawk populations or habitats was not identified as a 

significant risk factor by the Forest Service, but breeding site disturbance from human recreation was 

addressed (USDA 2001 and 2004c). Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to 

increase on the Stanislaus National Forest (see 3.04 Recreation Resources, Affected Environment. 

334 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of recreation based upon 

State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). Approximately 5 miles of new trail 

construction, as well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been 

proposed for the future (separate from the this project). These trails are proposed to provide 

“connector routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical dispersed 

camping opportunities. The effects of these routes would be similar to those described under direct 

and indirect effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior; and habitat modification through loss of 

habitat and further fragmentation of habitat. 

Since human disturbance has been recognized as a significant risk factor, non-motorized recreation 

(hiking, cycling, and equestrian use) may result in additional disturbance to nesting and foraging 

goshawks. Non-motorized recreation occurs along an additional 394 miles of summer trails. Human 

disturbance from use of non-motorized routes contributes to the direct and indirect effects of the 

project alternatives. 

Table 3.11-29 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. Given the proportion of 

goshawk nest sites and habitat potentially affected, as indicated in the table, and considering the 

projections for future increases in recreation uses and OHV activity (see 3.04 Recreation Resource), 

Alternative 2 may, over time, contribute measurably to cumulative effects upon goshawk populations. 

Because Alternative 2 does not restrict vehicles to designated routes, there is a high degree of 

uncertainty about future route proliferation in goshawk habitat which may have disturbance and 

habitat effects beyond the effects of routes open to motorized use. The action alternatives do not 

result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but noise and traffic disturbance would influence 

habitat use and availability where goshawks may be present. Alternative 5 contributes the least to 

cumulative effects on this species because cross country travel would be prohibited and open route 

densities in goshawk habitat are lowest. Alternatives 4, 1, and 3 would result in progressively lower 

risk to goshawks due to the amount of motorized routes resulting from each of these alternatives. 

Although the action alternatives may result in cumulative impacts, they are fairly minor in 

comparison to potentially significant impacts (fire, fuels/vegetation treatments, timber harvest on 

private land). 

Table 3.11-29 Drivable Routes in northern goshawk habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Miles of routes within PACs1 59.19 79.45 57.47 61.64 56.02 

PACs intersected by all routes (Percentage of all PACs in Project Area) 1 61 

(80%) 

68 

(89%) 

60 

(79%) 

61 

(80%) 

61 

(80%) 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers1 42.87 59.79 40.86 45.14 39.38 

Activity Centers occurring within 400 meters of all routes (Percentage of 

all Activity Centers in Project Area) 1 

22 

(29%) 

22 

(29%) 

22 

(29%) 

22 

(29%) 

22 

(29%) 

Percentage of PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes1 72% 83% 71% 72% 70% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The northern goshawk is widespread throughout the western United States and the project area. The 

direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative 

effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species. As 

can be seen from Table 3.11-30, of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative 

impact on the species. For further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the 

project BA/BE (project record). 

335 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest 

Table 3.11-30 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (northern goshawk) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives for 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of routes within PACs2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

PACs intersected by all routes2,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of Activity Centers2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Activity Centers occurring within 400 meters of all routes2,

3 3 3 3 3 3 

Percentage of PACs (total acres) occurring within a 400 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes2,

3 

3 1 3 2 5 

Average 3 1.4 3.8 2.40 4.2 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the 

public. Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public rightof-way.
 

3 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the 

miles of open routes under Alternative 3.
 

Ungulates 

Mule Deer – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The mule deer is found throughout the western United States and is the only large ungulate that 

inhabits Stanislaus National Forest. Mule deer populations throughout the western United States, 

including the Sierra Nevada of California, reached their peak in the middle of the 20th century and 

have since declined (Gill 1999, Salwasser et al. 1978). More recently, mule deer populations 

(estimated by buck harvest and winter range counts) within the project area have been stable to 

slightly decreasing and below management objectives (CDFG 1980, CDFG 1984). For example, 

between 1994 and 2006, the fawn to doe ratio (a measure of fawn survivability, which is an accepted 

indicator of deer population trend) for the Stanislaus deer herd averaged 29 fawns per 100 does, and, 

for the Tuolumne herd, 33 fawns per 100 does (2007nberg 2008). The situation is similar for the 

Railroad Flat and Yosemite herds, the other two migratory deer herds that use the Stanislaus. Based 

on a 20 percent adult doe mortality rate of collared does from 1987 to 1996, the spring fawn to doe 

ratio must be 45 fawns or more per 100 does to maintain the population (Ibid.). 

It is generally agreed that mule deer within the project area exhibit two different life history 

strategies: migrational and resident. Resident deer spend the majority of their lives at lower 

elevations, exhibiting little or no seasonal movement between elevational habitat types. Although it 

has been recognized since the mid 20th century that these two life history strategies are exhibited, 

there has been little to no research focused on resident deer (Leopold et al. 1951). It is possible that an 

individual may exhibit both life history strategies over the course of their lives (i.e., an adult doe may 

migrate to summer range one year and not the next), and it is generally recognized and assumed that 

individuals expressing either strategy regularly coexist and interbreed on the winter range and during 

the rut. For example, Browning et al. (1973) stated that, “it is known . . . that some of the deer [from 

the Rail Road Flat herd] migrate west of the Rail Road Flat and Sheep Ranch roads to winter with the 

resident black-tailed deer.” Since resident deer are closely associated with human development near 

the Forest boundary, this analysis will focus on the effects to the migrant deer herds within the project 

area. The migrant deer move down the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada to lower elevations with 

the onset of the rut and first snowfalls. After completing the rut and spending the winter at lower 

elevations, they follow “spring green-up” and migrate back to higher elevations where does will 

typically fawn and spend the summer. Some of the deer migrate to the east side of the Sierra crest. 

Mule deer are a habitat generalist, found throughout numerous plant communities within the project 

area, but are primarily dependent on early successional vegetation types. Meadow habitat is of 

considerable importance to mule deer, especially on the summer range. Monitoring of the condition 

336 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

and trend of Sierra montane meadows indicates that meadow condition across the bioregion shows a 

slight upward trend (Green 2003). 

In general, there are three key habitats that migrating mule deer depend on to complete their life 

history: winter range, summer range, and migration corridors. The 2001 SNFPA further delineated 

summer and winter range habitat as follows: general winter range (309.6 mi2 on the Forest), winter 

concentration areas (164.91 mi2

), critical winter range (55.12 mi2), summer concentration areas 

(187.33 mi2

), and critical summer range (24.71 mi2) (USDA 2001). Since individuals of all herds of 

mule deer within the project area coexist and interbreed, this analysis focuses on the effects to 

delineated summer (concentration and critical) and winter (concentration and critical) range habitats. 

Mule Deer – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the mule deer. Although thresholds for these indicators 

have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the project 

alternatives may be compared. 

Summer Concentration Areas 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within summer concentration areas. 

 Existing density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer 

concentration areas. 

 Density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer 

concentration areas with proposed designated routes (additional density). 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of summer concentration areas occurring within a 

200-meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 

Critical Summer Range 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical summer range. 

 Existing density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical 

summer range. 

 Density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer 

range with proposed designated routes (additional density). 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical summer range occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 

Winter Concentration Areas 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within winter concentration areas. 

 Existing density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter 

concentration areas. 

 Density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter 

concentration areas with proposed designated routes (additional density). 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of winter concentration areas occurring within a 

200-meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 

Critical Winter Range 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical winter range. 

337 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

 Existing density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical 

winter range. 

 Density (mi/mi2) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter 

range with proposed designated routes (additional density). 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical winter range occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the mule deer through the 

following activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on mule deer through the following: humancaused mortality, changes in behavior, or habitat modification. 

Human-Caused Mortality: In general, types of human-caused mortality that have been identified for 

the mule deer include collisions. Collisions with motorized vehicles have been identified as one of the 

greatest risks to mule deer populations (USDA 2004c). Collisions are typically associated with wellmaintained roads that allow high rates of travel (e.g. highways). Routes proposed for designation 

within the project alternatives are native surfaced routes that allow only much slower rates of travel. 

These types of routes result in far fewer collisions than highways or paved routes and would likely 

have an insignificant impact on mule deer mortality within the project area. 

Changes in Behavior: The types of changes in behavior that have been identified for the mule deer 

include displacement or avoidance and disturbance at a specific location. Deer responses to 

recreational uses have not been studied in detail, making it difficult to make reliable inferences. In 

general, however, studies show that mule deer will move away from, or flush, from an approaching 

person and will usually allow a person in or on a vehicle to get closer than a person on foot (Wisdom 

et al. 2004). Wisdom et al. (Ibid.) found that mule deer showed little measurable flight response to 

experimental OHV treatments but cautioned that deer may well be responding with fine-scale changes 

in habitat use (i.e., avoidance), rather than substantial increases in movement rates and flight 

responses. Although several studies have found that mule deer avoid areas in proximity to roads, 

Boroski and Mossman (1998) found that human disturbance did not impede mule deer use of water 

sources. 

Road density has traditionally been used as an indicator for habitat effectiveness models (Perry and 

Overly 1977, Thomas et al. 1979). These models indicate that, as open road density increases, deer 

use declines (Thomas et al. 1979). Deer avoid primary roads more than secondary or tertiary roads 

and also avoid roads more in open habitats as opposed to areas with vegetative or topographic cover 

(Thomas et al. 1979). The displacement distances vary between 200 and 800 meters (approximately 

650 and 2,620 feet) in various studies, depending upon the road type and traffic level, and the 

surrounding habitat (Perry and Overly 1977, Rost and Bailey 1979, Johnson et al. 2000). Main roads 

were found to reduce deer use up to 0.5 miles (800 m), whereas secondary and primitive roads 

reduced deer densities from between 200 to 400 meters (approximately 650 to 1,310 feet) in these 

studies. Additional variables such as the amount and frequency of traffic, and the spatial distribution 

of roads in relation to deer use, influence the degree of negative effects that roads have on deer use in 

forested habitats (Perry and Overly 1977, Johnson et al. 2000, deVos et al. 2003). 

338 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Changes in behavior, expressed through flight response or changes in habitat use may reduce the 

fitness of individuals within a herd (Yarmoloy et al. 1988). Adverse effects to fitness may be 

measured through reduced fat or energy reserves. Adverse effects to energy reserves are typically the 

most significant during the winter when mule deer may already be experiencing low energy reserves 

and reduced food availability (Livezey 1991). If an individual’s energy reserves are depleted to low 

enough levels on the winter range they may die (starvation) or experience reduced reproductive 

success the following spring. Therefore, if disturbance from motorized vehicles was having a 

significant impact on mule deer populations within the winter range it would likely result in 

malnutrition or mortality from starvation. 

Numerous cases of large winter die-offs, caused by starvation, have been documented throughout the 

western United States (Leopold et al. 1947). Herds may be particularly prone to large scale die-offs 

from starvation when (1) snow depths are great and deer are unable to migrate to lower elevations 

(below the snow level) or (2) herd size exceeds winter range carrying capacity. Winter habitat within 

the project area extends over a broad elevational range, which typically allows mule deer to move 

down the slope and below significant snow depths. Although there are historic records of large-scale 

winter die-offs within the project area (Leopold et al. 1951), literature and anecdotal evidence do not 

indicate that starvation is a significant or limiting factor to mule deer herds on the Stanislaus National 

Forest (CDFG 1980, CDFG 1981, CDFG 1984). 

Another way in which mule deer populations may be impacted, by reduced fat or energy reserves is 

through reduced reproductive fitness or fawn production. Yarmoloy et al. (1988) found significant 

reductions in fawn production from does which were intentionally harassed by ATVs. Although it is 

not well understood how harassment causes reduced fawn production, a mature doe that successfully 

breeds during the rut may not successfully carry the fawn to full term due to stress or inadequate 

nutrition. Low fawn recruitment is the factor that likely caused declines in the latter part of the 20th 

century throughout the Sierra Nevada and the factor that is currently attributed to limiting herd 

growth within the project area (Salwasser et al. 1978, CDFG 1984). Annual fall deer count data and 

recent findings from a radio telemetry study conducted within the project area indicate results similar 

to mortality factors discussed by CDFG (1984): a low proportion of fawns are surviving through the 

summer and making it onto winter range (Annual Deer Count Data - project record). Results from this 

study and spring deer counts further showed that seasonal fawn mortality was similar to that found on 

the Kings River deer herd by Salwasser et al. (1978), indicating that significant fawn mortality occurs 

within the first few months following birth and that winter fawn mortality was minor (Ibid.). CDFG 

(2007) reported that 50% of early fawn losses were attributed to predation from bears, while the other 

50% “were found dead with no apparent cause”. Furthermore, they concluded that early fawn 

mortality was likely underestimated since captured fawns were more than a week old. Although early 

fawn mortality may have a significant impact on recruitment and mule deer populations within the 

project area, the causes for these losses may be numerous and are largely unknown. 

Habitat Modification: Roads and trails modify habitat by directly removing it. In addition, meadow 

habitat quality may be affected in different ways by motorized travel. The most obvious way 

motorized vehicles may impair meadow quality is through direct mechanical damage (rutting). Since 

soil typically has lower bulk density and can be more easily penetrated when it is wet, mechanical 

damage often occurs in meadows that are naturally wet or in dry meadows after significant rainfall or 

immediately following the retreat of the snow at higher elevations. When roads or trails are created in 

meadows they may intercept surface and subsurface flow (Kattelmann 1996). When flows are 

intercepted and redirected, meadow drying occurs, changing the flora associated with it. A change in 

flora can impact deer, especially pregnant and lactating does, by removing forage plants and by 

removing hiding cover. 

339 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within all types of mule deer habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect 

effects to mule deer from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-31). Actions 

proposed in this alternative would not likely result in measurable increases in human-caused 

mortality, but would likely cause disturbance to some mule deer within the project area. Resulting 

road densities and percentages of habitat influenced by motorized vehicles on summer and winter 

range would likely result in disturbance to some individuals. They would not likely have a 

measurable impact to populations. Mule deer within the project area are generally in fairly good 

condition on the winter range and starvation is not currently a significant factor impacting mule deer 

populations. Current levels of motorized use on the winter range are not likely having a substantial 

impact on mule deer populations through malnutrition or starvation. The causes of early fawn losses 

are poorly understood; motorized use could be one of those causes. The amount of disturbance to 

mule deer in the different ranges would decrease from the existing condition (existing NFTS routes 

and unauthorized routes), as shown by the decrease in route density and percent of habitats affected 

by routes (Table 3.11-31). 

Table 3.11-31 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mule deer) 

Indicators 

Summer Concentration Areas 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within summer concentration areas1 12.47 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer 

concentration areas 0.79 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer concentration 

areas, including changes (additional density) 0.85 (0.06) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of summer concentration areas occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 2.15% 

Critical Summer Range 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical summer range1 0.75 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer 

range 

0.52 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer range, 

including changes (additional density) 0.55 (0.03) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical summer range occurring within a 200-meter 

(approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 1.08% 

Winter Concentration Areas 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within winter concentration areas1 31.70 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter 

concentration areas 1.75 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter concentration 

areas, including changes (additional density) 2.05 (0.3) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of winter concentration areas occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 4.82% 

Critical Winter Range 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical winter range1 11.78 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter 

range 

1.44 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter range, 

including changes (additional density) 1.82 (0.38) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical winter range occurring within a 200-meter 

(approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 4.76% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

340 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Field surveys were completed on all routes that were proposed to be added to the NFTS within 

meadows. The purpose of the field surveys was to determine whether the route would have the 

potential to affect hydrology within the meadow. These surveys indicated that the routes that were 

proposed to be added within meadows would not significantly alter their hydrology (see 3.10 Water 

and RCO Analysis in project record). However, some routes were identified as needing mitigation to 

improve hydrologic conditions. Effects of the mitigation measures on this species are discussed 

below. 

Since these impacts would affect a small percentage of habitat (Table 3.11-31), these actions would 

likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project 

area over the short or long-term. 

Season of Use: Mule deer spend a significant portion of the year at lower elevations and may be 

particularly prone to disturbance on winter range. This alternative would result in seasonal closures 

(as identified for each route in Appendix I) on approximately 73% of winter concentration areas and 

73% of critical winter range. These closures would reduce disturbance to deer, therefore providing 

beneficial impacts to individuals within the project area. 

Mitigation Measures: The types of mitigation measures that would be implemented within mule deer 

habitat include the following: tread hardening, drain dips, fence/log/rock barriers, and hardened 

stream crossings. Implementation of these mitigation measures would include hand tool and machine 

work that would result in short-term disturbance to individual deer within the project area. This 

amount of disturbance would not likely reduce any individual deer’s fitness. The proposed mitigation 

measures would in the long term improve hydrologic conditions, and therefore meadow habitat. 

Meadow habitat is key to mule deer, especially on the summer range. Because of the low level of 

disturbance and the relatively minor improvements to deer habitat, the mitigation measures would not 

result in any population level impacts within the project area. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. The amounts of deer ranges open 

to cross country travel are as follows: (1) summer concentration areas—68,900 acres; (2) critical 

summer range—7,000 acres; (3) winter concentration areas—105,500 acres; (4) critical winter 

range—35,300. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to mule deer. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. In addition, creation of new routes could 

alter habitat through the removal of vegetation. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to mule deer. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes identified as needing 

mitigation, causing a potential degradation of meadow habitat. 

341 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within mule deer habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to 

mule deer from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to mule deer. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes identified as needing 

mitigation, causing a potential degradation of meadow habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within mule deer habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to 

mule deer from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-32). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight increase from Alternative 1 in the net change in miles of routes 

within summer and winter range habitat, there would be a slight increase in the direct and indirect 

effects to mule deer within the project area. Although these increases over Alternative 1 would result 

in more individuals being impacted, these increases would not likely be significant enough to result in 

impacts to mule deer populations within the project area. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat. Vegetation 

along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS routes that would be 

closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase in habitat quantity. 

Season of Use: Mule deer spend a significant portion of the year at lower elevations and may be 

particularly prone to disturbance on winter range. This alternative would result in seasonal closures 

(as identified for each route in Appendix I) on approximately 73% of winter concentration areas and 

73% of critical winter range. These closures would reduce disturbance to deer, therefore providing 

beneficial impacts to individuals within the project area. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

342 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.11-32 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mule deer) 

Indicators 

Summer Concentration Areas 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within summer concentration areas1 12.93 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer 

concentration areas 0.79 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer concentration 

areas, including changes (additional density) 0.85 (0.06) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of summer concentration areas occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 2.48% 

Critical Summer Range 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical summer range1 0.75 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer 

range 

0.52 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer range, 

including changes (additional density) 0.55 (0.03) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical summer range occurring within a 200-meter 

(approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 1.54% 

Winter Concentration Areas 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within winter concentration areas1 60.74 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter 

concentration areas 1.75 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter concentration 

areas, including changes (additional density) 2.05 (0.3) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of winter concentration areas occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 8.92% 

Critical Winter Range 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical winter range1 21.48 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter 

range 

1.44 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter range, 

including changes (additional density) 1.82 (0.38) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical winter range occurring within a 200-meter 

(approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 9.03% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within mule deer habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to 

mule deer from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-33). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since the change to the existing NFTS is a decrease in the miles of NFTS, there would 

be a decrease from Alternative 1 in the direct and indirect effects on mule deer within the project area. 

Although these effects would impact individuals, they would not result in impacts to mule 

populations within the project area. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat. Vegetation 

along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS routes that would be 

closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase in habitat quantity. 

343 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Season of Use: Mule deer spend a significant portion of the year at lower elevations and may be 

particularly prone to disturbance when concentrated on winter range. This alternative would result in 

seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I) on approximately 73% of winter 

concentration areas and 73% of critical winter range. These closures would reduce disturbance to 

deer, therefore providing beneficial impacts to individuals within the project area. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-33 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mule deer) 

Indicators 

Summer Concentration Areas 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within summer concentration areas1 2.13 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer 

concentration areas 0.79 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within summer concentration 

areas, including changes (additional density) 0.85 (0.06) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of summer concentration areas occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 0.65% 

Critical Summer Range 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical summer range1 -- 0.61 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer 

range 

0.52 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical summer range, 

including changes (additional density) 0.55 (0.03) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical summer range occurring within a 200-meter 

(approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 -- 0.56% 

Winter Concentration Areas 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within winter concentration areas1 -- 11.15 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter 

concentration areas 1.75 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within winter concentration 

areas, including changes (additional density) 2.05 (0.3) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of winter concentration areas occurring within a 200­

meter (approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 -- 0.86% 

Critical Winter Range 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within critical winter range1 -- 6.56 

Existing density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter 

range 

1.44 

Density (mi/mi2

) of routes under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction within critical winter range, 

including changes (additional density) 1.82 (0.38) 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of critical winter range occurring within a 200-meter 

(approximately 650-foot) “zone of influence” 2 -- 2.70% 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed 

status (all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS PLUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 

meter “zone of influence” of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS percentage of habitat occurring within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of 

routes converted from open to closed status 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the 

Stanislaus National Forest and private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

activities will contribute to effects upon mule deer. CDFG (1998) identified the following primary 

factors influencing deer populations in the central Sierra Nevada: (1) reduced forage availability 

resulting from fire exclusion; (2) reduced forage and cover resulting from logging, forest thinning, 

and/or herbicide treatments; (3) reduced forage and cover resulting from livestock grazing in 

meadows; and (4) loss of habitat to private land development. 

Within the project area, hazardous fuels reduction and associated timber harvest have occurred on 

approximately 25,410 acres of NFS land since 2000 (Appendix B). These treatments are anticipated 

344 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

to be the primary activity that will alter forest vegetation within deer ranges over the next several 

years. These projects will likely occur on an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage 

treated in 2006. Poor forage condition has largely resulted from fire suppression and changing forest 

management practices on public and private land (forest thinning treatments, rather than clearcutting 

and group selection timber harvest) (CDFG 1981). Mastication can benefit deer by removing dense 

overstory vegetation, thereby encouraging the growth of young brush, grasses, and forbs in the 

understory, which is preferred by deer for forage. Thinning of conifers also releases the remaining 

oaks and encourages new oak sprouts. The benefit of thinning on deer habitat has been questioned, 

however, due to concern that the treatments remove hiding and thermal cover over large acreages and 

may result in a decline in forage in the short term (Kucera and Barrett 1995, Barrett et al. 2004). 

Although these treatments will reduce deer hiding cover and may reduce forage for several years, 

forage values are expected to improve in the long term, especially where followed by additional 

prescribed burning treatments. 

CDF currently lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest 

administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans have been submitted. On private timberlands, 

harvest methods include selective thinning and regeneration (clearcut) and then planting and using 

herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. Clearcut harvest can benefit deer by promoting early 

succession vegetation that deer prefer, but the benefit to foraging habitat is limited in quality, 

quantity, and duration by reforestation efforts (CDFG 1998, deVos et al. 2003). Early succession 

habitat is available to deer for 8 to 12 years under these conditions as opposed to up to 30 years under 

natural regeneration (deVos et al. 2003). 

Wildfires that do occur have tended to burn with more intensity than they did prior to fire 

suppression. Since 2000, approximately 103,000 acres of NFS land have burned in wildfires. These 

fires have likely increased forage availability across the broad landscape, but the intensity and large 

size of the fires did not result in optimum distribution of openings and cover. Within the project area, 

prescribed burning has occurred on about 22,500 acres between 2000 and 2008. Prescribed burning 

can help offset the negative effects of fire suppression and is widely accepted as a valuable tool to 

enhance deer habitat (CDFG 1998). Burning enhances many plants favored by deer for forage by 

stimulating new growth on sprouting species, germinating seeds of fire-adapted species, thinning 

understory vegetation to allow more light to the forest floor, and consuming part of the duff layer to 

enhance the seedbed. 

Livestock grazing, particularly within meadows and aspen stands, has reduced the quality of fawning 

and foraging habitats for deer. Monitoring of the condition and trend of Sierra montane meadows 

indicates that meadow condition across the bioregion shows a slight upward trend (Green 2003). 

Livestock grazing occurs on 35 active grazing allotments on the Stanislaus National Forest, totaling 

approximately 792,042 acres of NFS and private lands. On the Stanislaus National Forest, the impacts 

of livestock grazing on meadows is variable between years, but has been steadily decreasing as forage 

utilization levels are being reduced by stricter standards established by the SNFPA. 

Although mule deer populations “ultimately are limited by habitat quality and quantity,” other 

stressors can exacerbate decline, particularly in poor habitat conditions (deVos et al. 2003, Barrett et 

al. 2004). At present, livestock grazing influences the quality of meadow habitat used by all mule deer 

in the project area, and fuels treatments may be reducing cover or forage in localized areas (though 

forage may be improving in areas treated more than five to ten years ago). Existing roads influence a 

considerable portion of deer habitat and surfaced roads (e.g. highways) also result in increased 

mortality from collisions. Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the 

Stanislaus National Forest (see 3.04 Recreation Resources, Affected Environment), resulting in 

greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance to wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at 

an even more rapid pace than other forms of recreation based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 

3.04 Recreation Resources). Approximately 5 miles of new trail construction, as well as numerous 

345 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been proposed for the future (separate from 

the this project). These trails are proposed to provide “connector routes” between existing NFTS 

routes and motorized access to historical dispersed camping opportunities. The effects of these routes 

would be similar to those described under direct and indirect effects of the alternatives: changes in 

behavior; and loss of habitat. Other types of recreation, including hiking and equestrian use along 394 

miles maintained as non-motorized trails, result in disturbance and displacement effects that may be 

similar to those described for the motorized routes in the project alternatives. The combined effects of 

forest uses and management actions upon deer and their habitat is complex (deVos et al. 2003). 

The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects for 

this species. Table 3.11-34 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for 

Alternative 2 are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. As can be 

seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of routes. Because this alternative does 

not prohibit cross country travel, there is a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation 

and associated cumulative impacts upon mule deer. The alternative would contribute most to 

disturbance to individuals of this species. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 contribute cumulatively to the 

disturbance and habitat alteration from activities described above. Alternatives 4, 1, 5, and 3 would 

result in progressively lower risk to deer due to the amount of motorized routes resulting under each. 

These alternatives do not result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but would likely influence 

habitat suitability. Although the action alternatives may result in additional cumulative impacts, they 

are very minor in comparison to other factors affecting this species. 

Table 3.11-34 Drivable Routes in mule deer habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Summer Concentration 

Miles of routes within summer concentration areas1,

2 186.85 223.37 175.83 189.37 178.09 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within summer concentration areas1,2 1.00 1.19 0.94 1.01 0.95 

Percentage of summer concentration areas occurring within a 200 meter 

(approximately 650 foot) “zone of influence” of all routes 

18.33 

% 

20.66 

% 

17.72 

% 

18.49 

% 

17.72 

% 

Critical Summer Range 

Miles of routes within critical summer range1,

2 15.13 20.85 14.38 15.56 13.77 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within critical summer range1,2 0.61 0.84 0.58 0.63 0.56 

Percentage of critical summer range within a 200 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes1,

2 

11.39 

% 

14.31 

% 

11.05 

% 

11.39 

% 

10.49 

% 

Winter Concentration Areas 

Miles of routes within winter concentration areas1,

2 425.83 574.50 386.97 456.96 384.62 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within winter concentration areas1,2 2.58 3.48 2.35 2.77 2.33 

Percentage of winter concentration areas within a 200 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes1,

2 

40.56 

% 

51.14 

% 

38.91 

% 

43.17 

% 

38.14 

% 

Critical Winter Range 

Miles of routes within critical winter range1,

2 103.55 157.36 90.15 113.25 83.59 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within critical winter range1,2 1.88 2.85 1.64 2.05 1.52 

Percentage of critical winter range within a 200 meter “zone of influence” 

of all routes1,

2 

29.85 

% 

41.96 

% 

29.71 

% 

32.83 

% 

27.03 

% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

2 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 are less than the miles of 

open routes under Alternative 3. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

Mule deer populations are stable to slightly decreasing throughout the project area (CDFG 1980, 

CDFG 1981, CDFG 1984). The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) 

combined with the cumulative effects would likely result in impacts to some individuals but would 

not likely impact populations within the project area. As described in the project MIS report, project 

alternatives may affect habitat quality but will not alter the existing habitat trend, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of mule deer across the Sierra Nevada bioregion (project record). As can be 

346 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

seen from Table 3.11-35, of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative impact on 

the species. 

Table 3.11-35 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (mule deer) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Summer Concentration 

Miles of routes within summer concentration areas2,

3 3 1 5 2 4 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within summer concentration areas2,3 3 1 5 2 4 

Percentage of summer concentration areas within a 200 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes2,

3 3 1 5 2 5 

Critical Summer 

Miles of routes within critical summer range2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within critical summer range2,3 3 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of critical summer range within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of 

all routes2,

3 3 1 4 3 5 

Winter Concentration 

Miles of routes within winter concentration areas2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within winter concentration areas2,3 3 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of winter concentration areas within a 200 meter “zone of 

influence” of all routes2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Critical Winter 

Miles of routes within critical winter range2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Density of all routes (mi/mi2

) within critical winter range2,3 3 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of critical winter range within a 200 meter “zone of influence” of 

all routes2,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Average 3.00 1.00 4.25 2 4.83 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the 

public. Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public rightof-way.
 

3 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the 

miles of open routes under Alternative 3.
 

Riparian Associated Species 

Bald Eagle – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The bald eagle is a large raptor that is found throughout North America. Down-listed from 

Endangered to a Sensitive species, the bald eagle has experienced range wide population increases 

since a nationwide ban on the use of DDT, a pesticide which causes eggshell thinning and low 

reproductive success. Bald eagles are strongly associated with large riparian areas since their primary 

prey species are waterfowl and fish. On the Stanislaus National Forest, bald eagles are commonly 

seen wintering along numerous bodies of water including the following: Beardsley Reservoir, Cherry 

Lake, and Lyons Lake. The Stanislaus National Forest has four bald eagle management areas and two 

known nest sites. Neither of the nest sites are within the designated bald eagle management areas, but 

are located near the bald eagle management areas on the shores of Beardsley Reservoir and Cherry 

Lake. Two other areas that may provide suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles are Salt Springs 

Reservoir and Lyons Lake. Bald eagles have been observed at both of these locations, but despite 

numerous surveys nesting has never been documented. 

Bald Eagle – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the bald eagle. Although thresholds for these indicators 

347 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the project 

alternatives may be compared. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within Designated Territories. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 660 feet of nest sites. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of 

lakes/reservoirs used for foraging. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the bald eagle through the 

following activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on bald eagles through the following: humancaused mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification. 

Human-Caused Mortality: In general, the road and trail-associated factors related to human-caused 

mortality that have been identified for the bald eagle include poaching (Skagen et al. 1991, Stalmaster 

and Newman 1978). 

Changes in Behavior: In general, the road and trail-associated factors related to changes in behavior 

that have been identified for the bald eagle include disturbance at specific sites (nests and roost sites), 

and avoidance and displacement (Skagen et al. 1991, Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Individuals will 

show different thresholds of tolerances for disturbance, but are particularly vulnerable during the 

breeding season. Several studies reported that eagles avoid or are adversely affected by human 

disturbance during the breeding period and such disturbance may result in nest abandonment and 

reproductive failure (Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Andrew and Mosher 1982, Fraser 1985, Fraser et 

al. 1985, Knight and Skagen 1988, Buehler et al. 1991, Grubb and King 1991, Grubb et al. 1992, 

Chandler et al. 1995, Grubb 1995, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Although disturbance has been 

shown to adversely affect nesting bald eagles, individual pairs of bald eagles may be more tolerant to 

disturbance. For example, the Tahoe National Forest documented a bald eagle nest, in 2005, near a 

county road that was used to access a popular reservoir. A similar case has been documented on the 

Stanislaus National Forest where the pair continues to successfully reproduce. 

Adding routes to the NFTS or converting ML1 roads to trails may result in increased disturbance to 

nesting or foraging bald eagles. To reduce disturbance to nesting bald eagles, land management 

agencies typically implement restrictions on certain activities within a specified distance (buffer) of 

nests. Recommended buffers around nests have typically varied between 100 and 800 meters 

(approximately 330 and 2,620 feet [1/2 mile]) (Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Fraser et al. 1985, 

McGarigal 1988, USDI 2007). Latest recommendations from USFWS (USDI 2007) suggest 660 feet 

where there is increased visibility and exposure to noise. To minimize disturbance to foraging bald 

eagles routes motorized vehicles use should be minimized or not allowed between nesting or roosting 

sites and foraging areas (USDI 2007). 

Habitat Modification: Travel management and motorized activity may also indirectly affect bald 

eagles through impacts to potentially suitable roost or nest trees and to their prey base. Forest policy 

requires that hazard trees be removed along roads for public safety, often resulting in a reduction of 

snags within a 60-meter (approximately 200-foot) zone along both sides of some NFTS roads. Hazard 

348 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

tree removal along NFTS roads has the potential to reduce potential nest and roost sites for bald 

eagles. Hazard tree removal is typically conducted along ML2, 3, 4 and 5 roads (not trails or ML1 

roads). Closures that are proposed on ML1 and 2 roads within any of the project alternatives would 

result in a reduction in miles of road on which hazard trees may be removed. On the other hand, 

opening roads currently closed (converting ML1 routes to ML2) would result in an increase in miles 

of road on which hazard trees may be removed. The net amount of impact that the project alternatives 

may have on future hazard tree removal would be minor. 

Although bald eagles are opportunistic foragers, their primary prey base is fish. Roads and trails may 

contribute sediment to nearby streams, thereby reducing the quantity and quality of fish spawning 

habitat. Although the action alternatives would result in some sedimentation to select drainages 

within the project area, the primary foraging areas for bald eagles in the project area are lakes and 

reservoirs. These lakes and reservoirs contain abundant populations of fish, which provide an 

adequate prey base for bald eagles. Sedimentation resulting from the action alternatives would result 

in an immeasurable decrease in fish populations associated with bald eagle foraging. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within Designated Territories, near nest sites, and near foraging areas. This would 

reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to bald eagles from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-36). Actions 

proposed in this alternative would not likely result in any human-caused mortality, but would likely 

increase disturbance to bald eagles within the project area. This alternative would result in a net 

increase over the existing NFTS of approximately 1.73 miles within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of bald 

eagle foraging areas. This change would likely result in disturbance to some individual eagles, but 

would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long-term. 

Actions proposed in this alternative would not likely result in any indirect effects to bald eagles 

through habitat modification. These actions would not result in any adverse impacts to available roost 

or nest sites nor would they measurably impact the bald eagles’ prey base. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, bald eagles may start nesting in late winter into 

early spring. Bald eagle nest sites and foraging areas are located within Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as 

identified for each route in Appendix I) of the seasonal closure. These closures would reduce 

disturbance to over-wintering individuals and bald eagle pairs during the early portion of their nesting 

season. 

Table 3.11-36 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (bald eagle) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within Designated Territories1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 660 feet of nest sites1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of lakes/reservoirs used for 

foraging 1 + 1.73 

1Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures would not be implemented near any bald eagle nest sites 

or within any Designated Territories. The only types of mitigation measures that would be 

implemented near reservoirs used for foraging are tread hardening and drain dips. Implementation of 

these mitigation measures would include hand tool and machine work that may result in short-term 

disturbance to individual foraging eagles within the project area. This amount of disturbance would 

349 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

not likely reduce any individual bald eagle’s fitness and would not result in any population level 

impacts within the project area. The proposed mitigation measures are designed to reduce 

sedimentation, which could improve habitat for the bald eagle’s prey (fish). 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Approximately 90,500 acres of 

foraging habitat, the area within all of the bald eagle territories, and the area within 660 feet of the 

two known nests are open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to bald eagles. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. In addition, creation of new routes could 

alter habitat through the removal of vegetation. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to bald eagles. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. 

There would be no opportunity to reduce sedimentation to streams. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within Designated Territories, near nest sites, and near foraging areas. This would 

reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to bald eagles from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to bald eagles. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. 

There would be no opportunity to reduce sedimentation to streams. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within Designated Territories, near nest sites, and near foraging areas. This would 

reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to bald eagles from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-37). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be the same as those discussed in 

Alternative 1. 

350 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, bald eagles may start nesting in late winter into 

early spring. Bald eagle nest sites and foraging areas are located within Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as 

identified for each route in Appendix I) of the seasonal closure. These closures would reduce 

disturbance to over-wintering individuals and bald eagle pairs during the early portion of their nesting 

season. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-37 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (bald eagle) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within Designated Territories1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 660 feet of nest sites1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of lakes/reservoirs used for 

foraging1 + 1.73 

1Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes within Designated Territories, near nest sites, and near foraging areas. This would 

reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to bald eagles from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-38). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a decrease from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added to the 

system or converted to a trail near foraging habitat, there would be a decrease in the direct effects to 

bald eagles within the project area. These impacts would affect a very small percentage of foraging 

habitat. Thus, these actions would likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in 

impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, bald eagles may start nesting in late winter into 

early spring. Bald eagle nest sites and foraging areas are located within Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as 

identified for each route in Appendix I) of the seasonal closure. These closures would reduce 

disturbance to over-wintering individuals and bald eagle pairs during the early portion of their nesting 

season. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-38 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (bald eagle) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within Designated Territories1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 660 feet of nest sites1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of lakes/reservoirs used for 

foraging 1 + 0.56 

1Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the 

Stanislaus National Forest and private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

351 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

activities will contribute to effects upon bald eagles. The primary risks to the bald eagles have been 

identified as the following: (1) ingestion of poisonous substances; (2) collision with stationary or 

moving structures or objects; (3) degradation of wintering or breeding habitat through human 

development or habitat alteration; and (4) disturbance at nest and roost sites (USDI 2007; Zeiner et al. 

1990a). 

On the Stanislaus National Forest, increasing recreation use and associated disturbances at reservoirs, 

and habitat alteration associated with fuels reduction projects, are the primary factors influencing bald 

eagles or their habitat. Recreation disturbance at known nest locations has been limited through the 

use of area closures, but boating and campground activity may result in some degree of habitat 

avoidance by foraging eagles, or may result in avoidance of potential nesting habitats. Reservoirs on 

the Stanislaus National Forest vary in size, but typically provide large areas of undisturbed habitat 

due to the surrounding topography. Since fuels reduction projects are not removing large trees or 

snags, they are generally not reducing the quality of nesting habitat, and treatments are expected to 

make habitat more sustainable in the event of a wildfire. 

Table 3.11-39 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. The direct and indirect 

effects of the project alternatives contribute to two of the four risk factors described above. 

Alternative 2 has the greatest potential to result in disturbance to nesting and foraging bald eagles 

since cross country travel would not be prohibited and vehicles could potentially gain access near 

foraging areas and nest sites. Since the action alternatives would only result in small amounts of route 

near foraging areas and nest sites, they would only have very minor impacts to individual foraging 

bald eagles within the project area. The effects of the action alternatives when combined with the 

effects of current and future recreation activities may result in minor adverse cumulative effects to 

some individuals and would not likely measurably impact populations. 

Table 3.11-39 Drivable Routes in bald eagle habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Miles of routes within Designated Territories1 3.40 4.41 3.38 3.40 3.38 

Miles of routes within 660 feet of nest sites1 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.57 0.56 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of lakes/reservoirs used for foraging1 26.64 32.52 24.38 26.64 24.94 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

Bald eagle populations are estimated to be increasing range-wide (USDA 2007c). The direct and 

indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative effects are 

not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species. As can be 

seen from Table 3.11-40, of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative impact on 

the species. For further discussion of the analysis and determinations, see the BA/BE (project record). 

Table 3.11-40 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (bald eagle) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of routes within Designated Territories2 3 1 5 3 5 

Miles of routes within 660 feet of nest sites2 2 2 5 2 5 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of lakes/reservoirs used for foraging2 3 1 5 3 4 

Average 2.67 1.33 5.00 2.67 4.67 

1A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the 

public. Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public rightof-way.
 

352 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Great Gray Owl – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The great gray owl is a large nocturnal owl that is not easily observed. It is found in the boreal 

climatic zones of North America from Alaska to central California (Franklin 1988). The population 

that inhabits California represents the southern extent of its range (van Riper III and Wagtendonk 

2006). Yosemite National Park and the Stanislaus National Forest currently represent the core range 

of the great gray owl in California. There are currently 21 documented great gray owl PACs on the 

Stanislaus National Forest, which are primarily located on the southern portion of the Forest. Great 

gray owl PACs are defined as “at least 50 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat available in the 

forested area surrounding nests and the meadow or meadow complex that support a prey base for the 

nesting owls” (USDA 2004). Although there are 21 designated PACs within the project area, activity 

centers have only been designated for 12 of them. PACs that do not currently have a designated 

activity center have not had any documented activity for a significant period of time. Activity centers 

for the PACs may not necessarily be nest sites, but may be the location of a roost site or territorial 

call. This data may vary in its accuracy, but it is currently considered the best available information 

and provides a means by which to evaluate the relative impacts of each of the project alternatives. 

Great gray owls are found in mixed conifer forests, but are highly dependent upon meadows for 

foraging habitat (Winter 1981). A radio telemetry study in and around Yosemite National Park found 

that over 80% of the owl relocations were within 200 meters (approximately 650 feet, or 1

/8 mile) of 

meadows (Winter 1982). For this analysis, great gray owl emphasis habitat will be defined as 

meadows greater than 15 acres that are within 5 miles of existing PACs. Since great gray owls have 

been found to prefer areas within 200 meters of meadows, a 200 meter buffer will be applied to these 

meadows and included in the emphasis habitat. The results of this habitat delineation indicated that 

there are approximately 3,077 acres of meadows and a total of approximately 13,971 acres of 

emphasis habitat (includes buffer acres) within the project area. 

Great Gray Owl – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl. Although thresholds for these 

indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl PACs 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of great gray owl PACs affected by NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all PACs in Project Area) 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of documented great gray 

owl activity centers 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl emphasis habitat 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl by through the 

following activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

353 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on owls through the following: human-caused 

mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification. 

Human-Caused Mortality: Collisions with motor vehicles have been documented in several locations 

and have been a significant source of trauma and mortality in some areas (Lopes et al. 2007, USDA 

2004). The Cascades Raptor Center (2007) reported that collisions with vehicles “was the greatest 

cause of mortality” in great gray owls. There have been at least two reported collisions near the 

project area on Highways 120 and 140. Collisions with vehicles typically occur along wellmaintained roadways that allow high rates of travel. Routes proposed for designation within the 

project alternatives are native surfaced routes that allow much slower rates of travel. These types of 

routes would result in far fewer, if any, collisions. 

Changes in Behavior: Although there is very little documented information regarding disturbance 

from human activity to great gray owls, it will be assumed that great gray owls would respond to 

noise and human disturbance in much the same way as other owls. Therefore, changes in behavior are 

anticipated to be similar to those discussed in the California spotted owl analysis. The Forest Service, 

Region 5, has generally assumed that activities (including road and trail use) occurring farther than 

0.25 miles from California spotted owl nest sites have little potential to affect spotted owl nesting 

(USDA 2004). The miles of routes that will be added to the NFTS with 0.25 miles of great gray owl 

activity centers have been determined for each of the alternatives. Although activity centers have not 

been documented for each of the PACs and all of the activity centers may not be known nest sites, 

this analysis will serve as an indicator of the amount of disturbance that may occur to nest sites. 

Habitat Modification: The use of meadows for nest sites or foraging is likely affected by the quality 

of the meadow habitat. Meadow habitat quality may be affected in different ways by motorized travel. 

The most obvious way motorized vehicles may impair meadow quality is through direct mechanical 

damage (rutting). Since soil typically has lower bulk density and can be more easily penetrated when 

it is wet, mechanical damage often occurs in meadows that are naturally wet or in dry meadows after 

significant rainfall or immediately following the retreat of the snow at higher elevations. When roads 

or trails are created in meadows they may intercept surface and subsurface flow (Kattelmann 1996). 

When flows are intercepted and redirected, meadow drying occurs, changing the fauna and flora 

associated with it. 

Changing the faunal community within meadows may impact quantity and quality of great gray owl 

foraging. Two species that have been noted as being important prey items to great gray owls are 

microtines and pocket gophers (Franklin 1988, Winter 1981, Winter 1982). Winter (1981 and 1982) 

found that microtines may be a preferred prey item for great gray owls in the Sierra Nevada area and 

may be essential for successful reproduction. He further suggested that Microtus were also associated 

with moist areas that had good grass cover. Therefore, slight shifts in meadow hydrology caused by 

motorized travel may impact suitable habitat for mictrotines, thereby potentially adversely affecting 

the quantity and quality of great gray owl prey. 

Roads and trails modify nesting and roosting habitat by directly removing it or indirectly by reducing 

its quality. While simple habitat loss is the most obvious, roads and trails also reduce habitat quality 

through fragmentation. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near great gray owl activity centers, PACs, and emphasis habitat. This would reduce 

the risk of direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-41). Alternative 1 

354 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

would result in the addition of 0.44 miles of motorized routes to 2 great gray owl PACs (Crocker 

Meadow and Ackerson 3) and 0.24 mile of routes converted from closed to open status in two PACs 

(Crocker Meadow and Jordan Valley). There would be a total of 0.24 mile of routes added within 400 

meters of three Activity Centers and 0.13 mile of routes converted from closed to open status within 

400 meters of one Activity Center. The Crocker Meadow PAC has great gray owl activity almost 

every year. Great grays nested there in 2007. Although the Ackerson 3 PAC has not had any recently 

documented activity, great gray owls use the entire Ackerson Meadow complex. Great gray owls 

have been seen at the Jordan Valley PAC in the fall and spring, but, in recent years, not during the 

breeding season. This alternative would result in disturbance to some individual great gray owls 

within the project area. Disturbance resulting from this alternative would not likely be substantial 

enough to reduce any individual owl’s fitness. Therefore, it would not result in any population level 

impacts to the great gray owl. 

Field surveys were completed on the routes that are proposed to be added to the NFTS within the 

PACs. The route that was proposed to be added within the Crocker Meadow PAC does not cross any 

streams, nor does it enter the meadow. Therefore, the addition of this route to the NFTS would not 

have significant impacts to the hydrology of the meadow. One of the routes that were proposed to be 

added to the NFTS within the Ackerson 3 PAC crosses a small unnamed tributary to Ackerson Creek. 

The route and the crossing are not within the meadow. The addition of this route would not likely 

result in significant impacts to the hydrology of the meadow complex. If GIS analysis indicated that a 

route proposed for addition to the NFTS within great gray owl emphasis habitat crossed a stream, a 

field survey was completed on the route. The GIS analysis indicated that there were two routes 

(FR98514 and FR98486) within great gray owl emphasis habitat that crossed streams. After 

completing field surveys on these routes, it was determined that they would not result in any adverse 

impact to the hydrology of the meadows (see 3.10 Water and RCO Analysis in project record). 

However, some routes were identified as needing mitigation to improve hydrologic conditions. 

Effects of the mitigation measures on this species are discussed below. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, great gray owls start nesting near the month of 

March. Since seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) 

would overlap the beginning of the nesting period and approximately 90% of the great gray owl 

PACs would be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to those individuals 

returning to their breeding territories and starting to nest. The season of use would not apply to WOS 

routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance to individuals would not be reduced along these routes 

except when conditions prohibit WOS use. Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Table 3.11-41 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (great gray owl) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl PACs1 + 0.69 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of great gray owl PACs affected by NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all PACs in Project Area) + 3 (+ 14%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of documented great gray owl 

activity centers1 + 0.37 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl emphasis habitat1 + 2.39 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

355 
 

 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Mitigation Measures: The only type of mitigation measure that would be implemented within PACs 

is no-dig barriers. There would not be any mitigation measures implemented within 400 meters (0.25 

mile) of activity centers. The installation of no-dig barriers would be completed with hand tools and 

would not likely result in any disturbance to owls within the PAC. The proposed mitigation measures 

would in the long term improve hydrologic conditions, and therefore meadow habitat. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. All great gray owl PACs and 

approximately 12,900 acres of emphasis habitat are currently open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to great gray owls. These 

effects would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be 

exacerbated over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to great gray owls. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes identified as needing 

mitigation, causing a potential degradation of meadow habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near great gray owl activity centers, PACs, and preferred habitat. This would reduce 

the risk of direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to great gray owl. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes identified as needing 

mitigation, causing a potential degradation of meadow habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near great gray owl activity centers, PACs, and emphasis habitat. This would reduce 

the risk of direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-42). Direct and 

356 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. There would be an additional 1.76 miles of routes added to the NFTS within great gray 

owl emphasis habitat. GIS analysis indicated that this route would not cross any streams nor would it 

impact the hydrology of the meadow. 

Only unauthorized routes, created through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion 

into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. Because no new routes are 

being proposed for construction, there would be little change in the amount of habitat or on habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation along unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS or existing NFTS 

routes that would be closed would, over time, grow into the road. So there would be a minor increase 

in habitat quantity and a decrease in fragmentation. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, great gray owls start nesting near the month of 

March. Since seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) 

would overlap the beginning of the nesting period and approximately 90% of the great gray owl 

PACs would be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to those individuals 

returning to their breeding territories and starting to nest. The season of use would not apply to WOS 

routes (see Table 2.02-2), so disturbance to individuals would not be reduced along these routes 

except when conditions prohibit WOS use. Ten WOS routes would be open to this use. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-42 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (great gray owl) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl PACs1 + 0.69 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of great gray owl PACs affected by NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all PACs in Project Area) + 3 (+ 14%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of documented great gray owl 

activity centers1 + 0.37 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl emphasis habitat1 + 2.54 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near great gray owl activity centers, PACs, and emphasis habitat. This would reduce 

the risk of direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl from motorized travel over the short and 

long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-43). This 

alternative would not result in the addition of any routes to the NFTS within great gray owl PACs, 

within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of Activity Centers, or within emphasis habitat. The net changes would 

be a reduction in miles of routes within PACs and within 400 meters of Activity Centers, and a 

reduction in the number of PACs affected, from the existing NFTS. 

Season of Use: Although the exact timing may vary, great gray owls start nesting near the month of 

March. Since seasonal closures for Zone 2 and Zone 3 (as identified for each route in Appendix I) 

would overlap the beginning of the nesting period and approximately 90% of the great gray owl 

PACs would be within these Zones, these closures would reduce disturbance to those individuals 

returning to their breeding territories and starting to nest. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

357 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Table 3.11-43 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (great gray owl) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl PACs1 -- 0.23 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of great gray owl PACs affected by NFTS routes 

(Percentage of all PACs in Project Area) -- 1 (-- 5%) 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters of documented great gray owl 

activity centers1 -- 0.52 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within great gray owl emphasis habitat1 + 0.10 

1 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed] converted to 

all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status (allvehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Appendix B provides a list and description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the 

Stanislaus National Forest and private lands within the Forest boundary. Some, but not all, of these 

activities will contribute to effects upon great gray owls. Factors responsible for low numbers of great 

gray owls breeding in the Sierra Nevada are not fully known. During the past century, the widespread 

removal of large trees from mature and old growth forest has reduced the abundance of potential nest 

trees. Fire suppression has allowed meadow foraging habitats to decrease in size, and livestock 

grazing has altered meadow hydrology, potentially reducing prey abundance (Verner 1994). 

Livestock grazing occurs on 35 active grazing allotments on the Stanislaus National Forest, totaling 

approximately 792,042 acres of NFS and private lands. In some meadows, livestock grazing has 

reduced the suitability of meadow vegetation for microtine rodents and other great gray owl prey 

(USDA 2001). On the Stanislaus National Forest, the impacts of livestock grazing on meadows is 

variable between years, but has been steadily decreasing as forage utilization levels are being reduced 

by stricter standards established by the SNFPA. Furthermore, some meadows within PACs are 

protected by grazing exclosures designed to reduce the impacts of grazing and improve cover for 

great gray owl prey. Although improvements have been made, livestock grazing has historically and 

may continue to have cumulative effects on cover for great gray owl prey within meadows in the 

project area. 

Forest vegetation/fuels thinning projects (designed to reduce the risk of additional habitat loss to 

wildfires) have affected great gray owl habitat, primarily through effects on nesting and roosting 

stands. CDF currently lists a total of 2,365 acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest 

administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans have been submitted. Timber harvest on 

private lands is generally more intensive and does not typically maintain nesting or roosting habitat 

suitability for great gray owls. These fuels treatment and timber harvest projects have resulted in 

reduction in the amount and quality of nesting and roosting habitat within the Stanislaus National 

Forest boundary. 

Vegetation/fuels reduction projects will continue to be the primary activity affecting nesting and 

roosting habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest (Appendix B). These projects will likely occur on 

an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. Although these treatments 

will degrade nesting and roosting habitat in the short term, it is anticipated that, over time, the amount 

of habitat removed in stand replacing wildfires will be reduced as a result of these treatments (USDA 

2004c). 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance 

to wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of recreation 

based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). The project alternatives 

would contribute to these past and current conditions with added displacement due to noise and 

human activity, and indirect effects to habitat. Approximately 5 miles of new trail construction, as 

well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been proposed for the 

358 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

future (separate from this project). These trails are proposed to provide “connector routes” between 

existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical dispersed camping opportunities. The effects 

of these routes would be similar to those described under direct and indirect effects of the 

alternatives: changes in behavior; and habitat modification through loss of habitat and further 

fragmentation of habitat. 

Table 3.11-44 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. Although human 

disturbance has not been recognized as a significant threat to great gray owls, the use of motorized 

vehicles in meadow habitats can have significant impacts to meadow hydrology and the associated 

flora and fauna. Disturbance in forested stands (nesting and roosting habitat) probably does have an 

effect on individuals. As can be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of 

routes, and therefore would cause the most disturbance to individuals. Because this alternative does 

not restrict vehicles to designated routes, there is a high degree of uncertainty about future route 

proliferation in great gray owl habitat, foraging as well as nesting and roosting habitats, which may 

have disturbance and habitat effects beyond the effects of routes open to motorized use. Meadows in 

particular are often easily accessed by vehicles. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

Alternative 2 and the effects of continued livestock grazing may have significant impacts to 

individuals. Although the population of great gray owls within the project area is not precisely 

known, it is known to be relatively small with a limited distribution. Impacts to meadows that may be 

associated with unabated cross country travel would likely impact enough individuals to result in 

measurable reductions to the population size within the project area. 

The direct and indirect effects of motorized routes within habitat used by great gray owls in 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5, combined with the effects of past and continued livestock grazing, may 

adversely affect meadow habitats and associated species (as described above) and forested habitats. 

Since these alternatives would result in disturbance to only some individuals and would not further 

impact meadow hydrology, they would not likely result in impacts to any individual’s fitness or to 

populations within the project area. 

Table 3.11-44 Drivable Routes in great gray owl habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Miles of routes within PACs1 8.13 9.85 7.3 8.13 7.07 

PACs intersected by all routes 1 16 17 15 16 15 

Percentage of PACs intersected by all routes1 76% 81% 71 76% 71% 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of documented great gray owl activity 

centers1 9.07 11.19 8.66 9.07 8.14 

Miles of routes within great gray owl emphasis habitat1 81.41 90.92 78.78 81.70 79.12 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

Since great gray owls have limited distribution within the project area and within the Sierra Nevada, 

population level impacts associated with Alternative 2 may result in a trend toward listing and may 

impact the viability of the species. The direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives (1, 3, 4 and 

5) combined with the cumulative effects to habitat are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal 

listing or a loss of viability for the great gray owl. As can be seen from Table 3.11-45, of the 

alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative impact on the species. For further discussion 

of the effects analysis and determinations, see the project BA/BE (project record). 

359 
 

 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Table 3.11-45 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (great gray owl) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Miles of routes within PACs2,

3 3 1 4 3 5 

PACs intersected by all routes2,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of documented great gray owl activity centers2,

3 3 1 4 3 5 

Miles of routes within great gray owl emphasis habitat2,

3 3 1 5 2 4 

Average 3.00 1.00 4.50 2.75 4.75 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has the 

most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) ranking. 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the public. 

Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public right-of-way. 

3Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the miles of 

open routes under Alternative 3. 

Aquatic Biota 

Effects Common to all Aquatic Wildlife 

Due to their limited distribution on the landscape and their life history requirements, most species of 

aquatic wildlife are similarly affected by motorized travel. Although Gaines et al. (2003) categorized 

the effects of recreation routes on “riparian species,” the effects to aquatic species are very similar 

and can be categorized in much the same way. Therefore, the effects of motorized travel on aquatic 

species may be categorized by human-caused mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat 

modification. Generally, site-specific studies on the species interaction with road- and trail-associated 

factors is lacking in the literature. Where site-specific information or literature on road- and trailassociated factors to aquatic species is unavailable, general information on potential impacts is 

presented. Additional information on the effects to the aquatic environment is presented in Chapter 

3.10, Water Resources. 

Human-Caused Mortality: Allowing cross country travel or adding routes to the NFTS may result in 

human-caused mortality to aquatic species in a variety of ways including the following: collisions, 

introduction of non-native species, parasites, or disease vectors. Collisions with vehicles have not 

only been documented in numerous different herpetofaunal species, they may be particularly 

vulnerable to it (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Mass mortalities of several species of frogs during 

dispersal have been documented where roads intersect natal/breeding habitat and non-breeding 

foraging habitat (Hine et al. 1981, Fahrig et al. 1995). Mortality from vehicles can reduce population 

size and reduce movement between resources and conspecific populations (Carr and Fahrig 

2001).Stream crossings are areas of particular concern for collisions. Although some stream crossings 

have culverts or bridges, fords or low-water crossings are very typical along trails. Some roads also 

have fords or low-water crossings. Locations of fords vary widely, but often occur along a relatively 

low gradient stretch of stream. When a ford is created in these areas, it often creates a small pool 

where different life history stages (fingerling fish or tadpoles) of some species may congregate. 

Increased densities of these species may result in higher rates of collisions. Some species may be 

more prone to crushing at crossings. However, numerous herpetofaunal species migrate from aquatic 

to terrestrial environments to complete their life histories. These species are even more vulnerable to 

motorized travel, because routes may parallel water bodies. Since herpetofaunal species tend to be 

slow-moving and may migrate across a motorized route that is near a water body, they may have a 

relatively higher risk of being crushed by vehicles. 

Introduction of toxins, non-native organisms, parasites, and disease vectors are also ways in which 

motorized travel may result in human-caused mortality. When vehicles travel along a route near a 

stream or cross a stream at a ford, small amounts of toxins may be introduced to the environment. 

Although there is a low risk that individuals will be exposed to lethal levels of any of these toxins, 

small exposures may elicit immune responses within individuals. McCallum and Trauth (2007) found 

360 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

that male northern cricket frogs in which immune responses were elicited had reduced fertility rates. 

Therefore, introduction of toxins at low levels may result in reduced reproductive fitness of some 

aquatic species. 

The movement and introduction of non-native organisms, parasites, and disease vectors between 

water bodies has been recognized as a significant threat to numerous different aquatic species. When 

traveling roads or trails throughout the course of a day, a vehicle may cross numerous streams. When 

a vehicle crosses a stream through a low-water crossing or a ford it may capture soil and/or debris in 

the tread of the tires or on the body of the vehicle. Non-native organisms, parasites, and disease 

vectors may be captured in the soil and/or debris on the vehicle. When crossing subsequent streams, 

soil and/or debris may then be deposited, potentially spreading non-native organisms, parasites, and 

disease vectors between water bodies. The risk of adverse effects to individuals and populations is 

highly variable among species and will be discussed further below. 

Changes in Behavior: Although it is not well documented in the literature, it is reasonable to assume 

that aquatic species may be affected by motorized vehicles through changes in behavior. The presence 

of routes results in increased access of vehicles and human visitors to aquatic species habitat. As with 

individuals of terrestrial species, individuals of aquatic species are likely to exhibit a predator 

avoidance response when they become disturbed by humans. Direct effects of disturbance to an 

individual’s fitness are commonly measured through increases in stress hormone levels. Significant 

increases in stress hormone levels have been found to reduce reproductive success of individuals of 

some species. 

Indirect effects of disturbance are commonly displayed through changes in an individual’s time and 

energy budget. As a vehicle or human approaches an individual, the most obvious and common 

disturbance response is for that individual to avoid the threat and seek cover. After an individual 

exhibits the disturbance response, a period of time will elapse until that individual resumes predisturbance behavior. Since this change in an individual’s time budget may result in less time feeding 

or resting, the disturbance may result in changes to the individual’s energy budget. If an individual is 

repeatedly disturbed in an area, they may avoid the area, essentially being displaced from the habitat. 

Significant changes to an individual’s energy budget or displacement from its habitat may result in 

impacts to the individual’s fitness. Rodriguez-Prieto and Fernandez-Juricic (2005) found that 

increases in disturbance from human visitation resulted in significant reductions in the use of stream 

banks by Iberian frogs. They further concluded that disturbance from recreational activities negatively 

affected Iberian frogs through spatial and temporal losses in resources. 

Habitat Modification: Motorized travel may result in numerous different impacts to aquatic species 

habitat quality and quantity. Since many of these species are amphibians, they are acutely prone to 

changes in aquatic and adjacent terrestrial habitats. Alterations to terrestrial habitat may include, but 

are not limited to the following: direct reductions in cover (vegetative and underground), 

introductions of non-native plant species, and impacts to meadow hydrology. Alterations to aquatic 

habitat may include, but are not limited to the following: reductions in shade, increased water 

temperatures, increased sedimentation, and altered hydrology and geomorphology. 

The transfer of sediment to streams and other water bodies at route crossings is a consequence of 

roads and trails (Richardson et al. 1975). The surfaces of unpaved roads can route fine sediments to 

streams, lakes, and wetlands, increasing turbidity of the water (Reid and Dunne 1984). Various 

studies have demonstrated that sediment delivery to stream channels in a forested environment is 

correlated to road surface type, physical characteristics of the adjacent areas (e.g., litter depth, coarse 

wood), soils (erodibility), the steepness of slope below the road, and vehicle usage (Chin et al. 2004, 

Clinton and Vose 2003). The knowledge of the impact of increased sediment load on amphibians is 

limited (Gillespie 2002). However, the negative impacts of increased sediments on other aquatic 

species, including fish, macroinvertebrates, and periphyton, are well known (Power 1990, Newcombe 

361 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

and MacDonald 1991, Waters 1995). High concentrations of suspended sediment may directly kill 

aquatic organisms and impair aquatic productivity (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Egg survival may 

be impacted by roads and trails through increases in fine sediments. Increased sedimentation may also 

reduce availability of important food resources for tadpoles such as algae (Power 1990). Fine 

sediment deposits also tend to fill pools and smooth gravel beds, degrading habitats (Forman and 

Alexander 1998) and possibly decreasing the availability of oviposition sites or larval refugia (Welsh 

and Ollivier 1998). In addition, the consequences of past sedimentation are long term and cumulative, 

and cannot be mitigated effectively (Hagans et al. 1986). 

The effects are heightened if the sediments contain toxic materials (Maxell and Hokit 1999). At least 

five different general classes of chemicals are transferred into the environment from maintenance and 

use of roads: heavy metals, salt, organic molecules, ozone, and nutrients (Trombulak and Frissell 

2000). The changes to water chemistry by road runoff may affect living organisms in several ways. 

For example, chemicals found in road de-icers may kill (Doughtery and Smith 2006) or displace frog 

life stages, or they may be accumulated in plants as toxins which, in turn, can depress larval 

amphibian growth. 

Roads can also influence both peak flows (floods) and debris flows (rapid movements of soil, 

sediment, and large wood in stream channels), two processes which have major influences on riparian 

vegetation (Jones et al. 2000) as well as aquatic and riparian patch dynamics critical to stream 

ecosystems (Pringle et al. 1988). Numerous frog species breed in streams which can be adversely 

affected by fluctuations in the frequency or magnitude of peak flows, thereby adversely affecting 

recruitment. 

The amphibian species and habitat accounts below were summarized from Lannoo (2005). Additional 

references are cited to address specific elements of the species and habitat accounts for all species 

below. 

California Red-legged Frog – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The California red-legged frog (CRLF) historically occurred from the California coast, throughout the 

Central Valley, and into the Sierra Nevada foothills. Currently, the CRLF occupies approximately 

70% of their historic range and are primarily located in streams and wetlands in coastal drainages (71 

FR 19244). There are no recent (<40 years) occurrences on the Stanislaus National Forest (USDI 

2002). However, historic records for this species exist in the California Natural Diversity Data Base 

(CNDDB) at Jordan Pond (1967) and Woods Creek (1950). Herpetofauna surveys have occurred 

extensively throughout the Stanislaus National Forest, but surveys have used a generalized visual 

encounter method (Fellers and Freel 1995) and the majority has not been conducted according to the 

most recent CRLF protocol (USDI 2005), nor have they covered all aquatic habitat within the project 

area. Between 1995 and 2005, USFWS protocol-level surveys were conducted for CRLF within the 

project area in the following areas: Bull Creek (in Anderson Valley), Rush Creek, Jordan Pond, Bean 

Creek, and Smith Creek. Despite significant survey efforts, there have been no recent observations of 

the CRLF within the project area. Although there have not been any observations of the CRLF in the 

project area, all suitable habitat has not been surveyed within the last two years to the most recent 

protocol (USDI 2005). The FWS, in the recovery plan for the CRLF (USDI 2002), stated that, for the 

South Fork of the Calaveras River and the Tuolumne River, in both of which drainages the Stanislaus 

National Forest partially lays, “Extirpated [the CRLF] but represents historic range.” In the Federal 

Register addressing proposed designation of critical habitat for this species (Federal Register 2004), 

the FWS stated, “. . . this unit [the Yosemite Unit, which consists of drainages found in the tributaries 

of the Tuolumne River and Jordan Creek, a tributary to the Merced River, in Tuolumne and Mariposa 

Counties, and includes National Forest System lands on the Stanislaus National Forest] is currently 

362 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

considered unoccupied.” This analysis takes a conservative approach in assuming that there is a low 

possibility that suitable habitat is occupied. 

The CRLF is a highly aquatic species typically found in cold water ponds and stream pools with 

depths exceeding 0.7 meters (approximately 2.3 feet) and with overhanging vegetation such as 

willows, as well as emergent and submergent vegetation (Hayes and Jennings 1988). Suitable habitat 

on the forest is defined as areas on the landscape that meet the definition of a primary constituent 

element (PCE) as defined in Federal Register and is comprised of aquatic breeding habitat, nonbreeding aquatic habitat, upland habitat, and dispersal habitat. Aquatic habitat consists of lowgradient fresh water bodies, including natural and manmade ponds, and backwaters within streams 

and creeks. Non-breeding aquatic habitat consists of the aquatic habitat elements identified above, 

and also includes, but is not limited to, other wetland habitats such as intermittent creeks, seeps, and 

springs. Upland habitat consists of natural areas within 60 meters of the edge of the riparian 

vegetation or dripline, or the edge of the watershed boundary, whichever is closer. Dispersal habitat 

consists of upland and riparian habitat contiguous with breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat, that 

is free of barriers, and, that connects two or more patches of aquatic breeding habitat within 0.7 mi of 

one another (71 FR 19244). 

California Red-legged Frog – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

To assist with the Travel Management Planning process, Region 5 USFS entered into programmatic 

consultation with the USFWS for motorized vehicle route designation. On December 27, 2006, the 

USFWS issued a Letter of Concurrence for 14 National Forests in California, including the Stanislaus 

National Forest. The Letter of Concurrence approved the Project Design Criteria (PDC) as outlined in 

the document entitled “Route Designation: Project Design Criteria for ‘No Effect’ or ‘May Affect 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ Determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1”. If the 

routes proposed for designation follow the PDC, no further consultation with the USFWS is required. 

Based upon these PDC and upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to 

provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects to the CRLF. Although biological 

thresholds for these indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the 

effects of the project alternatives may be compared. 

 Number of additional routes that have the potential to capture surface run-off and then deliver 

sediment into a stream associated with the CRLF. 

 Number of additional routes that do not avoid Riparian Reserve (RR) and RCAs except where 

necessary to cross streams. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within dispersal habitat. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the CRLF through the following 

activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

363 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on CRLFs through the following: human-caused 

mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification (see Effects Common to all Aquatic 

Wildlife). Furthermore, these frogs may be more prone to the effects of motorized travel because they 

utilize upland habitats, frequently at considerable distances from aquatic features. Bulger et al. (2003) 

and Fellers and Kleeman (2007) reported terrestrial movements up to 1.7 miles before and after the 

breeding period as adults dispersed into other non-breeding aquatic habitats. Fellers and Kleeman 

(2007) also reported that a large portion of the population (35%) can move during single rainfall 

events and a majority of all frogs in a population migrate during the breeding season. The CRLF can 

also move in excess of 150 yards from aquatic habitat to seek cover in upland habitats and remain for 

up to three weeks (Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of 

illegally-created routes near suitable CRLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect 

effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-46). This 

alternative would result in the addition to the NFTS of several routes with 20 stream crossings within 

suitable CRLF habitat. These stream crossings would likely result in direct and indirect effects to 

some individuals of all CRLF life history stages. The addition of routes to the NFTS and conversion 

of roads to trails within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat may result in direct effects to some 

juvenile and adult frogs and indirect effects to all life history stages. The addition of routes to the 

NFTS and conversion of roads to trails within dispersal areas may also result in direct effects to some 

adults dispersing between breeding sites. 

Table 3.11-46 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California red-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Additional routes which may capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with 

the CRLF + 7 

Additional routes that do not avoid RCAs except where necessary to cross streams + 12 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable 

aquatic habitat1 + 24 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat2 + 4.21 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within dispersal habitat2 + 2.30 

1 Number of crossings from routes added to the NFTS PLUS number of crossings from routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or 

administrative roads [closed] converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS number of 

crossings from routes converted from open to closed status (all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] 

converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed 

status 

There are 12 routes proposed as additions under this alternative that don’t follow the PDC for the redlegged frog. The following table shows those routes, and indicates which of the PDC they don’t meet. 

As can be seen from the table, none of the routes listed comply with PDC 2. They do not avoid 

RCAs, and they aren’t necessary to cross streams. (Riparian Reserves is not a land designation 

category used on the Stanislaus National Forest.) The total miles of routes proposed to be added to the 

system in RCAs are 2.86 miles. This would be a minor addition to the total mileage within RCAs if 

this alternative were implemented (318.87 miles—this mileage includes the routes that are necessary 

to cross streams). 

364 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Table 3.11-47 Route compliance with USFWS PDC for the California red-legged frog 

Route 

Number Length Mitigation PDC Number1 

12 23 

17EV192 0.63 Y N N 

17EV192A 0.06 N N N 

17EV192B 0.15 Y N N 

17EV194 0.39 Y N N 

1S17M 1.13 Y N N 

FR98508 0.06 N Y N 

FR98509 0.03 N Y N 

FR98510 0.04 N Y N 

FR98511 0.15 N Y N 

FR98514 0.04 Y Y N 

FR98566 0.05 N Y N 

FR98575 0.13 Y N N 

1 “Y” indicates that the route complies with the specified Project Design Criterion 

(PDC). “N” indicates that the route does not comply with the specified PDC. 

2 PDC 1: Unauthorized routes or areas proposed for designation do not have the 

potential to capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream 

associated with the CRLF. 

3 PDC 2: In suitable CRLF habitat, unauthorized routes proposed for designation 

avoid Riparian Reserve (RR) and Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) except 

where necessary to cross streams. Crossing approaches get the riders in and out 

of the stream channel and riparian area in the shortest distance possible while 

meeting the gradient and approach length standards. 

Six routes don’t comply with PDC 1. In their present condition, they have the potential to capture 

surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream that provides habitat for the red-legged frog. It 

was determined that one of these routes (17EV192A) did not need mitigation to reduce the amount of 

sediment that might enter the stream. The route is 0.06 mile in length. Five of these routes would have 

mitigation measures implemented to reduce the amount of sediment that might enter the associated 

stream. 

The proposed additions to the system would have very little effect on red-legged frog habitat, and are 

therefore unlikely to adversely affect the species. 

Season of Use: The CRLF primarily inhabits lower elevations throughout its range and are not 

known to overwinter or enter into torpor. Suitable habitat within the project area is located within 

Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Since Zone 1 

is open to year-round use, there would not be any beneficial impacts to the CRLF or its habitat within 

this zone. Since breeding typically occurs in late winter and early spring, restrictions on the season of 

use within Zone 2 would likely reduce direct effects to breeding adults and those that may be 

migrating between breeding sites. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season 

reduces soil perturbation and subsequent sedimentation routing into streams associated with all life 

history stages of the CRLF. 

Mitigation Measures: Types of mitigation measures proposed on routes associated with suitable 

CRLF habitat include the following: barriers, tread hardening, drain dips, and hardened stream 

crossings. The installation of a hardened stream crossing would likely result in a short-term increase 

in sedimentation which may impact some individuals. The installation of all mitigation measures may 

result in short-term disturbance to some individual frogs, but will limit trail widening, reduce soil 

perturbation, and reduce sedimentation, providing beneficial effects over the long term. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. All suitable red-legged frog 

habitat on NFS lands is currently open to cross country travel. 

365 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to these frogs. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to individual frogs. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable CRLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential direct and indirect effects to the CRLF. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near suitable CRLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to 

these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-48). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight increase from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added to the 

system or converted to a trail within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat, there would be a slight 

increase in the direct and indirect effects to these frogs’ habitat within the project area. 

The same 12 routes proposed as additions under Alternative 1 that don’t follow the PDC for the redlegged frog are proposed under Alternative 4 (see Table 3.11-47). As can be seen from that table, 

none of the listed routes comply with PDC 2. They do not avoid RCAs, and they aren’t necessary to 

cross streams. (Riparian Reserves is not a land designation category used on the Stanislaus National 

Forest.) The total miles of routes proposed to be added to the system in RCAs are 2.86 miles. This 

would be a minor addition to the total mileage within RCAs if this alternative were implemented 

(326.69 miles—this mileage includes the routes that are necessary to cross streams). 

366 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

The proposed additions to the system would have very little effect on red-legged frog habitat, and are 

therefore unlikely to adversely affect the species. 

Table 3.11-48 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California red-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Additional routes which may capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with 

the CRLF + 7 

Additional routes that do not avoid RCAs except where necessary to cross streams + 12 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable 

aquatic habitat1 + 25 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat2 + 5.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within dispersal habitat2 + 2.56 

1 Number of crossings from routes added to the NFTS PLUS number of crossings from routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or 

administrative roads [closed] converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS number of 

crossings from routes converted from open to closed status (all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] 

converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed 

status 

Season of Use: The CRLF primarily inhabits lower elevations throughout its range and are not 

known to overwinter or enter into torpor. Suitable habitat within the project area is located within 

Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Since Zone 1 

is open to year-round use, there would not be any beneficial impacts to the CRLF or its habitat within 

this zone. Since breeding typically occurs in late winter and early spring, restrictions on the season of 

use within Zone 2 would likely reduce direct effects to breeding adults and those that may be 

migrating between breeding sites. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season 

reduces soil perturbation and subsequent sedimentation routing into streams associated with all life 

history stages of the CRLF. 

Mitigation Measures: The types and effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near suitable CRLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct and indirect effects to 

these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-49). Routes added 

to the NFTS within this alternative would not likely result in disturbance or crushing of any 

individuals or contribute sediment to steams associated with the CRLF. Therefore, this alternative 

would not result in the addition of any routes to the NFTS that would have direct or indirect effects to 

the CRLF. 

Season of Use: The CRLF primarily inhabits lower elevations throughout its range and are not 

known to overwinter or enter into torpor. Suitable habitat within the project area is located within 

Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Since Zone 1 

is open to year-round use, there would not be any beneficial impacts to the CRLF or its habitat within 

this zone. Since breeding typically occurs in late winter and early spring, restrictions on the season of 

use within Zone 2 would likely reduce direct effects to breeding adults and those that may be 

migrating between breeding sites. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season 

reduces soil perturbation and subsequent sedimentation routing into streams associated with all life 

history stages of the CRLF. 

Mitigation Measures: The types and effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative 1. 

367 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Table 3.11-49 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (California red-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Additional routes which may capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with 

the CRLF + 7 

Additional routes that do not avoid RCAs except where necessary to cross streams + 12 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable 

aquatic habitat1 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat2 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within dispersal habitat2 0 

1 Number of crossings from routes added to the NFTS PLUS number of crossings from routes converted from closed to open status (ML1 roads or 

administrative roads [closed] converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open]) MINUS number of 

crossings from routes converted from open to closed status (all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails [open] 

converted to ML1 roads or administrative roads [closed]) 

2 Miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS miles of routes converted from closed to open status MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed 

status 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The CRLF was once numerous and widely distributed in California. Initial declines of the CRLF are 

attributed to over-harvesting (Jennings and Hayes 1985), followed by the loss and alteration of habitat 

(USDI 2002). Other important factors attributed to the decline of the CRLF include the introduction 

of non-native species (bullfrogs, centrarchid fish, crayfish) which have predated on and out-competed 

the CRLF, and agricultural practices which modify aquatic and upland habitats (Davidson et al. 2002, 

USDI 2002) . Additional stressors that may have affected the distribution and abundance of the CRLF 

on the Stanislaus National Forest include historic mining, livestock grazing, vegetation management, 

recreation, and water diversions (USDI 2002). All these activities have the potential to alter CRLF 

habitat through disturbance to vegetation, soils, and hydrology. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest, a majority of the land containing suitable habitat for the CRLF is 

within active livestock allotments. The presence of livestock in near-stream environments can result 

in physical disturbance. Livestock in aquatic habitats present a low risk of trampling individuals, 

particularly tadpoles who have lower mobility and tend to escape into fine sediments. Excessive 

livestock grazing can impact terrestrial habitats directly from browsing on obligate riparian vegetation 

that provides cover and feeding habitats for the frog. Excessive livestock grazing can affect aquatic 

habitats indirectly primarily through erosion and sedimentation processes if the activity occurs in 

near-stream environments. Secondarily, the livestock’s metabolic waste products may cause minor 

nutrient enrichment (nitrogen and phosphorus) of aquatic habitats. On the Stanislaus National Forest, 

the impacts of livestock grazing on meadows is variable between years, but has been steadily 

decreasing as forage utilization levels are being reduced by stricter standards established by the 

SNFPA. At present, it is assumed that livestock are having negligible to minor impacts to the frog and 

its habitats. 

Recreational mining activities (suction dredging) have the potential to adversely affect individuals 

directly from disturbance and possible mortality if tadpoles are entrained by the dredge. Suction 

dredging involves the modification of aquatic habitat directly from the movement of streambed 

materials and from riparian area disturbances. Suction dredging occurs in several streams that provide 

suitable habitat for the frog including but not limited to Bean Creek, Bull Creek, Moore Creek, Rose 

Creek, and Smith Creek. At present, it is assumed that recreational mining activities are having minor 

impacts to individuals and habitats. 

Timber harvest and other vegetation management projects are occurring on private lands and on lands 

administered by the Stanislaus National Forest. A majority of the commercial timber lands are outside 

of the elevation range of the frog. Harvest on these lands has the potential to impact habitat indirectly 

primarily through erosion and sedimentation of aquatic habitats. Other vegetation management 

projects (fuel reduction projects) do occur within the elevation range of the frog and could affect 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats through sedimentation and modification of dispersal and upland 

368 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

habitats. On NFS land, activities in or near RCAs are mitigated by applying best management 

practices (BMPs) where equipment and activities are prohibited or minimal. Stream protection 

measures are also required on private land. Both public and private timber lands use herbicides for 

site preparation and to alleviate competition from non-desirable vegetation. The Stanislaus National 

Forest has developed a five-year plan for managing vegetation on its lands. There are 10 to 15 

projects that are planned or in planning that overlap with areas of suitable habitat. These projects will 

likely occur on an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. At present, 

vegetation management activities on private and public lands are having minor impacts to individuals 

and habitats. 

Development of lands adjacent to the Stanislaus National Forest is also expected to elevate the 

potential for the introduction of non-native (exotic) species into aquatic systems. Introduced nonnative aquatic predators such as centrarchid fishes, crayfish, and bullfrogs are believed to have 

affected herpetofauna populations in and adjacent to the Forest. 

Water development projects have resulted in the loss in some areas of suitable habitat and have 

reduced the suitability of habitat for the frog in some areas. Hydroelectric projects or impoundments 

are present on all major rivers on the Stanislaus National Forest with the exception of the Clavey 

River. The New Melones Reservoir and Don Pedro Reservoir effectively eliminated dozens of miles 

of suitable habitat when they were impounded. These reservoirs also effectively eliminated the 

potential for individuals to move between watersheds. Several impoundments located upstream of 

suitable habitat have modified stream discharge patterns and water temperatures. Reduced water 

temperatures may delay breeding or may delay the development of tadpoles which may affect 

survivorship upon metamorphosis. Water developments have had a large impact on individuals and 

habitat in the past. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance 

to aquatic wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of 

recreation based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). The project 

alternatives would contribute to these past and current conditions with added displacement due to 

noise and human activity, and indirect effects to aquatic habitat. Approximately 5 miles of new trail 

construction, as well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been 

proposed for the future (separate from this project). These trails are proposed to provide “connector 

routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical dispersed camping 

opportunities. The effects of these routes could be similar to those described under direct and indirect 

effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior and loss of habitat. 

Table 3.11-50 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. The direct and indirect 

effects of the project alternatives would likely contribute to cumulative effects for this species. As can 

be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of routes, and therefore would have 

the most impact on individuals. Because this alternative does not prohibit cross country travel, there is 

a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation and associated cumulative impacts upon 

the red-legged frog. Alternative 3 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes to 

the NFTS. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 contribute cumulatively to the disturbance and habitat alteration 

from activities described above. Alternatives 4, 1, 5, and 3 would result in progressively lower risk to 

these frogs due to the amount of motorized routes being added to the system. These alternatives do 

not result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but would likely influence habitat suitability. 

Although the action alternatives may result in additional cumulative impacts, they are very minor in 

comparison to other factors affecting this species. 

369 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest 

Table 3.11-50 Drivable Routes in California red-legged frog habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Routes proposed to be added to NFTS which may capture surface run-off 

and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with the CRLF1,

2

,

3 6 0 0 6 0 

Routes proposed to be added to NFTS that do not avoid RCAs except 

where necessary to cross streams1,

2

,

3 12 0 0 12 0 

Stream crossings on all routes within suitable aquatic habitat1,

2 45 47 21 47 21 

Miles of routes within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat1,

2 27.96 31.18 22.41 29.2 23.41 

Miles of routes within dispersal habitat1,

2 85.88 105.64 75.69 94.49 74.21 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated.
 

2 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 are less than the miles of
 

open routes under Alternative 3.
 

3 This indicator relates directly to the PDC for the red-legged frog. Since the PDC apply only to unauthorized routes proposed for designation to the NFTS,
 

the indicator is used only for additions to the system.
 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The CRLF is not known to occur within the project area, but protocol-level surveys have not been 

completed in all suitable habitat (USDI 2005). Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; 

therefore, this alternative would not comply with USFWS PDC and would likely adversely affect the 

CRLF. Alternatives 1 and 4 would prohibit cross country travel. While they would add routes that 

would not comply with USFWS PDC, they may affect the CRLF but would not likely adversely 

affect it. Therefore, further informal consultation with FWS will have to occur for these alternatives. 

Alternative 3 would prohibit cross country travel and would not result in more stream crossings or 

more miles in aquatic and dispersal habitat. Alternative 5 would comply with USFWS PDC. It would 

prohibit cross country travel and, would not add any routes that would have any direct or indirect 

effects. Therefore, these two alternatives would have no effect on the CRLF. As can be seen from 

Table 3.11-51, of the alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least negative impact on the species. 

For further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the project BA/BE (project 

record). 

Table 3.11-51 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (California red-legged frog) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternative 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Routes proposed to be added to NFTS which may capture surface run-off and then 

deliver sediment into a stream associated with the CRLF1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Routes proposed to be added to NFTS that do not avoid RCAs except where 

necessary to cross streams1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Stream crossings on all routes within suitable aquatic habita1,

2 3 1 5 2 4 

Miles of routes within 300 feet of suitable aquatic habitat1,

2 3 1 5 2 4 

Miles of routes within dispersal habitat1,

2 3 1 4 2 5 

Average 3.00 1.00 4.80 2.40 4.60 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for aquatic biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most
 

impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the public.
 

Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes and routes where this is no public right-of-way.
 

3Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the miles of open 

routes under Alternative 3.
 

3 This indicator relates directly to the PDC for the red-legged frog. Since the PDC apply only to unauthorized routes proposed for designation to the NFTS,
 

the indicator is used only for additions to the system.
 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) was historically found throughout much of California and 

southwestern Oregon, but currently occupies only a small portion of its historical range 

(Amphibiaweb 2009, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Lind (2005) estimated FYLF populations (prior to 

1980) have disappeared from approximately 51% of their historic range. These frogs have been 

370 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

extirpated from at least two thirds of their historic localities over their entire Sierran range (Jennings 

1996, Lind 2005). Herpetofauna surveys have occurred extensively throughout the Stanislaus 

National Forest, but have not covered aquatic habitat within the project area in its entirety. 

Approximately 20% of all perennial streams and 6% of all seasonal streams have been surveyed. 

Through these surveys these frogs have been detected in approximately 18 separate streams 

throughout the Stanislaus National Forest. There are many “subpopulations” associated with multiple 

breeding/occupancy locales in several of these streams. 

The FYLF is a highly aquatic amphibian that prefers streams with a rocky substrate. Most 

occurrences of the frog on the Stanislaus National Forest occur at elevations below 3,000 feet 

(Aquasurv, Stanislaus National Forest database updated as of 2008), though historic occurrences 

occurred at elevations up to 4,200 feet (CDFG 2009). FYLFs breed at locations with substrates and 

channel shapes that provide suitable velocities and depths over a relatively broad range of discharge 

volumes (Kupferberg 1996). Locally, breeding occurs in late May or early June when water levels 

become stable enough to reduce the risk of stranding or scour. These frogs prefer partial shade, 

shallow riffles, and cobble-sized or greater substrate (Hayes and Jennings 1988). Kupferberg (1996) 

reported adult frogs may disperse into small tributary streams with persistent water following 

breeding, and personal observations on the Stanislaus National Forest are similar. During all seasons, 

these frogs are rarely encountered far from permanent water, though FYLFs have been observed in 

abandoned rodent burrows and under logs as far as 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) from a 

stream (Zeiner et al. 1988, Welsh 1994). Tadpoles typically use shallow water habitats where warmer 

water and food resources (diatoms, algae) are plentiful. Adults are likely to use exposed streambeds 

and riparian areas to forage for a variety of terrestrially- and aquatically-derived insects. 

Since surveys of all aquatic habitats have not been conducted systematically for this project, suitable 

aquatic habitat was conservatively estimated. For the purposes of this analysis, suitable FYLF aquatic 

habitat has been defined and mapped as all perennial and intermittent streams within the Stanislaus 

National Forest below 4,500 feet in elevation. Since field surveys have not been completed on all 

areas adjacent to suitable aquatic habitat, this analysis assumes that all land within 30 meters 

(approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic habitat may provide suitable terrestrial habitat. Since the 

FYLF is primarily stream dwelling the potential for impacts beyond 30 meters of suitable aquatic 

habitat is very low and would likely result in negligible effects to the species. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the FYLF. Although biological thresholds for these 

indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

The data shown in the tables for suitable habitat is the data for suitable habitat of unknown 

occupancy. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

known occupied habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known occupied 

habitat. 

371 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known 

occupied aquatic habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from 

closed to open status 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable 

aquatic habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to 

open status 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the FYLF through the following 

activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on FYLFs through the following: human-caused 

mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification (see Effects Common to all Aquatic 

Wildlife). Furthermore, these frogs may be less prone to the effects of motorized travel because they 

are rarely found far from water, the timing and location of breeding suggests they will select a 

favorable breeding site in highly dynamic stream environments where localized sedimentation may be 

less important, and they tend to be very dispersed in their distribution within any given stream. 

However, recently metamorphosed individuals show a strong tendency to migrate away from the 

natal pool prior to the onset of winter. During this time they would be more vulnerable to vehicle 

collisions. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable FYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-52). This 

alternative would result in the addition to the NFTS of one route with one stream crossing within 

known occupied FYLF habitat and several routes with 61 stream crossings within suitable habitat. 

These stream crossings would likely result in direct and indirect effects to some individuals of all 

FYLF life history stages. The addition of routes to the NFTS and conversion of roads to trails within 

100 meters (approximately 325 feet) of known occupied and suitable aquatic habitat would likely 

result in direct effects to a few juvenile and adult FYLF and would result in indirect effects to both 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat over the short and long term. Since these impacts would affect a very 

small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat (Table 3.11-52), these actions would likely 

impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project area 

over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: The FYLF is not known to enter into torpor, but has been found overwintering as far 

as 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) from aquatic habitat. Approximately 73% of suitable FYLF 

habitat is within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix 

372 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

I). Therefore, this would reduce the potential direct effects to a significant portion of potential 

overwintering juveniles and adults. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season 

reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated with all life history stages of the 

FYLF. 

Mitigation Measures: The only type of mitigation measure proposed on routes that are associated 

with known occupied FYLF habitat are log/rock barriers. Types of mitigation measures proposed on 

routes associated with suitable FYLF habitat include the following: barriers, tread hardening, drain 

dips, a hardened stream crossing, and a small bridge. The installation of a hardened stream crossing 

and a small bridge would likely result in a short-term increase in sedimentation which may impact 

some individuals. The installation of all mitigation measures may result in short-term disturbance to 

some individual frogs, but will limit trail widening, reduce soil perturbation, and reduce 

sedimentation, providing beneficial effects over the long term. 

Table 3.11-52 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat + 1 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known 

occupied habitat + 0.27 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 44 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic 

habitat 6.89 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. All suitable and occupied foothill 

yellow-legged frog habitat on NFS lands is currently open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to these frogs. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to individual frogs. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable FYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

373 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential direct and indirect effects to the FYLF. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable FYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-53). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight increase from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added to the 

system or converted to a trail within suitable FYLF habitat, there would be a slight increase over 

Alternative 1 in the direct and indirect effects to these frogs within the project area. Although these 

increases would result in more individuals being impacted, these increases would not likely be 

significant enough to result in impacts to FYLF populations within the project area. 

Season of Use: The FYLF is not known to enter into torpor, but has been found overwintering as far 

as 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) from aquatic habitat. Approximately 73% of suitable FYLF 

habitat is within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix 

I). Therefore, this would reduce the potential direct effects to a significant portion of potential 

overwintering juveniles and adults. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season 

reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated with all life history stages of the 

FYLF. 

Mitigation Measures: The types and effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-53 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat + 1 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known 

occupied habitat + 0.27 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 73 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic 

habitat + 8.69 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable FYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

374 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-54). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a decrease from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added to the 

system or converted to a trail within suitable and known occupied FYLF habitat, there would be a 

decrease in the direct and indirect effects to these frogs within the project area. The impacts from this 

alternative would affect a very small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat (Table 3.11­

54). Thus, these actions would likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts 

to populations within the project area over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: The FYLF is not known to enter into torpor, but has been found overwintering as far 

as 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) from aquatic habitat. Approximately 73% of suitable FYLF 

habitat is within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix 

I). Therefore, this would reduce the potential direct effects to a significant portion of potential 

overwintering juveniles and adults. Furthermore, the closure of routes during the wet weather season 

reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated with all life history stages of the 

FYLF. 

Mitigation Measures: The types and effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-54 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status 0% 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 7 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic 

habitat -- 1.03 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status -- <1% 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Many past cumulative impacts have likely contributed to the decline in FYLF numbers and 

distribution. The reduction in FYLF distribution and population numbers has largely been attributed 

to loss or alteration of habitats and increased competition/predation from introduced species. Habitat 

loss and alteration is associated with the following management activities on the Stanislaus National 

Forest: livestock grazing, mining, water development projects, vegetation management, and pesticide 

exposure. 

Historic livestock grazing likely had a significant cumulative impact to FYLF and their habitat. 

Historic livestock grazing evidence indicates that heavy livestock use in the Sierra Nevada led to 

riparian habitat degradation across much of the Sierra Nevada. Livestock trampling has the potential 

to directly kill most life stages of FYLF. The mortality risk from livestock trampling is greatest for 

tadpoles and recently metamorphosed frogs. Tadpoles have limited mobility and have a tendency to 

seek cover in the spaces between streambed substrates. By seeking cover in this manner, tadpoles 

may be unaware of the potential peril from trampling. The risk is particularly high in intermittent 

streams where water resources may be limited and livestock have few options for accessing water. 

Risk is also higher following metamorphosis when metamorphs are concentrated along aquatic 

margins. Sedimentation arising from concentrated livestock use areas is considered to be the biggest 

impact to FYLF habitat. Ten active livestock allotments overlap known localities of the FYLF, and 

375 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

suitable FYLF habitat (no known detections) overlaps with an additional 4 allotments. On the 

Stanislaus National Forest, the impacts of livestock grazing on meadows is variable between years, 

but has been steadily decreasing as forage utilization levels are being reduced by stricter standards 

established by the SNFPA. Livestock grazing is considered to currently have a very minor impact on 

individuals and habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

As with the CRLF, recreational gold mining activities overlap with known occupied FYLF sites and 

the activity has the potential to impact individuals and habitat. Tadpoles are potentially vulnerable to 

being sucked into the dredge and mortality or injury could result. Suction dredging also presents a 

physical disturbance to frogs and prolonged dredging could affect the distribution of individuals in a 

stream. Some of the actions involved with suction dredging include moving streambed substrates, 

digging into streambanks, and loss of riparian vegetation. At some locations, there has been a 

modification of rearing habitat resulting in the loss of shallow, warm-water foraging habitat for 

tadpoles. Also, the rearrangement of streambed substrates has the potential to change the streamflow 

patterns thereby affecting the suitability of habitat for deposition of egg masses. Suction dredging 

occurs at six to ten of the known occupied streams. Suction dredging is considered to currently have a 

minor impact on individuals and a moderate impact on habitat. 

Water development projects have resulted in the loss in some areas of suitable habitat and have 

reduced the suitability of habitat for the frog in some areas. Hydroelectric projects or impoundments 

are present on all major rivers on the Stanislaus National Forest with the exception of the Clavey 

River. The New Melones Reservoir and Don Pedro Reservoir effectively eliminated dozens of miles 

of suitable habitat when they were impounded. These reservoirs also effectively eliminated the 

potential for individuals to move between watersheds. Several impoundments located upstream of 

suitable habitat have modified stream discharge patterns and water temperatures. Lind et al. (1996) 

and Bobzien and DiDonato (2007) documented reduced breeding success downstream of dams due to 

releases of water that either strand or scour egg masses from their attachment sites. Reduced water 

temperatures may delay breeding or may delay the development of tadpoles, which in turn may affect 

survivorship upon metamorphosis. Water developments have had a major impact on individuals and 

habitat in the past. Currently, water developments are having a moderate impact on individuals and 

habitat. 

Vegetation management activities have the potential to impact individuals and habitat if activities 

occur in close proximity to occupied habitat. Ground-disturbing activities, including timber harvest, 

have the potential to result in sedimentation of habitats with primary implications for tadpole 

survivorship and fitness. Prescribed fire in riparian areas may result in mortality of individuals or a 

disturbance of behavior. Prescribed fire also has the potential to modify riparian habitats if the fire is 

severe enough to consume woody and herbaceous species. Modification of habitat may locally reduce 

the suitability of riparian habitat for refuge and foraging activities. However, fire may be beneficial in 

providing a diversity of conditions that may meet the needs of the frog. In general, current vegetation 

and fuels projects are designed to reduce potential impact on FYLF habitats and minimize disturbance 

to the species. Best management practices are implemented and monitored to minimize sediment 

delivery to streams and to prevent unexpected consequences to riparian habitats. Stream protection 

measures are also required on private land. The Stanislaus National Forest has developed a five-year 

plan for managing vegetation on public lands. There are 10 to 15 projects that are planned or in 

planning that overlap with areas of known occupied/suitable habitat. These projects will likely occur 

on an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. CDF currently lists 

approximately 2,365 acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest administrative 

boundary for which timber harvest plans have been submitted. The portion of these projects occurring 

within this frog’s range has not been determined. Timber harvest on private lands is generally more 

intensive. At present, vegetation management activities on private and public lands are having minor 

impacts to individuals and habitats. Historically, vegetation management and fuels reduction projects 

376 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

likely had minor to moderate impacts on FYLF and habitats, especially if project activities occurred 

in or immediately adjacent to FYLF aquatic habitats. 

Exposure to a variety of pesticides has the potential to impact individuals. Pesticides are introduced 

into the aquatic environment either through direct application, groundwater contamination, and/or 

drift. Herbicides are commonly used in forestry to establish plantations and to release the growing 

conifers from competition. The Stanislaus National Forest and private forestry have applied 

herbicides extensively across the forest and in proximity to known occupied and suitable habitat for 

the FYLF. Monitoring on the Stanislaus National Forest has shown that herbicide applications have 

resulted in very low concentrations of herbicide contaminating aquatic habitats in the past. One 

project on the Stanislaus National Forest in the planning stage proposes to apply herbicides for site 

preparation and release in close proximity to known occupied FYLF habitat. Herbicides are and have 

been extensively used on private forest lands. Lenoir et al. (1999) and Sparling et al. (2001) showed a 

variety of pesticides are present in precipitation falling in the Sierra Nevada, a result of drift from 

agricultural applications in the Central Valley of California. The implications of this drift are poorly 

understood. However, Davidson et al. (2002) used spatial tests to link upwind herbicide application 

with the decline of the FYLF. Pesticide exposure is currently having a very minor impact on 

individuals, but historic applications likely had a minor to moderate impact on individuals. 

Introduced species have the potential to impact the FYLF primarily through increased competition 

and predation. Kupferberg (1997) showed grazing competition from bullfrog tadpoles reduced the 

survivorship and mass at metamorphosis of FYLF tadpoles. Kupferberg (1997) also reported FYLFs 

were rarely encountered in areas invaded by bullfrogs, suggesting a population-level impact. 

Bullfrogs have been observed across the Stanislaus National Forest, typically at lower elevations 

(<3,000 feet) and within the range of the FYLF (Aquasurv, Stanislaus National Forest database 

updated as of 2008). Moyle (1973) reports non-native bullfrogs are predators on the FYLF. As Moyle 

(1973), Jennings and Hayes (1994), and Jennings (1996) suggest, water developments (dams and 

diversions) may be responsible for the introduction of non-native game fish and for modifying 

habitats that facilitate the invasion of aquatic habitats by non-native species. Non-native game fish are 

found below and above many low elevation impoundments on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Introduced species have had a minor to moderate impact on FYLF populations in the past, and the 

expectation is that competition from bullfrogs will increase as this species expands its range on the 

forest. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance 

to aquatic wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of 

recreation, based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). The project 

alternatives would contribute to these past and current conditions with added displacement due to 

noise and human activity, and indirect effects to aquatic habitat. Approximately 5 miles of new trail 

construction, as well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been 

proposed for the future (separate from this project). These trails are proposed to provide “connector 

routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical dispersed camping 

opportunities. The effects of these routes could be similar to those described under direct and indirect 

effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior and loss of habitat. 

Table 3.11-55 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown for Alternative 2 

are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. The direct and indirect 

effects of the project alternatives would likely contribute to cumulative effects for this species. As can 

be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of routes, and therefore would have 

the most impact on individuals. Because Alternative 2 does not prohibit cross country travel, there is 

a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation and associated cumulative impacts on 

FYLF. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 contribute cumulatively to the disturbance and habitat alteration 

377 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

from activities described above. Alternatives 4, 1, 5, and 3 would result in progressively lower risk to 

these frogs due to the amount of motorized routes resulting under each alternative. These alternatives 

do not result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but would likely influence habitat suitability. 

Although the action alternatives may result in additional cumulative impacts, they are very minor in 

comparison to other factors affecting this species. 

Table 3.11-55 Drivable Routes in foothill yellow-legged frog habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Stream crossings (perennial and intermittent) on all routes within known 

occupied aquatic habitat1,

2 7 8 6 9 6 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic habitat1,

2 1.70 1.79 1.43 1.70 1.43 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by all routes1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

Stream crossings (perennial and intermittent) on all routes within suitable 

aquatic habitat1,

2 400 480 350 423 341 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat1,

2 53.68 65.33 47.01 56.67 47.17 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by all routes1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

2 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 are less than the miles of 

open routes under Alternative 3. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The FYLF was historically found throughout much of California and southwestern Oregon, but 

currently occupies only a small portion of its historical range (Amphibiaweb 2009, Jennings and 

Hayes 1994).The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with 

the cumulative effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for 

this species. As can be seen from Table 3.11-56, of the alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the 

least negative impact on the species. For further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, 

see the project BA/BE (project record). 

Table 3.11-56 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (foothill yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Stream crossings (perennial and intermittent) on all routes within known 

occupied aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by all routes 1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Stream crossings (perennial and intermittent) on all routes within suitable 

aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 2 4 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by all routes 1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 2 4 

Average 3.00 1.00 4.83 2.50 4.67 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the 

public. Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public rightof-way.
 

3 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the 

miles of open routes under Alternative 3.
 

378 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

Historically the mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF) was extremely abundant within high elevation 

aquatic ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Grinnell and Storer 1924, Zweifel 1955). 

Beginning around the 1970s, the MYLF has undergone dramatic population declines throughout the 

Sierra Nevada (Knapp and Matthews 2000), and has disappeared from a significant portion of its 

range (USDA 2004c). Although they are found throughout most of their historic range, many 

populations within their range have become extirpated (Amphibiaweb 2009). Previously the MYLF in 

the Sierra Nevada was considered to be one species, Rana muscosa. Recent genetic studies indicate 

MYLFs in the Sierra Nevada are actually comprised of two species: R. sierrae, with a distribution in 

the northern and central Sierra Nevada, and R. muscosa, with a distribution in the southern Sierra 

Nevada and southern California. The contact zone for these two newly recognized species is in the 

vicinity of Mather Pass and the Monarch Divide, Fresno County (Vredenburg et al. 2006). Though 

the Regional Forester’s list of sensitive species has not been revised to specifically address this 

apparent change in taxonomy, this analysis pertains to R. sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog. 

Over the last 15 years herpetofauna surveys have provided broad spatial coverage of aquatic habitat 

within the Stanislaus National Forest, but surveys were not systematic nor did they cover all potential 

MYLF habitat. Approximately 10-15% of all perennial streams, and 40-60% of lakes/ponds, within 

the elevational range of this species have been surveyed. Frogs have been found in at least 40 distinct 

sites forest-wide, most of which are located in designated wilderness areas. 

MYLFs in the Sierra Nevada inhabit high mountain lakes, ponds, tarns, and streams, largely in areas 

that were glaciated (Zweifel 1955). These frogs occur in the Sierra Nevada from 4,500 feet to over 

12,000 feet elevation (Jennings and Hayes 1994). However, local observations have all occurred 

above 5,400 feet and 95% of all observations are above 7,000 feet (Aquasurv, Stanislaus National 

Forest database updated as of 2008). 

MYLFs are seldom far from water, although they have been observed moving overland to disperse to 

other pond habitats. In some areas, there is a seasonal movement from lakes that are more favorable 

for overwintering (e.g., deeper water) to nearby areas that are more favorable for breeding. As the 

temperatures drop to freezing or below (generally October to November), frogs enter torpor for the 

winter. Adults emerge from torpor as soon as the ponds and lakes begin to thaw and ice is clear from 

at least part of the water surface (Amphibiaweb 2009). They have been found to move 200 to 900 

meters () along streams or across dry land (Knapp et al. 2006). Out of 500 frogs tagged in one study, 

one moved 1 kilometer () in the fall to over-wintering habitat (Pope and Matthews 2001). 

Typically, these frogs prefer well-illuminated, sloping banks of meadow streams, riverbanks, isolated 

pools, and lake borders with vegetation that is continuous to the water's edge (Zeiner et al. 1988). 

Most of the populations on the Stanislaus National Forest occur within fish-free lakes and ponds 

within wilderness areas and in fish-free lakes and ponds above 5,500 feet in elevation, but they are 

known to occur within some streams as well. Since systematic surveys of all aquatic habitats have not 

been conducted as a part of this project, suitable aquatic habitat was conservatively estimated. For the 

purposes of this analysis, suitable MYLF aquatic habitat has been defined and mapped as all 

perennial streams, lakes, and ponds above 5,500 feet in elevation. Since field surveys have not been 

completed on all areas adjacent to suitable aquatic habitat, this analysis assumes that all land within 

30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic habitat may provide suitable terrestrial habitat. 

Since the MYLF is highly aquatic and is typically seen within one meter (approximately 40 inches) of 

the water’s edge, the potential for impacts beyond 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat is very low 

and would likely result in negligible effects to the species. 

379 
 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the MYLF. Although biological thresholds for these 

indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

The data shown in the tables for suitable habitat is the data for suitable habitat of unknown 

occupancy. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

known occupied habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known occupied 

habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known 

occupied aquatic habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from 

closed to open status 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable 

aquatic habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to 

open status 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the MYLF through the following 

activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on MYLFs through the following: human-caused 

mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification (see Effects Common to all Aquatic 

Wildlife). These frogs may be less prone to adverse effects from motorized travel because they are 

closely associated with aquatic features and less likely to be exposed to direct mortality. They 

presumably do not make long-distance migrations outside of the breeding season, remaining close to 

suitable aquatic habitat. In streams, the larvae of the MYLF are typically associated with deeper pool 

habitats that have limited potential for direct mortality. 

380 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable MYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-57). This 

alternative would not result in the addition to the NFTS of any stream crossings within known 

occupied MYLF habitat, but would result in the addition to the NFTS of 8 stream crossings within 

suitable habitat. These stream crossings may result in direct and indirect effects to some individuals 

of all MYLF life history stages. The addition to the NFTS of routes and conversion of roads to trails 

within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known occupied and suitable aquatic habitat would 

likely result in direct effects to a few juvenile and adult MYLF and would result in indirect effects to 

both aquatic and terrestrial habitat over the short and long term. Impacts from this alternative would 

affect a very small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat. Thus, these actions would 

likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project 

area over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: The MYLF inhabits higher elevations and spends the cold winter months in torpor. 

All known occupied and suitable MYLF habitat would be within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the seasonal 

closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Although impacts would be minimal during the 

winter because most of the habitat is inaccessible due to snow during the torpor period and during 

most of the times of seasonal movement (immediately prior to and after torpor), the seasonal closures 

may provide some additional protection prior to the frogs entering torpor in fall and after emergence 

in the spring. The season of use would not apply to 10 WOS routes (see Table 2.02-2). , Since these 

frogs typically overwinter in aquatic habitat (mountain lakes or deep pools), the use of WOS vehicles 

during the winter months would have very little impact on them. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the MYLF. 

Mitigation Measures: There would not be any mitigation measures proposed on routes that are 

associated with known occupied MYLF habitat. Types of mitigation measures proposed on routes 

associated with suitable MYLF habitat include the following: barriers, tread hardening, drain dips, 

and a hardened stream crossing. The installation of a hardened stream crossing would likely result in 

a short-term increase in sedimentation which may impact some individuals. The installation of all 

mitigation measures may result in short-term disturbance to some individual frogs, but will limit trail 

widening, reduce soil perturbation, and reduce sedimentation, providing beneficial effects over the 

long term. 

Table 3.11-57 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 7 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic 

habitat + 1.66 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

381 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Of the 27,700 acres of suitable 

MYLF habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest, 14,500 acres are open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to these frogs. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to these frogs. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable MYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential direct and indirect effects to the MYLF. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable MYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-58). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight increase from Alternative 1 in the number of ML1 roads 

converted to a trail within suitable MYLF habitat, there would be a slight increase over Alternative 1 

in the direct and indirect effects to these frogs within the project area. Although these increases may 

result in more individuals being impacted, these increases would not likely be significant enough to 

result in impacts to MYLF populations within the project area. 

382 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Under this alternative the total number of stream crossings in known occupied habitat would be 4, and 

164 in suitable habitat. There would be 0.86 mile of trails within 30 meters of known occupied habitat 

and 28.00 within 30 meters of suitable habitat. 

Season of Use: The effects of the seasons of use in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-58 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 7 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic 

habitat + 1.66 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable MYLF habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-59). This 

alternative would not result in the addition to the NFTS of any stream crossings within known 

occupied or suitable MYLF habitat. The conversion of approximately 0.26 miles of roads to trails 

within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic habitat may result in direct effects to 

very few juvenile and adult MYLF. The conversion of this route to trail may result in minor indirect 

effects to both aquatic and terrestrial habitat over the short and long term. Impacts under this 

alternative would affect a very small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat. Thus, these 

actions would likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations 

within the project area over the short or long term. 

Table 3.11-59 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat -- 1 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of suitable aquatic 

habitat + 0.17 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Season of Use: The effects of the seasons of use in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

383 
 

 

 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Many past and current cumulative impacts have contributed to the decline in MYLF numbers and 

distribution. One factor attributed to wide-scale population declines of the MYLF has been the 

introduction of salmonid fishes during the last century (Bradford et al. 1993, Knapp 1996). Recently, 

it has been determined that a chytridomycete fungus has been associated with numerous MYLF dieoffs in the Sierra Nevada of California (Rachowicz 2006). Other factors that may contribute to 

cumulative impacts to the species and its habitat include the following: pesticides; ultraviolet 

radiation; bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens; acidification from atmospheric deposition; nitrate 

deposition; livestock grazing; recreational activities; and drought (USDA 2001). 

Introduced trout species within high mountain lakes have severely affected MYLF population trends 

in the Sierra Nevada including the Stanislaus National Forest. In recent years, the California 

Department of Fish and Game has been actively addressing this issue to proactively manage for 

MYLF restoration opportunities while still providing a recreational fishery within high mountain 

lakes. Recent experimental efforts to remove introduced trout species from high mountain lakes has 

shown that MYLF populations may positively respond. Non-native game fish are found in many high 

mountain lakes on the Stanislaus National Forest and have likely had a major impact on MYLF 

populations in the past. Although some actions are presently being taken to mitigate the impacts of 

introduced game fish, it is costly, labor intensive, and difficult to remove fish populations from some 

high mountain lakes. Therefore, they will likely continue to have significant impacts on the ability of 

MYLF populations to grow and expand on the Stanislaus National Forest in the future. 

The chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, has recently been determined to be common 

within MYLF populations within the Sierra Nevada, and it has likely played a significant role in 

population declines (Fellers et al. 2001, Rachowicz et al. 2006). Although it is well documented that 

this fungus may play such a role, its dispersal ability is not currently well understood (Rachowicz 

2006). Without further research, it is difficult to determine the level of risk motorized use and access 

may have on the dispersal of this disease. 

Historic livestock grazing likely had a significant cumulative impact to this species and their habitat. 

Historic livestock grazing evidence indicates that heavy livestock use in the Sierra Nevada led to 

riparian habitat degradation across much of the Sierra Nevada. Livestock trampling has the potential 

to directly kill all life stages of MYLF. The greatest potential of mortality risk from livestock 

trampling is expected to occur when adult MYLF aggregate and lay egg masses in the early season, 

and during metamorphosis, when juveniles are metamorphosing along aquatic margins. Current 

standards and guidelines in the SNFPA were implemented to reduce the risk of trampling by livestock 

(USDA 2004). Known MYLF habitat sites currently overlap with 9 active livestock grazing 

allotments. Potential MYLF habitat overlaps with approximately 18 additional allotments. 

Management direction including standards and guidelines for grazing should reduce potential grazing 

impacts from livestock grazing over the long term. 

Historic vegetation management and fuels reduction projects have likely contributed to past and 

present cumulative effects, especially if projects occurred adjacent to MYLF aquatic habitats. 

Ground-disturbing activities including timber harvest and fuels treatment projects (burning and 

mastication projects) potentially caused direct mortality to this species which may have affected the 

abundance of the species on the Stanislaus National Forest. Projects in the planning stage on the 

Stanislaus National Forest will likely occur on an estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the 

acreage treated in 2006. CDF currently lists approximately 2,365 acres of private land within the 

Stanislaus National Forest administrative boundary for which timber harvest plans have been 

submitted. The portion of these projects occurring within this frog’s range has not been determined. 

384 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Timber harvest on private lands is generally more intensive. In general, current vegetation and fuels 

projects on public land are designed to reduce potential impacts on MYLF habitats, and, therefore, 

minimize disturbance to the species. However, as MYLF migrate between breeding sites, and 

between breeding sites and overwintering sites (usually in or very near water), there is some potential 

for direct impacts from being crushed or burned from vegetation and fuels projects. The magnitude of 

this happening across the range of the MYLF frog habitats on the Stanislaus National Forest should 

be limited given the timing of MYLF migration (in the spring), with the exception of spring 

prescribed burning projects. The adverse impacts of spring burning is expected to be low given the 

relatively low amount that occurs on the Forest within an average year, particularly within the range 

of this frog. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance 

to aquatic wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of 

recreation, based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). Approximately 5 

miles of new trail construction, as well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping 

access, have been proposed for the future (separate from this project). These trails are proposed to 

provide “connector routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical 

dispersed camping opportunities. The effects of these routes could be similar to those described under 

direct and indirect effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior and loss of habitat. 

Although motorized vehicle use has not been identified as one of the major contributing factors to 

MYLF declines, the direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives would likely contribute to 

cumulative effects for this species with added displacement due to noise and human activity, and 

indirect effects to aquatic habitat. Table 3.11-60 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The 

numbers shown for Alternative 2 are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last 

updated. As can be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of routes, and 

therefore would have the most impact on individuals. Because Alternative 2 does not prohibit cross 

country travel, there is a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation and associated 

cumulative impacts upon MYLF. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 contribute cumulatively to the 

disturbance and habitat alteration from activities described above. Alternatives 4, 1, 5, and 3 would 

result in progressively lower risk to these frogs due to the amount of motorized routes resulting from 

each alternative. These alternatives do not result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but would 

likely influence habitat suitability. Although the action alternatives may result in additional 

cumulative impacts, they are very minor in comparison to other factors affecting this species. 

Table 3.11-60 Drivable Routes in mountain yellow-legged frog habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within known occupied 

aquatic habitat1,

2 4 4 4 4 4 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic habitat1,

2 0.86 1.00 0.54 0.86 0.54 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied 

aquatic habitat) directly impacted by all routes1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

Stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat1,

2 168 208 161 169 161 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat1,

2 27.96 33.04 25.84 28.00 26.10 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by all routes1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

2 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 are less than the miles of 

open routes under Alternative 3. 

385 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest 

Table 3.11-61 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (mountain yellow-legged frog) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within known occupied aquatic 

habitat1,

2

,

3 3 3 3 3 3 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of known occupied habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by all routes1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within suitable aquatic habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 2 4 

Miles of routes within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 2 4 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 30 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by all routes1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Average 3.00 1.33 4.67 2.67 4.00 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the 

public. Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public rightof-way.
 

3 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the 

miles of open routes under Alternative 3.
 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

Historically the MYLF was extremely abundant within high elevation aquatic ecosystems of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains, but has recently undergone dramatic population declines throughout the 

Sierra Nevada (Grinnell and Storer 1924, Zweifel 1955, Knapp and Matthews 2000, USDI 2004). The 

direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative 

effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species. As 

can be seen from Table 3.11-61, of the alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least negative 

impact on the species. For further discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the 

project BA/BE (project record). 

Western Pond Turtle – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The western pond turtle (WPT) is the only extant aquatic turtle native to California and ranges from 

Washington to southern California (Stebbins 1985, Reese and Welsh 1997). They have been found 

throughout lower elevations of the Stanislaus National Forest, but are primarily located on the 

southern portions of the project area at elevations less than 4,500 feet (Aquasurv, Stanislaus National 

Forest database updated as of 2008). While herpetofauna surveys have occurred extensively 

throughout the Stanislaus National Forest, surveys have not been conducted systematically as part of 

this project nor have they covered aquatic habitat within the project area in its entirety. 

Approximately 20% of all perennial streams, 6% of all seasonal streams, and approximately 20% of 

all lakes and ponds have been surveyed. Through these surveys and various other efforts pond turtles 

have been detected at more than 20 locations throughout the Stanislaus National Forest. 

WPTs are habitat generalists, occurring in a wide variety of permanent and intermittent aquatic 

habitats and using terrestrial habitats extensively. Although they may occur up to 6,000 feet in 

elevation, they have rarely been observed above 5,000 feet within the project area (Stebbins 1985, 

Aquasurv, Stanislaus National Forest database updated as of 2008). Individual WPTs (usually males) 

may have large home ranges and may wander within a given watercourse for several kilometers on a 

regular basis (Holland 1994, Reese and Welsh 1997). In streams, Reese (1996) found that all turtles in 

the study used terrestrial habitats during the course of the year. Terrestrial habitats are needed for 

nesting, overwintering, and for seasonal uses. WPT nests have been found as far as 435 yards from a 

stream (Reese and Welsh 1997) in open sunny areas on hillslopes, generally with a south to southwest 

facing aspect. Nest sites typically occur in open areas dominated by grasses or herbaceous annuals on 

dry, well-drained soils with high clay/silt content and low (less than 15-degree) slope (Holland 1994). 

386 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

There is some indication that most nesting excursions occur at night (Rathbun et al. 2002). WPTs also 

move into upland slopes while overwintering or during periods when aquatic habitats become 

unsuitable (i.e., dry). The timing of overwintering movements is poorly understood, but generally 

occurs within the project area from the fall (October) to early spring (April). 

There are 18 streams occupied by the western pond turtle on the Stanislaus National Forest as 

determined by formal visual encounter surveys (Aquasurv, Stanislaus National Forest database 

updated as of 2008). Additionally, there are approximately 10 other known occurrences as determined 

by incidental observations by Forest biologists. A conservative estimate is that 30 populations of the 

turtle exist on lands administered by the Stanislaus National Forest (S. Holdeman, personal 

communication, August 11, 2009). 

Since systematic surveys for the project were not conducted for pond turtles in all potentially suitable 

aquatic habitat, suitable aquatic habitat was conservatively estimated. For the purposes of this 

analysis, suitable WPT aquatic habitat has been defined and mapped as continuous (minimum of 200 

feet) perennial and intermittent streams with less than 6% gradient and all lentic habitats below 5,000 

feet in elevation. These estimates were determined based on the most current recorded sightings of 

pond turtles. Since locations of pond turtles were often associated with a specific point on land, all 

adjacent potentially suitable aquatic habitats were assumed occupied. Suitable stream habitat was 

assumed occupied upstream and downstream of the sighting until a reach of unsuitable (> 6% 

gradient) stream habitat greater than 400 meters (0.25 mile, or 440 yards) in length was encountered. 

Further, this analysis assumes that all land within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat may provide 

suitable nesting habitat. Although pond turtles may travel further than 400 meters from aquatic habitat 

for overwintering purposes, these movements appear to be far less frequent. Since nesting primarily 

occurs within 400 meters of aquatic habitat (Holland 1994, Rathbun et al. 1992, Reese 1996, Reese 

and Welsh 1997, Rathbun et al. 2002), potential for impacts beyond 400 meters of suitable aquatic 

habitat is very low and would likely result in negligible effects to the species. 

Western Pond Turtle – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the WPT. Although biological thresholds for these 

indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

The data shown in the tables for suitable habitat is the data for suitable habitat of unknown 

occupancy. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

known occupied habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of known occupied habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of known 

occupied aquatic habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from 

closed to open status 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

387 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of suitable 

aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of suitable 

aquatic habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to 

open status 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the WPT through the following: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on pond turtles through the following: humancaused mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification (see Effects Common to all Aquatic 

Wildlife). Furthermore, pond turtles may be more prone to the effects of motorized travel because 

essentially all individuals use terrestrial habitats extensively throughout the year and they are wary of 

human presence. During nesting excursions, females are very sensitive to disturbance and will 

abandon the nesting effort (Reese 1996, Rathbun et al. 2002). The WPT also uses upland habitats 

extensively as overwintering habitat (Holland 1994, Rathbun et al. 2002), a period of reduced activity 

partially in response to cold weather and limited availability of food resources. 

Some WPT populations occur in a relatively discrete area (e.g., Big Kibbie Ridge pond) whereas 

others are more extensive, occupying several miles of a stream (eg., Rose Creek). It is assumed that 

the impacts at a discrete area are potentially more influential because the turtles are confined to a 

relatively small area and may not have sufficient alternative habitat in close proximity to which to 

disperse if disturbance becomes too great. It is also assumed that the impacts at a more extensively 

occupied location are less influential because the turtle has more habitat available to which to disperse 

if excessively disturbed. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable WPT habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-62). This 

alternative would result in the addition to the NFTS of several routes and 22 stream crossings within 

known occupied WPT habitat and several routes with 38 stream crossings within suitable habitat. 

These routes and stream crossings would likely result in direct and indirect effects to some juvenile 

and adult individual WPTs. The addition to the NFTS of routes and conversion of roads to trails 

within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of known occupied and suitable aquatic habitat may result in direct 

effects to adults (females) moving overland to find suitable nesting locations. Since nests are prepared 

in terrestrial habitat with vegetation providing some cover, it is unlikely that nests would be built 

directly in routes. Therefore, motorized use on routes would not likely result in the destruction of 

pond turtle nests. In areas where routes intersect suitable nesting habitat, hatchlings may be disturbed 

or crushed as they leave the nest to find suitable aquatic habitat. 

Alternative 1 would add routes to the NFTS within 1⁄4 mile of occupied WPT habitat that were not 

approved by a Wildlife Biologist. Therefore, these routes would not comply with the S&G which 

388 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

states, “Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized vehicles only if at 

least 1⁄4 mile from occupied habitat or where approved by a Wildlife Biologist.” These routes would 

be exempted from this S&G through a minor Forest Plan amendment. Following is a discussion of the 

effects of amending the Forest Plan with regards to the WPT. 

There are six known occurrences of western pond turtles where routes proposed to be added to the 

NFTS would occur within one-quarter mile buffer of the aquatic feature, affecting 20% of the known 

occurrences on the forest. The relative risk at both the individual and population level for the affected 

populations ranges from very low to moderate-high. The risk for several of these occurrences is 

considered to be very low to low because the routes would either add a very small amount of mileage 

in the buffer or the routes would occur in a physical location that would make the effect of any direct 

or indirect impacts relatively minor. These occurrences include Hull Creek, Big Creek, North Fork 

Merced River, and the South Fork Tuolumne River. The route added near Hull Creek (FR98599) 

would only add 0.04 miles (211 feet) in a relatively large occupied area (3 miles of occupied habitat). 

The one route added near Big Creek (FR98575) would add 0.13 miles in the buffer along 

approximately five miles of occupied stream. One route (FR10178) is proposed adjacent to the North 

Fork Merced River that could have a localized effect. While this site is within 100 feet of the river 

and extends for 0.6 miles, it affects less than 3% of the suitable habitat provided in the river. Of the 

four routes added in the buffer of the South Fork Tuolumne River, two (FR98504 and 1S1929C) are 

within 0.25 miles of each other and two (FR98502 and FR98503) are at the very edge of the buffer on 

a small tributary that affords low suitability habitat for the turtle. There are over 14 miles of habitat on 

the South Fork Tuolumne on lands administered by the Forest Service. 

For the occupied habitat at the Middle Fork Tuolumne River and Birch Lake area, the risk to 

individuals and populations for these localities is low-moderate to moderate. Six routes are proposed 

to be added in the buffer along the Middle Fork and four (FR98533, FR98537, FR98560, and 

FR5540) present low risk of direct or indirect impact to turtles because they are high up on a steep 

slope or are at the edge of the buffer. Two routes (FR98541 and FR98548) are located within 0.5 

miles of each other and access dispersed recreation sites at the river’s edge. There are over 14 miles 

of suitable habitat in the Middle Fork, making the impact at the two routes near the river a localized 

risk when considering the entire reach of river. In the Birch Lake area two routes are proposed within 

the 400 meter buffer (1S1902 and FR8601). As noted above, the risk is relatively greater (rated as 

moderate) due to the discrete nature of the habitat and the propensity of the turtle to remain in close 

proximity to the suitable habitat. 

In the Bull Creek watershed, the risk is low in Montgomery Gulch and in lower Bull Creek, but is 

moderate to high in the Anderson Valley area. There is one route (FR98582) that would access a 

dispersed campsite high up Montgomery Gulch where habitat suitability is low. With low habitat 

suitability, the potential for encountering a turtle is relatively low. The route that would be added in 

lower Bull Creek (FR98566) represents a localized risk, but at a larger scale (two miles upstream or 

downstream) represents a low risk locally. The localized risk in Anderson Valley is higher because 

there are eight routes that would be added in one mile of stream. All of these routes access dispersed 

campsites and most are very close to the stream. The risk to individuals and the population at the 

upper end of Bull Creek is higher due to the high number of routes that would be added and the 

increased potential for direct effects (mortality, physical disturbance) and indirect effects to 

individuals and habitat. However, the relative risk to individuals and populations at the scale of the 

Bull Creek watershed is relatively low because there are over 10 miles of suitable habitat in the 

stream and the majority of the impact would occur on 10% of the available habitat. 

The area of greatest concern for the western pond turtle is in the Moore Creek area on the Groveland 

District. Of the 8.7 miles of routes proposed within one-quarter mile of known occupied habitat, 5.3 

miles cross or are adjacent to approximately seven miles of Moore Creek. At the site-specific scale, 

there could be significant impacts to the turtle population in this creek. Past survey efforts have 

389 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

shown a small population (<20 individuals) dominated by adults with no apparent recruitment 

(Aquasurv, Stanislaus National Forest database updated as of 2008). This adult-skewed population 

may be an artifact of the lack of nesting habitat adjacent to the creek, particularly nesting habitat in 

close proximity to suitable hatchling habitat (S. Holdeman, personal communication, August 11, 

2009). Aerial photograph interpretation and field visits indicated extensive brush fields adjacent to 

Moore Creek and very little open, herbaceous-dominated areas that are preferred for nesting. There is 

a higher mortality and injury risk from direct encounters with off-highway vehicles in the vicinity of 

Moore Creek due to the number and total length of routes being proposed within one-quarter mile of 

the aquatic habitat. In combination, the increased mortality risk and an apparently older population of 

turtles may lead to a reduced viability of the local population. If there is limited or no recruitment in 

this population and mortality occurs on an occasional or regular basis, there is the risk the population 

will become unsustainable. However, at the larger scale of the 6th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (Upper 

North Fork Merced River watershed) which includes Moore Creek, turtle populations are known from 

the North Fork Merced River, Jordan Creek, Smith Creek, and Bean Creek. All of these streams have 

connectivity with Moore Creek and this potential meta-population may serve as a source of 

recruitment of adult and subadult turtles to Moore Creek. 

The addition of routes to the NFTS and conversion of ML1 roads to trails would result in indirect 

effects to both aquatic and terrestrial habitat over the short and long term. Indirect effects that are 

likely to occur to suitable and known occupied habitat include the loss of suitable nesting habitat and 

increased sedimentation into streams. Since the impacts from this alternative would affect a very 

small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat, these actions would likely impact some 

individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short 

or long term. 

Season of Use: WPTs generally move into upland terrestrial habitat to overwinter. Most of the 

known occupied and suitable pond turtle habitat in the project area is within Zone 2 or Zone 3 of the 

seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Limiting the season of use would likely 

reduce disturbance to some individual overwintering pond turtles. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the WPT. 

Mitigation Measures: Types of mitigation measures proposed on routes associated with known 

occupied pond turtle habitat include the following: barriers, tread hardening, and drain dips. Types of 

mitigation measures proposed on routes associated with suitable pond turtle habitat include the 

following: barriers, tread hardening, drain dips, hardened stream crossings, water bars, a cattle guard, 

and a small bridge. The installation of hardened stream crossings and a small bridge would likely 

result in a short-term increase in sedimentation which may impact some individuals. The installation 

of all mitigation measures may result in short-term disturbance to some individual pond turtles, but 

would limit trail widening, reduce soil perturbation, and reduce sedimentation, providing beneficial 

effects over the long term. 

Table 3.11-62 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (western pond turtle) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat + 26 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of known occupied habitat 14.00 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 54 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes 400 meters (0.25 mile) of suitable aquatic habitat + 77.86 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

390 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. All suitable and occupied WPT 

habitat on NFS lands is currently open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to pond turtles. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to pond turtles. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable WPT habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to pond turtle from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in 

additions to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential direct and indirect effects to the WPT. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions would continue on routes identified as needing mitigation, causing a 

potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable WPT habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to pond turtles from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-63). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 would add the same routes to the NFTS within 1⁄4 mile of occupied WPT habitat that 

were not approved by a Wildlife Biologist as under Alternative 1, plus one additional route. These 

routes would not comply with the S&G pertaining to routes within 1⁄4 mile of occupied habitat and 

would be exempted from this S&G through a minor Forest Plan amendment. The additional route is 

1S1907A, in the Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed. There are 6 routes proposed to be added 

within 1⁄4 mile of occupied habitat in this watershed under Alternative 1. Four (FR98533, FR98537, 

391 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

FR98560, and FR5540) present low risk of direct or indirect impact to turtles because they are high 

up on a steep slope or are at the edge of the buffer. Two routes (FR98541 and FR98548) are located 

within 0.5 miles of each other and access dispersed recreation sites at the river’s edge. 1S1907A 

connects to FR98541, and is within 170 feet of the river at its closest point. While there would be 3 

routes in this drainage close to the aquatic habitat, the impact would still be considered localized 

because of the amount of suitable habitat (over 14 miles) in the Middle Fork. The risk would still be 

rated as moderate due to the discrete nature of the habitat and the propensity of the turtle to remain in 

close proximity to the suitable habitat. 

Since there is an increase from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added to the system or converted 

to a trail within known occupied and suitable pond turtle habitat, there would be an increase in the 

direct and indirect effects to individuals within the project area. Although these increases would result 

in more individuals being impacted, these increases would not likely be significant enough to result in 

impacts to WPT populations within the project area. 

Season of Use: WPTs generally move into upland terrestrial habitat to overwinter. Most of the 

known occupied and suitable pond turtle habitat in the project area is within Zone 2 or Zone 3 of the 

seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Limiting the season of use would likely 

reduce disturbance to some individual overwintering pond turtles. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the WPT. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-63 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (western pond turtle) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat + 31 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of known occupied habitat + 22.43 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 74 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes 400 meters (0.25 mile) of suitable aquatic habitat + 78.80 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable WPT habitat. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-64). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a substantial decrease from Alternative 1 in the number of routes added 

to the system or converted to a trail within suitable and known occupied pond turtle habitat, there 

would be a substantial decrease from Alternative 1 in the direct and indirect effects to individuals 

within the project area. Since these impacts would affect a very small percentage of pond turtle 

habitat (Table 3.11-64), these actions would likely impact some individuals but would not likely 

result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: WPTs generally move into upland terrestrial habitat to overwinter. Most of the 

known occupied and suitable pond turtle habitat in the project area is within Zone 2 or Zone 3 of the 

392 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Limiting the season of use would likely 

reduce disturbance to some individual overwintering pond turtles. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the WPT. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-64 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (western pond turtle) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of known occupied habitat + 0.36 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 2 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes 400 meters (0.25 mile) of suitable aquatic habitat + 4.19 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Like the amphibians discussed above, the WPT has experienced dramatic declines within its range. 

The Federal Register (57 FR 45761) listed habitat destruction as the primary cause for the decline of 

the species. Within the analysis area, livestock grazing, suction dredge mining, water developments, 

vegetation management activities, and recreation activities have impacted or have the potential to 

impact individuals or modify habitat. 

Grazing has the potential to affect the WPT. Livestock may injure or kill individuals through 

trampling, particularly on hatchlings in the nest or in shallow water habitats. Sediment arising from 

areas of high use by livestock may impact pool habitat (reduction in volume). Grazing likely does not 

have a major influence on upland habitat attributes, such as vegetation composition or availability of 

overwintering sites. When livestock access water, there is the potential that their presence will result 

in a physical disturbance to individual turtles and cause them to seek refuge in aquatic habitat. The 

consequence of this disturbance is likely very minor in that it may interrupt an activity like basking 

that is necessary for basic metabolism. Basking is tied to metabolism which is linked with food intake 

and growth. If the interruptions are occasional, then the effect on metabolism is likely to be 

negligible. Extended disturbance may result in dispersal from the affected area or in loss of body 

mass (Cadi and Joly 2003). Nine active allotments overlap known populations of WPT and six other 

allotments overlap suitable habitat. Current standards and guidelines in the SNFPA were implemented 

to reduce the risk of habitat degradation by livestock (USDA 2004). Historic grazing likely had a 

minor impact on individuals and habitats, and current livestock grazing also has a minor impact on 

individuals and habitats. 

Suction dredge mining can result in disturbance to individuals and modification of habitat. The 

presence of people operating dredges in known occupied habitat can cause physical disturbance to 

individuals, thereby interrupting their normal activity pattern. As with livestock disturbance, if the 

disturbance is occasional then the effect on metabolism is assumed to be negligible. However, if the 

disturbance is excessive then physiological effects on growth are expected. Dredging can also alter 

habitats, possibly favoring the turtle. On the Stanislaus National Forest, observations have indicated 

that pool habitats are frequently deepened by dredging and WPT take advantage of this “improved” 

pool habitat. It is unlikely that dredgers unintentionally suck turtles into the dredge because the turtles 

are relatively conspicuous and typically attempt to avoid capture. The impact of past and current 

suction dredging is minor to individuals and negligible to the aquatic habitats needed by the species. 

393 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Water developments have the potential to impact the WPT through loss and/or modification of 

habitat. As noted above, several impoundments have been constructed on rivers across the Stanislaus 

National Forest, resulting in a direct loss of habitat. Holland (1994) found that large impoundments 

are largely unsuitable for the WPT. Indirect impacts to habitat include loss of habitat complexity and 

alterations in water temperatures. Reese and Welsh (1998) investigated the impacts of regulated 

streamflow downstream of an impoundment and found that habitat suitability was reduced in a 

dammed stream because there were fewer slow-velocity and warm water habitats than in an 

undammed stream. The implication of reduced habitat suitability was more time spent basking for 

thermoregulation which increased predation risk (Reese and Welsh 1998). Dams also physically 

interrupt the continuity of aquatic habitats which can effectively separate populations of turtles and 

limit genetic dispersal. The impact of past and current water developments on the Stanislaus National 

Forest have had, and continue to have, moderate to major impacts on the WPT and its habitats. 

Vegetation management activities have the potential to impact individuals and the habitats required 

by the WPT. Since the turtle uses upland habitats extensively, there is the potential that timber 

harvest, fuel reduction activities, and prescribed fire can impact individuals directly. Mechanical 

operations (harvest, shredding) and prescribed fire frequently occur within 100 meters (approximately 

325 feet) of known occupied streams. These activities can injure or kill individual females attempting 

to nest or both sexes overwintering, or by impacting nests (eggs and hatchlings). Fuel reduction and 

prescribed fire have the potential to modify upland and riparian habitats directly by changing the 

composition and density of vegetation in upland habitats. The loss of leaf duff from these activities 

may have detrimental effects on overwintering habitat. At the same time, the loss of leaf duff may 

have beneficial effects by increasing nesting habitat. Typically, the amount of sediment arising from 

vegetation management projects is minor and only has small and localized impacts to aquatic habitat 

(reduced pool volume). There are 10 to 15 projects that are planned or in the planning phase on the 

Stanislaus National Forest that could affect WPT habitats. These projects will likely occur on an 

estimated 3,500 acres per year, based upon the acreage treated in 2006. CDF currently lists 

approximately 2,365 acres of private land within the Stanislaus National Forest administrative 

boundary for which timber harvest plans have been submitted. The portion of these projects occurring 

within the turtle’s range has not been determined. Timber harvest on private lands is generally more 

intensive. Past activities likely had a greater impact (moderate) on the WPT because protections have 

only occurred in the last 10 years and management activities occurred close to streams. At present, 

mitigation measures are incorporated on public land to minimize effects at known occupied sites, and 

measures are incorporated on both public and private land to protect aquatic ecosystems. The current 

level of impact from vegetation management is minor on the turtle. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance 

to aquatic wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of 

recreation, based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). The project 

alternatives would contribute to these past and current conditions with added displacement due to 

noise and human activity, and indirect effects to aquatic habitat. Approximately 5 miles of new trail 

construction, as well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been 

proposed for the future (separate from this project). These trails are proposed to provide “connector 

routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical dispersed camping 

opportunities. The effects of these routes could be similar to those described under direct and indirect 

effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior and loss of habitat. 

The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives would likely contribute to cumulative effects 

for this species. Table 3.11-65 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown 

for Alternative 2 are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. As can 

be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of routes, and therefore would have 

394 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

the most impact on individuals. Because Alternative 2 does not prohibit cross country travel, there is 

a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation and associated cumulative impacts upon 

the WPT. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 contribute cumulatively to the disturbance and habitat alteration 

from activities described above. Alternatives 4, 1, 3, and 5 would result in progressively lower risk to 

these frogs due to the amount of motorized routes under each alternative. These alternatives do not 

result in a loss of habitat (no route construction), but would likely influence habitat suitability. 

Although the action alternatives may result in additional cumulative impacts, they are very minor in 

comparison to other factors affecting this species. 

Table 3.11-65 Drivable Routes in western pond turtle habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Number of stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within known occupied 

aquatic habitat 1,

2 92 101 67 98 66 

Total miles of routes within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic habitat 1,

2 679.98 794.34 627.13 728.48 622.46 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by all routes 1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

Number of stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat 1,

2 478 611 430 503 420 

Total miles of routes within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat 1,

2 699.53 889.97 649.97 735.67 633.74 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by all routes 1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open 

to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated. 

2 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 are less than the miles of open routes 

under Alternative 3. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The WPT is the only extant aquatic turtle native to California and ranges from Washington to 

southern California (Stebbins 1985, Reese and Welsh 1997). The direct and indirect effects of the 

project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative effects are not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species. As can be seen from Table 3.11-66, 

of the alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least negative impact on the species. For further 

discussion of the effects analysis and determinations, see the project BA/BE (project record). 

Table 3.11-66 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (western pond turtle) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within known occupied aquatic 

habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of known occupied aquatic 

habitat) directly impacted by all routes 1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 2 5 

Stream crossings (perennial) on all routes within suitable aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat 1,

2

,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Percentage of upland habitat (within 400 meters of suitable aquatic habitat) 

directly impacted by all routes 1,

2

,

3 3 1 4 2 5 

Average 3.00 1.00 4.17 2.00 5.00 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has 

the most impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) 

ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the 

public. Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes known at the time the data base was last updated and routes where this is no public rightof-way.
 

3 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the 

miles of open routes under Alternative 3.
 

395 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Yosemite Toad – Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The Yosemite toad is an endemic species to the state of California and is found at high elevations in 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Although they occur in habitats that are less impacted by humans, they 

currently only occupy approximately 50% of their historic range (Lannoo 2005). Herpetofauna 

surveys have occurred throughout the Stanislaus National Forest, but surveys have not been 

conducted systematically for this project nor have they covered Yosemite toad habitat within the 

project area in its entirety. Approximately 55% of all wet meadows within the range of the toad have 

been surveyed. Through these surveys and various other efforts these toads have been detected at 

approximately 65 to 70 locations throughout the Stanislaus National Forest. 

The Yosemite toad inhabits high elevation meadows that are typically associated with a water source 

and a willow component. Upon snowmelt, the toad moves from a hibernaculum to a breeding site 

typically located in a meadow. Shallow water sheeting across/through vegetation appears to be 

favored for breeding because water temperatures are very warm and allow for rapid development of 

the eggs and tadpoles. However, tadpoles have also been observed in small streams in wet meadows. 

Females may breed once every two to three years. Following breeding, the adults move into the rest 

of the meadow, into willow thickets, and into the uplands surrounding the meadow to forage (Martin 

2008). Dispersal distance from the breeding site to foraging habitat is variable, but Martin (2008) 

reports movements exceeding 600 meters (approximately 1,960 feet, or 0.4 mile) are possible. At the 

end of the season, toads seek underground refugia (e.g., rodent burrows) to overwinter. Morton 

(1981) reported toads may overwinter up to 750 meters (approximately 2,460 feet, or nearly 1⁄2 mile) 

from the nearest breeding site. Many researchers have found the toad to be diurnal (Kagarise Sherman 

and Morton 1993, Mullallay and Cunningham 1956). However, Martin (2008) reported most longerdistance movements occurred at night. Although the elevation range of the species begins at 

approximately 6,400 feet, they have only been found within the project area above 7,200 feet. For the 

purposes of this analysis, potentially suitable Yosemite toad habitat has been defined and mapped as 

the Wet Willow and Wet Other CWHR types above 7,000 feet in elevation. 

Yosemite Toad – Environmental Consequences 

Indicators 

Based upon the available literature, the following indicators were chosen to provide a relative 

measure of the direct and indirect effects to the Yosemite toad. Although biological thresholds for 

these indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by which the effects of the 

project alternatives may be compared. 

The data shown in the tables for suitable habitat is the data for suitable habitat of unknown 

occupancy. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

known occupied habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes (miles of routes added to the NFTS PLUS 

miles of routes converted from closed to open status [ML1 roads or administrative roads {closed} 

converted to all-vehicle roads, HLO roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails 

{open}] MINUS miles of routes converted from open to closed status [all-vehicle roads, HLO 

roads, all-vehicle trails, ATV trails, MC trails, or 4WD trails {open} converted to ML1 roads or 

administrative roads {closed}]) within known occupied habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of known occupied habitat directly impacted by 

routes added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) of 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

396 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (approximately 325 feet) of 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within 

suitable aquatic habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within suitable habitat. 

 Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of suitable habitat directly impacted by routes 

added to the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

General – All Alternatives 

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the Yosemite toad through the 

following activities: 

 Prohibiting cross country travel off of the NFTS, 

 Adding facilities to the NFTS, 

 Changing the type of use on NFTS routes, 

 Changing the season of use on NFTS routes, 

 Implementing mitigation measures. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on toads through the following: human-caused 

mortality, changes in behavior, and habitat modification (see Effects Common to all Aquatic 

Wildlife). Furthermore, Yosemite toads may be less prone to motorized travel because breeding 

movements typically occur when roads near breeding sites are impassable due to snow, because few 

trails or roads are located within meadows within the toad’s elevational range, and because most postbreeding movements occur in the breeding meadow or upland habitats adjacent to the breeding 

meadow. However, the dispersal and overwintering movements are large (exceeding 600 meters 

[approximately 0.4 mile]), making it possible that toads may have to cross roads to reach preferred 

foraging or overwintering sites. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of 

illegally created routes near known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad habitat. This would reduce 

the risk of direct and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long 

term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 1, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-67). This 

alternative would result in the addition to the NFTS of zero stream crossings in known occupied 

habitat and three stream crossings within suitable habitat. These stream crossings may result in direct 

and indirect effects to some individuals of all Yosemite toad life history stages. Routes being added to 

the system within or near known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad habitat may result in direct 

effects to some juveniles and adults and indirect effects to all life history stages of this toad. Since 

these impacts would affect a very small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat, these 

actions would likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations 

within the project area over the short or long term. 

Field surveys were completed on all routes that were proposed to be added to the NFTS within 

meadows. The purpose of the field surveys was to determine whether the route would have the 

potential to affect hydrology within the meadow. These surveys indicated that the routes that were 

proposed to be added within meadows would not significantly alter their hydrology (see 3.10 Water 

and RCO Analysis in project record). However, some routes were identified as needing mitigation to 

improve hydrologic conditions. Effects of the mitigation measures on this species are discussed 

below. 

397 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Season of Use: The Yosemite toad inhabits higher elevations and spends the cold winter months in 

torpor. All known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad habitat would be within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of 

the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Although impacts are expected to 

be minimal during the winter, these closures may provide some additional protection prior to these 

toads entering torpor in fall and after emergence in the spring. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the Yosemite toad. Since these frogs typically overwinter in earthen 

cavities (rodent burrows, rock crevices) the use of wheeled over-snow motor vehicles on designated 

routes (11 in number—see Table 2.02-2) during the winter months would have very little impact on 

them. 

Mitigation Measures: The only type of mitigation measure proposed on routes that are associated 

with known occupied Yosemite toad habitat is a drain dip. Types of mitigation measures proposed on 

routes associated with suitable Yosemite toad habitat include barriers and drain dips. The installation 

of all mitigation measures may result in short-term disturbance to some individual toads, but will 

limit trail widening, reduce soil perturbation, and reduce sedimentation, providing beneficial effects 

over the long term. 

Table 3.11-67 Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Yosemite toad) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within known occupied habitat + 0.19 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of known occupied habitat directly impacted by routes added to 

the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) of suitable 

aquatic habitat + 0.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (approximately 325 feet) of suitable 

aquatic habitat + 0.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within suitable habitat + 0.22 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of suitable habitat directly impacted by routes added to the 

NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would not be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore 

it is assumed that route proliferation would continue over the short and long term and the effects 

would be similar to those discussed for adding routes to the NFTS. Of the 9,000 acres of suitable 

Yosemite toad habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest, 3,500 acres are open to cross country travel. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: Although this alternative would not result 

in the addition of any miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, vehicles would be allowed to use all 

existing motorized trails because cross country travel would be allowed. Therefore, it is assumed that 

wheeled motorized vehicles will continue to use all of the unauthorized routes previously identified 

and continue to create new routes. The use of these routes and the continued proliferation of new 

routes would result in increasing amounts of direct and indirect effects to these toads. These effects 

would be similar to those discussed within Alternative 1 for the short term, but would be exacerbated 

over the long term by the continued proliferation of routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential disturbance to these toads. 

398 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions and hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes 

identified as needing mitigation, causing a potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: This alternative would not result in the 

addition of any motorized routes to the NFTS, nor would it change the type of use on any current 

NFTS routes. 

Season of Use: Seasonal closures that would be implemented under this alternative are only those 

that currently exist (Table 2.02-7). Although they would be limited, the seasonal closures 

implemented within this alternative would reduce potential direct and indirect effects to the Yosemite 

toad. 

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be implemented as part of this alternative. Any 

damage to stream conditions and hydrologic conditions in meadows would continue on routes 

identified as needing mitigation, causing a potential degradation of habitat. 

Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 4, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-68). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be the same as those discussed in 

Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-68 Alternative 4: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Yosemite toad) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within known occupied habitat + 0.19 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of known occupied habitat directly impacted by routes added to 

the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) of suitable 

aquatic habitat + 0.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (approximately 325 feet) of suitable 

aquatic habitat + 0.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 1 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within suitable habitat + 0.56 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of suitable habitat directly impacted by routes added to the 

NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Season of Use: The Yosemite toad inhabits higher elevations and spends the cold winter months in 

torpor. All known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad habitat would be within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of 

the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Although impacts are expected to 

be minimal during the winter, these closures may provide some additional protection prior to these 

toads entering torpor in fall and after emergence in the spring. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the Yosemite toad. Since these frogs typically overwinter in earthen 

399 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

cavities (rodent burrows, rock crevices) the use of wheeled over-snow motor vehicles on designated 

routes (11 in number—see Table 2.02-2) during the winter months would have very little impact on 

them. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 (Resources) 

Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel would be prohibited, limiting the proliferation of illegally 

created routes near known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad. This would reduce the risk of direct 

and indirect effects to these frogs from motorized travel over the short and long term. 

Additions to the NFTS or Changes to the Existing NFTS: To determine the relative risk of the direct 

and indirect effects of Alternative 5, several analyses were completed (Table 3.11-69). Direct and 

indirect effects of the actions proposed in this alternative would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative 1. Since there is a slight decrease from Alternative 1 in the amount of routes added to the 

system or converted to a trail within suitable habitat, there would likely be a slight decrease in the 

direct and indirect effects to individuals within the project area. Since these impacts would affect a 

very small percentage of suitable and known occupied habitat (Table 3.11-69), these actions would 

likely impact some individuals but would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project 

area over the short or long term. 

Season of Use: The Yosemite toad inhabits higher elevations and spends the cold winter months in 

torpor. All known occupied and suitable Yosemite toad habitat would be within Zone 2 and Zone 3 of 

the seasonal closures (as identified for each route in Appendix I). Although impacts are expected to 

be minimal during the winter, these closures may provide some additional protection prior to these 

toads entering torpor in fall and after emergence in the spring. Furthermore, the closure of routes 

during the wet weather season reduces soil perturbation and sedimentation into streams associated 

with all life history stages of the Yosemite toad. Since these frogs typically overwinter in earthen 

cavities (rodent burrows, rock crevices) the use of wheeled over-snow motor vehicles on designated 

routes (11 in number—see Table 2.02-2) during the winter months would have very little impact on 

them. 

Mitigation Measures: The effects of mitigation measures in this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative 1. 

Table 3.11-69 Alternative 5: Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators (Yosemite toad) 

Indicators 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within known 

occupied habitat 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within known occupied habitat + 0.19 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of known occupied habitat directly impacted by routes added to 

the NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status + <1% 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 100 meters (approximately 325 feet) of suitable 

aquatic habitat + 0.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within 400 meters (approximately 325 feet) of suitable 

aquatic habitat + 0.30 

Net change from existing NFTS in number of stream crossings affected by NFTS routes within suitable aquatic 

habitat + 0 

Net change from existing NFTS in miles of routes within suitable habitat -- 0.34 

Net change from existing NFTS in percentage of suitable habitat directly impacted by routes added to the 

NFTS or routes converted from closed to open status -- <1% 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

While the causes of decline for Yosemite toad are unclear, several past and current stressors have 

contributed to the decline in Yosemite toad numbers and distribution. The decline of the Yosemite 

400 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

toad has largely been hypothesized to include factors such as livestock grazing, disease, and pesticide 

drift. Recreational activities also affect the toad. 

Martin (2008) associated declines in Yosemite toad populations primarily with livestock grazing. 

Beginning in the 1860s, high elevation meadows were heavily impacted by unrestricted, large 

numbers of sheep. Cattle were introduced in the early 1900s and large numbers were allowed 

unrestricted access to the high-elevation meadows that provide suitable habitat for the toad. Primary 

impacts to individuals include the trampling of tadpoles in breeding habitat, of adults and subadults in 

upland habitats, and of recent metamorphs who have limited mobility. Impacts to habitat may have 

been more severe, with many meadows losing hydrologic function when streams incised and 

widened, thereby preventing annual flood waters from inundating the meadow and lowering the water 

table. Lowered water tables may be important in the persistence of breeding habitat (by causing early 

desiccation), which is naturally vulnerable in a Mediterranean climate. Livestock have the tendency to 

linger in the wet habitats in late summer because these habitats frequently support palatable forage. 

As such, breeding habitats tend to be heavily trampled and pocked by hooves. Livestock also graze 

the vegetation that may be important to toads for cover, foraging, and creating a cool, moist 

microclimate at the ground surface. There is also some speculation that the metabolic waste products 

degrade breeding habitats occupied by tadpoles through exposure to nitrogen (nitrates, nitrites, and 

ammonium) and phosphorus compounds. On the Stanislaus National Forest, livestock allotments 

overlap a majority of the known occupied Yosemite toad habitat. Approximately 45% of the known 

occupied sites occur outside of livestock allotments, primarily in the Emigrant Wilderness area. 

Historic livestock grazing likely had major impacts to individuals and habitat. Current impacts are 

considered to be moderate, since livestock numbers have steadily declined over the last 80 years and 

because restrictions on utilization and the timing of grazing have been recently tightened. 

Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1993) documented declines of Yosemite toad populations in and near 

Yosemite National Park. Using pathological examinations of toads collected during this die-off, 

Green and Kagarise Sherman (2001) found disease may have been critical in the declines of Yosemite 

toad populations within protected areas. Several diseases and parasites were detected in preserved 

specimens, including the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) suspected in many 

amphibian die offs (Berger et al. 1998, Lips 1998, Fellers et al. 2001, Daszak et al. 2003). This fungus 

is apparently widespread and has the potential to affect every population of Yosemite toad on the 

Stanislaus National Forest. While the past and present impact of disease on Yosemite toad 

populations is unknown, it is assumed that diseases (in general) and chytridiomycosis (in specific) 

have a major potential to impact the remaining populations on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Davidson et al. (2002) used spatial tests to determine that windborne contaminants were consistent 

with Yosemite toad declines because historic sites where Yosemite toads are absent had twice as 

much agricultural land upwind compared to historic sites that still have toads. Fellers et al. (2004) 

found elevated levels of DDE and other organochlorines in frog tissues in an area upwind of 

extensive agriculture. Fellers et al. (2007) and Davidson and Knapp (2007) both suggested airborne 

agrochemical deposition in the Sierra Nevada are contributing to declines of amphibians in relatively 

undisturbed environments. It is not known how pesticide contamination has affected the Yosemite 

toad on the Stanislaus National Forest in the past or currently. It is assumed that airborne 

contaminants are having a minor to moderate effect on Yosemite toad populations and habitat on the 

Forest. 

Recreation use has increased and is expected to continue to increase on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(see 3.04 Recreation Resources), resulting in greater likelihood and magnitude of human disturbance 

to aquatic wildlife. OHV use has been increasing at an even more rapid pace than other forms of 

recreation, based upon State figures for OHV sales (see 3.04 Recreation Resources). The project 

alternatives would contribute to these past and current conditions with added displacement due to 

noise and human activity, and indirect effects to aquatic habitat. Approximately 5 miles of new trail 

401 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

construction, as well as numerous short route segments for dispersed camping access, have been 

proposed for the future (separate from this project). These trails are proposed to provide “connector 

routes” between existing NFTS routes and motorized access to historical dispersed camping 

opportunities. The effects of these routes could be similar to those described under direct and indirect 

effects of the alternatives: changes in behavior and loss of habitat. 

The project contributes cumulatively to the disturbance and habitat alteration from activities 

described above. Table 3.11-70 shows the drivable routes under each alternative. The numbers shown 

for Alternative 2 are the conditions existing at the time the route data base was last updated. As can 

be seen from the table, Alternative 2 would have the most miles of routes, and therefore would have 

the most impact on individuals. Because Alternative 2 does not prohibit cross country travel, there is 

a high degree of uncertainty about future route proliferation and associated cumulative impacts on the 

toad. Alternatives 4, 1, 5, and 3 would result in progressively lower risk to these frogs due to the 

amount of motorized routes under each alternative. These alternatives do not result in a loss of habitat 

(no route construction), but would likely influence habitat suitability. Although the action alternatives 

may result in additional cumulative impacts, they are very minor in comparison to other factors 

affecting this species. 

Table 3.11-70 Drivable Routes in Yosemite toad habitats 

Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Number of stream crossings on all routes within known occupied 

habitat1,

2 2 2 2 2 2 

Total miles of routes within known occupied habitat1,

2 4.38 4.38 3.45 4.38 4.38 

Percentage of known occupied habitat directly impacted by all 

routes1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

Total miles of routes within 100 meters of known occupied habitat1,

2 25.09 25.19 23.53 25.09 25.09 

Total miles of routes within 400 meters of known occupied habitat1,

2 62.72 65.70 60.46 62.72 62.72 

Number of stream crossings on all routes within suitable habitat1,

2 2 2 1 2 1 

Total miles of routes within suitable habitat1,

2 5.92 6.83 5.70 5.92 5.70 

Percentage of suitable habitat directly impacted by all routes1,

2 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 

1 For Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS 

routes open to the public. For Alternative 2, also includes NFTS routes not open to the public and all unauthorized routes known at the time the data base 

was last updated. 

2 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 are less than the miles of 

open routes under Alternative 3. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The Yosemite toad is an endemic species to the state of California and is found at high elevations in 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Although they occur in habitats that are less impacted by humans, they 

currently only occupy approximately 50% of their historic range (Lannoo 2005). 

Table 3.11-71 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (Yosemite toad) 

Indicators Rankings by Alternatives 1 

1 2 3 4 5 

Stream crossings on all routes within known occupied habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Miles of routes within known occupied habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Percentage of known occupied habitat directly impacted by all routes1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Miles of routes within 100 meters of known occupied habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Miles of routes within 400 meters of known occupied habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 3 

Stream crossings on all routes within suitable habitat1,

2

,

3 3 1 5 3 5 

Miles of routes within suitable habitat1,

2

,

3 4 1 3 4 5 

Percentage of suitable habitat directly impacted by all routes1,

2

,

3 5 1 3 5 5 

Average 3.38 1.00 4.50 3.38 3.75 

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative has the least impact for aquatic biota related to the indicator; A score of 1 indicates the alternative has the most
 

impact for terrestrial biota related to the indicator. If both Alternatives were equal they were both given the same (higher of the two) ranking.
 

2 Includes any routes that can be driven, such as other public, private, permitted routes, administrative routes, and NFTS routes open to the public.
 

Alternative 2 also includes unauthorized routes and routes where this is no public right-of-way.
 

3 Because some routes are being changed from open to closed, in some habitats the miles of open routes under Alternative 5 is less than the miles of open 

routes under Alternative 3.
 

402 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

The direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) combined with the 

cumulative effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this 

species. As can be seen from Table 3.11-71, of the alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least 

negative impact on the species. For further discussion of the analysis and determinations, see BA/BE 

(project record). 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Direction 

American Marten 

The American marten was identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species and MIS on the 

Stanislaus National Forest (USDA 2007c; USDA 2007e). The FSEIS amended the Forest Plan with 

updated guidelines for managing furbearers, including the marten (USDA 2004). 

Forest Plan Direction 

1.	 Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old 

forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations. 

2.	 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the den site from existing 

recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate 

proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other 

developments for their potential to disturb den sites. 

3.	 Within Fisher/Marten reproductive areas in Forest Plan Near Natural and Wildlife management 

areas (see Forest Plan Wildlife Maps). Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road 

routes for motorized vehicles only where compatible with road/trail density standards, and where 

approved in the fisher/marten area management plan. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

1.	 Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; therefore, this alternative would not 

minimize old forest habitat fragmentation and would not comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel. Therefore, they would minimize 

old forest habitat fragmentation and would comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

2.	 There are no known marten den sites within the project area. Therefore, none of the project 

alternatives would have the potential to disturb known den sites, and all would comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. 

3.	 Road/trail density standards are not given in the Forest Plan. Only unauthorized routes, created 

through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. Disturbance from 

these routes is on-going. No new trails are being constructed. Every alternative except Alternative 

2 reduces the density of routes in marten habitat. Under Alternative 2, there is a likelihood of 

route density being increased because cross country travel would be allowed to continue. 

Therefore, all alternatives except Alternative 2 comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

Pacific Fisher 

The Pacific fisher was identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species on the Stanislaus 

National Forest (USDA 2007c). The FSEIS amended the Forest Plan with updated guidelines for 

managing furbearers, including the fisher (USDA 2004). 

Forest Plan Direction 

1.	 Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old 

forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations. 

2.	 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the den site from existing 

recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate 

proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other 

developments for their potential to disturb den sites. 

403 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

3.	 Within Fisher/Marten reproductive areas in Forest Plan Near Natural and Wildlife management 

areas (see Forest Plan Wildlife Maps). Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road 

routes for motorized vehicles only where compatible with road/trail density standards, and where 

approved in the fisher/marten area management plan. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

1.	 Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel. Therefore, this alternative would not 

minimize old forest habitat fragmentation and would not comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel. Therefore, they would minimize 

old forest habitat fragmentation and would comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

2.	 There are no known fisher den sites within the project area. Therefore, none of the project 

alternatives would have the potential to disturb known den sites, and all would comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. 

3.	 Road/trail density standards are not given in the Forest Plan. Only unauthorized routes, created 

through cross country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. Disturbance from 

these routes is on-going. No new trails are being constructed. Every alternative except Alternative 

2 reduces the density of routes in marten habitat. Under Alternative 2, there is a likelihood of 

route density being increased because cross country travel would be allowed to continue. 

Therefore, all alternatives except Alternative 2 comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

California Spotted Owl 

The California spotted owl was identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species and MIS on 

the Stanislaus National Forest (USDA 2007c, USDA 2007e). 

Forest Plan Direction 

Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing 

recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate 

proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments 

for their potential to disturb nest sites. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

The Stanislaus National Forest does not monitor spotted owl nest sites for disturbance from motorized 

recreation; therefore, there is not any documented disturbance to spotted owl nest sites from existing 

recreation. All routes that have been proposed as additions to the NFTS have been evaluated as part 

of this planning process. 

Northern Goshawk 

The northern goshawk was identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species on the 

Stanislaus National Forest (USDA 2007c). 

Forest Plan Direction 

Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing 

recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate 

proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments 

for their potential to disturb nest sites. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

The Stanislaus National Forest does not monitor goshawk nest sites for disturbance from motorized 

recreation; therefore, there is not any documented disturbance to goshawk nest sites from existing 

recreation. All routes that have been proposed as additions to the NFTS have been evaluated as part 

of this planning process. 

404 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

Mule Deer 

The mule deer was identified by the Regional Forester as a MIS on the Stanislaus National Forest 

(USDA 2007e). 

Forest Plan Direction 

1.	 Deer winter concentration areas or critical winter range may be closed to motorized use from 

11/15 – 4/15. 

2.	 Deer summer concentration areas or critical summer range may be closed to motorized use from 

4/15 – 8/1. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

1.	 Alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain the existing seasonal closures. These are route specific and 

inconsistent between administrative units. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 would implement Forest-wide 

winter seasonal closures for varying lengths of time (between alternatives) that are close to the 

dates mentioned above on the majority of winter concentration areas and critical winter range. 

Because the Forest Plan allows seasonal closures for deer, but does not require them, all 

alternatives are in compliance with this S&G. 

2.	 None of the project alternatives would result in closures on deer summer concentration areas or 

critical summer range during the season in which deer would be using those areas. The Forest 

Plan does not require a closure in summer concentration areas or critical summer range for deer: 

it allows such closures. Therefore, all of the alternatives are in compliance with this S&G. 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle was listed by the USFWS as a federally endangered species in 1978 and was removed 

from the federal list of Threatened and Endangered Species on June 28, 2007. The bald eagle was 

identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species on the Stanislaus National Forest (USDA 

2007c). Since 1978 populations have increased nationwide as well as in the Sierra Nevada (USDA 

2001). Management direction for the bald eagle is now provided by the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) of 1990 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712) of 

1972. Under these acts, disturbance that is likely to cause injury, substantial interference with normal 

breeding, feeding or sheltering behavior, or nest abandonment is prohibited (USDI 2007). 

USFWS Management Guidelines 

1.	 Off-road vehicle use (including snowmobiles). No buffer is necessary around nest sites outside 

the breeding season. During the breeding season, do not operate off-road vehicles within 330 feet 

of the nest. In open areas, where there is increased visibility and exposure to noise, this distance 

should be extended to 660 feet. 

2.	 Minimize potentially disruptive activities and development in the eagles’ direct flight path 

between their nest and roost sites and important foraging areas. 

USFWS Compliance 

1.	 Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel. Therefore, this alternative would not 

prevent disturbance to nest sites during the breeding season and would not comply with the above 

mentioned management guideline. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel 

and would not add any routes within 660 feet of nest sites. Therefore, these alternatives would 

prevent disturbance from motorized vehicles to nest sites during the breeding season and would 

comply with the above mentioned management guideline. 

2.	 Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel. Therefore, this alternative would not 

“minimize potentially disruptive activities... between the eagles’ nest and roost sites and 

important foraging areas” and would not comply with the above mentioned management 

guideline. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any 

405 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

routes between the eagles’ nest and roost sites and important foraging areas. Therefore, these 

alternatives would comply with the above mentioned management guideline. 

Forest Plan Direction 

1.	 Within Designated Territories (delineated bald eagle management areas, or additional territories, 

based on nesting occupancy): 

- Implement a Limited Operating Period (LOP) from January 1 through August 31. 

- Apply LOP restrictions to motor vehicle activities on Level 1 roads and OHV routes 

open to the general public. 

- Prohibit motor vehicle activity in wetlands, streamside management zones, and 

within 200 feet of lake shorelines that are used by bald eagles. 

2.	 Outside Designated Territories (new active bald eagle nests outside of designated management 

territories): 

- From January 1 through August 31, implement the following restriction around the 

nest for a distance determined by the Wildlife Biologist on a site-specific basis. 

- Re-route existing OHV use to routes at a safe distance from the nest. 

- Close or detour existing roads in the proximity of the nest site. 

- Prohibit motor vehicle activities in the roost area. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

1.	 Since Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel, this alternative would not prevent 

disturbance within Designated Territories. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would 

not add any routes within Designated Territories. Therefore, these alternatives would comply with 

the above mentioned S&G. 

2.	 Since Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel, this alternative would not prevent 

disturbance outside Designated Territories. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would 

not add any routes near nest sites outside of Designated Territories. Therefore, these alternatives 

would comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

Peregrine Falcon 

The peregrine falcon was listed as a federally endangered species from 1970 through 1999. On 

August 25, 1999 the final rule was published to de-list the peregrine falcon (USDI 1999) and it was 

then identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species on the Stanislaus National Forest (64 

FR 46542, USDA 2007c). 

Forest Plan Direction 

Implement a limited operating period (LOP), from February 1 through July 31, on all peregrine falcon 

territories active within the preceding five years, for at least 0.5 miles from the nest. 

 Restrict motor vehicle activities and new road construction; during this LOP, according to a 

management plan for the area. 

 Prohibit motor vehicle activity within 200 feet of lake shorelines that are used by peregrine 

falcons. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; thus this alternative would not prevent 

disturbance within peregrine falcon territories. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would not 

406 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

add any routes within peregrine falcon territories. Therefore, these alternatives would comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

On August 8, 1980, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) was listed as a threatened species 

(45 FR 52803). Critical habitat was also designated at this time, but does not occur on the Stanislaus 

National Forest. To assist with the Travel Management Planning process, the Forest Service entered 

into programmatic consultation with the USFWS for designation of unauthorized or unclassified 

routes and areas for recreational use by wheeled motorized vehicles. On December 27, 2006, the 

USFWS issued a Letter of Concurrence for 14 National Forests in California, including the Stanislaus 

National Forest. The Letter of Concurrence approved the PDC as outlined in the document entitled 

“Route Designation: Project Design Criteria for ‘No Effect’ or ‘May Affect Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect’ Determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1.” Therefore, if all actions proposed 

within the Travel Management Plan alternatives (analyzed in detail) comply with the PDC to reach a 

determination of “No Effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for TE species, no 

further consultation is required. If the PDC are not followed, further consultation is required. 

USFWS Project Design Criteria 

1.	 Unauthorized staging areas proposed for designation are not within 100 feet of occupied VELB 

sites or suitable habitat of elderberry plants containing stems measuring 1.0 inches or greater in 

diameter at ground level. 

2.	 Unauthorized routes or areas proposed for designation are not within 20 feet of occupied VELB 

sites or suitable habitat of elderberry plants containing stems measuring 1.0 inches or greater in 

diameter at ground level. 

Project Design Criteria Compliance 

1.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Therefore, all project 

alternatives would be in compliance with the above mentioned PDC. 

2.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Alternative 2 would not prohibit 

cross country travel; thus this alternative would not prevent the creation of routes within 20 feet 

of occupied VELB sites or suitable habitat. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the 

above mentioned PDC. Field surveys were completed on all routes below 3000 feet in elevation 

that were proposed to be added within Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would 

prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes within 20 feet of occupied VELB sites 

or suitable habitat. Therefore, these alternatives would comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

If either Alternatives 1, 3, 4 or 5 is selected, no further consultation with USFWS is required for this 

species. 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

The Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) was listed by the USFWS as an endangered species in 1970 (35 

FR 13520). The listing was reclassified to threatened status in 1975 to facilitate recovery and 

management efforts and authorize regulated angling (40 FR 29864). Critical Habitat has not been 

designated for the LCT (USDI 1995). To assist with the Travel Management Planning process, the 

Forest Service entered into programmatic consultation with the USFWS for designation of 

unauthorized or unclassified routes and areas for recreational use by wheeled motorized vehicles. On 

December 27, 2006, the USFWS issued a Letter of Concurrence for 14 National Forests in California, 

including the Stanislaus National Forest. The Letter of Concurrence approved the PDC as outlined in 

the document entitled “Route Designation: Project Design Criteria for ‘No Effect’ or ‘May Affect 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ Determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1.” Therefore, 

if all actions proposed within the Travel Management Plan alternatives (analyzed in detail) comply 

with the PDC to reach a determination of “No Effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely 

407 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Affect” for TE species, no further consultation is required. If the PDC are not followed, further 

consultation is required. 

USFWS Project Design Criteria 

1.	 Unauthorized routes and areas proposed for designation do not cross any stream within the 

occupied range of LCT. 

2.	 Unauthorized routes and areas proposed for designation are not located on active landslides and 

do not re-route surface water onto active landslides within watersheds that provide habitat for 

LCT. 

3.	 Within watersheds that provide habitat for LCT, unauthorized routes or areas proposed for 

designation do not have the potential to capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a 

stream. 

4.	 Unauthorized areas proposed for designation are located outside of RCAs that are within 

watersheds that provide habitat for LCT. 

5.	 Within watersheds that provide habitat for LCT, unauthorized routes proposed for designation 

avoid RCAs. 

Project Design Criteria Compliance 

1.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Alternative 2 would not prohibit 

cross country travel; thus this alternative would not prevent the creation of routes and stream 

crossings within the occupied range of LCT. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with 

the above mentioned PDC. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and 

would not add any routes or stream crossings within the occupied range of LCT. Therefore, these 

alternatives would comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

2.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Alternative 2 would not prohibit 

cross country travel; thus this alternative would not prevent the creation of routes on active 

landslides nor would it prevent the creation of routes that could potentially divert surface water 

onto active landslides within watersheds that provide habitat for LCT. Therefore, this alternative 

would not comply with the above mentioned PDC. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit 

cross country travel and would not add any routes on active landslides nor would they add any 

routes that could potentially divert surface water onto active landslides within watersheds that 

provide habitat for LCT; therefore, these alternatives would comply with the above mentioned 

PDC. 

3.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Alternative 2 would not prohibit 

cross country travel; thus, this alternative would not prevent the creation of routes that may have 

the potential to capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream that provides 

habitat for LCT. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes that 

may have the potential to capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream that 

provides habitat for LCT. Therefore, these alternatives would comply with the above mentioned 

PDC. 

4.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Therefore, all project 

alternatives would be in compliance with the above mentioned PDC. 

5.	 Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; thus, this alternative may result in the 

creation of routes that do not avoid RCAs within watersheds that provide habitat for LCT. 

Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the above mentioned PDC. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 

and 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes within RCAs that are 

within watersheds that provide habitat for LCT. Therefore, these alternatives would comply with 

the above mentioned PDC. 

If either Alternatives 1, 3, 4 or 5 is selected, no further consultation is required for this species. 

408 
 

Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

California Red-legged Frog 

On May 23, 1996, the CRLF was listed as a threatened species (61 FR 25813). On April 13, 2006, 

critical habitat was designated, but does not exist on the Stanislaus National Forest (71 FR 19244). To 

assist with the Travel Management Planning process, the Forest Service entered into programmatic 

consultation with the USFWS for designation of unauthorized or unclassified routes and areas for 

recreational use by wheeled motorized vehicles. On December 27, 2006, the USFWS issued a Letter 

of Concurrence for 14 National Forests in California, including the Stanislaus National Forest. The 

Letter of Concurrence approved the PDC as outlined in the document entitled “Route Designation: 

Project Design Criteria for ‘No Effect’ or ‘May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ 

Determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1.” Therefore, if all actions proposed within the 

Travel Management Plan alternatives (analyzed in detail) comply with the PDC to reach a 

determination of “No Effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for TE species, no 

further consultation is required. If the PDC are not followed, further consultation is required. 

USFWS Project Design Criteria 

1.	 Unauthorized routes or areas proposed for designation do not have the potential to capture surface 

run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with the CRLF. 

2.	 In suitable CRLF habitat, unauthorized routes proposed for designation avoid Riparian Reserve 

(RR) and Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) except where necessary to cross streams. 

Crossing approaches get the riders in and out of the stream channel and riparian area in the 

shortest distance possible while meeting the gradient and approach length standards. 

3.	 Unauthorized routes or areas proposed for designation do not cross any stream or waterbody 

within 500 feet of known occupied sites of CRLF; and no route or area is within a distance of 500 

feet from wetland (i.e. springs, wet meadows, ponds, marshes). 

4.	 In habitat occupied by CRLF, unauthorized routes or areas proposed for designation do not have 

the potential to capture or divert stream flow. The approaches to stream crossings are downsloped toward the stream on both sides. 

5.	 Unauthorized areas proposed for designation are located outside of RR and RCAs, meadows, and 

wetlands, within CRLF habitat. 

6.	 No unauthorized route or areas proposed for designation are within CARs for CRLF. 

Project Design Criteria Compliance 

1.	 The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. Alternative 2 would not prohibit 

cross country travel; thus, this alternative would not prevent the creation of routes that may have 

the potential to capture surface run-off and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with the 

CRLF. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the above mentioned PDC. Alternative 

3 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes to the NFTS. Therefore, this 

alternative would comply with the above mentioned PDC. Alternatives 1 and 4 would prohibit 

cross country travel but would add routes that may have the potential to capture surface run-off 

and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with the CRLF. Therefore, these alternatives 

would not comply with the above mentioned PDC (Table 3.11-72). Alternative 5 would prohibit 

cross country travel and would not add routes that may have the potential to capture surface runoff and then deliver sediment into a stream associated with the CRLF. Therefore, this alternative 

would comply with the above mentioned PDC (Table 3.11-72). 

2.	 Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; thus, this alternative would not prevent the 

creation of routes that avoid RCAs except where necessary to cross streams in suitable CRLF 

habitat. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the above mentioned PDC. Alternative 

3 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes to the NFTS. Therefore, this 

alternative would comply with the above mentioned PDC. Alternatives 1 and 4 would prohibit 

cross country travel but would add routes that do not avoid RCAs except where necessary to cross 

streams in suitable CRLF habitat. Therefore, these alternatives would not comply with the above 

409 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

mentioned PDC (Table 3.11-72). Alternative 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would not 

add routes that do not avoid RCAs except where necessary to cross streams in suitable CRLF 

habitat. Therefore, this alternative would comply with the above mentioned PDC (Table 3.11-72). 

3.	 As discussed in the Affected Environment section on CRLF, all suitable habitat has not been 

surveyed within the last two years to the most recent protocol. The FWS stated in 2002 that the 

CRLF has been extirpated from the part of its historic range which is on or adjacent to the 

Stanislaus National Forest (USDI 2002). In 2004 the FWS stated that drainages in the tributaries 

of the Tuolumne River and Jordan Creek are considered unoccupied (Federal Register 2004). 

This analysis takes a conservative approach in assuming that there is a low possibility that 

suitable habitat is occupied. This PDC addresses known, not assumed, occupied habitat. There 

are not any known occupied sites of CRLF within the project area. Therefore, all the project 

alternatives would comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

4.	 See discussion under #3 above. There are not any known occupied sites of CRLF within the 

project area. Therefore, all the project alternatives would comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

5.	 See discussion under #3 above. The project alternatives do not propose to add any staging areas. 

Therefore, all the project alternatives would comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

6.	 There are not any CARs for CRLF within the project area. Therefore, all the project alternatives 

would comply with the above mentioned PDC. 

Table 3.11-72 Routes inconsistent with USFWS PDC for the California red-legged frog 

Route 

Number 

PDC 

Consistency 

Additions to the NFTS 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

17EV192 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV192A Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV192B Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV194 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S17M Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98508 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98509 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98510 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98511 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98514 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98566 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98575 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

If Alternatives 1, 2 or 4 is selected, further consultation with the USFWS is required. 

Forest Plan Direction 

Within 300 feet of streams or ponds that have potential suitable habitat: 

 Construct new roads or trails or use off-road routes for motorized vehicles only after conducting 

amphibian surveys to the most recent protocol for the frog. 

 Allow stream crossings only where the route, through the water, and the adjacent streamside areas 

are naturally resistant to tires or are hardened with rock or other materials. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel; thus, this alternative would not prevent the 

creation of routes or unhardened stream crossings within 300 feet of potential suitable habitat for the 

CRLF. Therefore, this alternative would not comply with the above mentioned S&G. Alternative 3 

would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes to the NFTS. Therefore, this 

alternative would comply with the above mentioned S&G. Alternative 5 would prohibit cross country 

travel and would not add any routes within 300 feet of potential suitable CRLF habitat. Therefore, 

this alternative would comply with the above mentioned S&G. Alternatives 1 and 4 would prohibit 

cross country travel but would add routes and unhardened stream crossings within 300 feet of 

potential suitable habitat for the CRLF (Table 3.11-73). Management requirements (surveys 

410 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

completed to protocol) and mitigation measures (hardened stream crossings) are proposed on these 

routes to ensure that Alternatives 1 and 4 would comply with the above mentioned S&G (see 2.03 

Mitigation and Other Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives). 

Table 3.11-73 Routes inconsistent with the Forest Plan for the California red-legged frog 

Route 

Number 

Forest Plan 

Consistency 

Additions to the NFTS 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

17EV192 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV192A Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV192B Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV194 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV195 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV196 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV197 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S1734A Inconsistent No Yes No 

1S17E35B Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S17M Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR10178 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR8516 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98481 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98508 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98509 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98510 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98511 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98513 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98514 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98566 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98575 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

Western Pond Turtle 

The WPT was identified by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species on the Stanislaus National 

Forest (USDA 2007c). 

Forest Plan Direction 

In areas adjacent to waters with known populations of WPT: 

 Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized vehicles only if at least 

1⁄4 mile from occupied habitat or where approved by a Wildlife Biologist. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

Alternative 2 would not prohibit cross country travel. Therefore, this alternative would not prevent 

the creation of routes within 1⁄4 mile of occupied pond turtle habitat and would not comply with the 

above mentioned S&G. Alternative 3 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any 

routes to the NFTS. Therefore, this alternative would comply with the above mentioned S&G. 

Alternative 5 would prohibit cross country travel and would not add any routes to the NFTS within 1⁄4 

mile of occupied pond turtle habitat. Therefore, this alternative would comply with the above 

mentioned S&G. Alternatives 1 and 4 would prohibit cross country travel but would add routes within 

1⁄4 mile of occupied pond turtle habitat that were not approved by a Wildlife Biologist. Therefore, 

these routes would not comply with the above mentioned S&G (Table 3.11-74). These routes will be 

excepted from this S&G through a minor Forest Plan amendment. The effects of excepting these 

routes from this amendment are disclosed above under the WPT section and within the BA/BE 

(project record). 

411 
 

Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus 

Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species National Forest
 

Table 3.11-74 Routes inconsistent with the Forest Plan for the western pond turtle 

Route 

Number 

Forest Plan 

Consistency 

Additions to the NFTS 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

17EV192 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV192A Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV192B Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV194 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV195 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV196 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV197 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV197A Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

17EV901 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S1727 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S17E35B Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S17M Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S1902 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S1907A Inconsistent No Yes No 

1S1929 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

1S1929C Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR10178 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR8516 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR8601 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98482 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

Route 

Number 

Forest Plan 

Consistency 

Additions to the NFTS 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

FR98486 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98504 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98508 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98509 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98510 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98511 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98513 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98514 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98515 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98520 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98537 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98539 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98541 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98548 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98554 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98560 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98566 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98575 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

FR98599 Inconsistent Yes Yes No 

Migratory Landbird Conservation on the Stanislaus National Forest 

Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of 

habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when 

planning for land management activities. 

As part of the Travel Management process, the Stanislaus National Forest has conducted an 

assessment of existing roads and trails within Forest boundaries. Any new construction, 

reconstruction and maintenance of system roads or trails will be conducted under a separate NEPA 

analysis and decision. Because current travel management efforts are directed at identifying which 

existing unauthorized routes will be formally added to the NFTS while prohibiting cross country 

travel, and because there is no expectation of new construction or development, no changes in the 

distribution or abundance of habitats available to migratory birds are anticipated. Changes in 

authorization are not anticipated to contribute to a measurable increase in use levels, but the 

prohibition of cross country travel is expected to result in less use across the landscape. Therefore, 

habitat functionality is expected to remain similar or more than, and levels of disturbance related to 

use are expected to remain similar to or less than, pre-decisional levels. 

412 
Motorized Travel Management Affected Environment
 

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences
 

3.12 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the 

Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical 

assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, 

economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 

101). Alternatives 5, 3, 1, 4 then 2 respectively from most to least could potentially improve the longterm productivity by reducing the number of existing routes on the landscape. Routes not designated 

for public motorized use will eventually revert to vegetated conditions, reducing many of the adverse 

effects related to these routes. 

3.13 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse environmental 

effects. Although formation of the alternatives included avoidance of some effects, other adverse 

effects could occur that cannot be completely mitigated. The environmental consequences section for 

each resource area discusses these effects. 

3.14 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of 

time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a 

power line rights-of-way or road. The addition of existing unauthorized routes, or not adding existing 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS or changing use on the NFTS is not anticipated to cause an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

3.15 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest 

extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and 

integrated with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.” This EIS was prepared in 

accordance with the following regulations. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966: Section 106 requires federal agencies to 

consider the potential effects of a Preferred Alternative on historic, architectural, or archaeological 

resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the 

President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. Section 110 

requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, and protect National Register of Historic 

Places resources on properties they control. Potential impacts to archaeological and historic resources 

were evaluated in compliance with Section 106. 

Executive Order 11644 ORV Management: Executive Order (EO) 11644, Use of Off-Road 

Vehicles on Public Lands (issued February 8, 1972), provides for the establishment of policies and 

procedures that will ensure that the use of OHVs on public lands will be controlled and directed so as 

to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to 

minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Agency heads are directed to provide for 

413 
 

Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus 

Other Required Disclosures National Forest
 

administrative designations of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of OHVs 

may be permitted, and areas in which the use of OHVs may not be permitted. 

Executive Order 11989 ORV Management: EO 11989, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands 

(issued May 24, 1977), clarifies agency authority to define zones of use by OHVs on public lands. 

Agency heads, when they determine that the use of OHVs will cause or is causing considerable 

adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources to 

immediately close such areas or trails to the type of OHV causing such effects, until such time that it 

is determined that such adverse effects are eliminated and that measures are implemented to prevent 

further recurrences. 

Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice: EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (issued February 11, 

1994), requires that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations. None of the alternatives disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations. 

Clean Water Act: regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 

(33 USC 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of 

the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands 

are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 404). No 

dredging or filling is part of this proposed action and no permits are required. 

Clean Air Act of 1970: provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources. 

No exceeding of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is expected to result from any of 

the alternatives. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not 

be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 

7 of the ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult 

the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning endangered and threatened species 

under their jurisdiction. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 and sets forth the requirements for Land and Resource Management 

Plans (Forest Plans) for the National Forest System. The proposed action is consistent with the 

NFMA and the Forest Plan. 

414 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

4. Consultation and Coordination 

The first section of this chapter shows the preparers and contributors followed by a second section 

outlining the distribution of the EIS. 

4.01 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

The Forest Service worked with the following individuals; federal, state and local agencies; and, 

tribes during the development of this EIS. 

Interdisciplinary Team 

Millie Baird 

Education: B.S. Civil Engineer, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, 1996 

Experience: Civil Engineer, Chippewa National Forest 12 years 

Team Responsibility: Mixed Use Analysis, Transportation Specialist Report 

James M. (Mike) Bradshaw 

Education: A.S. Engineering, Imperial Valley College, 1966; B.S. Civil Engineering, Cal Poly, Pomona, 

1969; M.S. Civil Engineering, University of Oklahoma, 1970 

Experience: Facilities Management, Stanislaus National Forest 10 years; Civil Engineer (Roads and 

Facilities), San Bernardino National Forest 8 years; Civil Engineer (Road Management), 

Stanislaus National Forest 22 years 

Team Responsibility: Transportation/Engineering 

Kathy Burnett 

Education: A.A. General Education, Columbia College, 1973; B.A. Biology, UC Santa Cruz, 1975; 

Master of Human Resources and Organization Development, University of San Francisco, 1997 

Experience: Program Manager, Stanislaus National Forest 10 years; Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus 

National Forest 10 years; Laboratory Technician, Columbia College 2 years; Consulting Biologist 

5 years; Biological Technician, Stanislaus National Forest 8 years 

Team Responsibility: Facilitator, Recorder 

Yolanda Durston 

Education: Undergraduate coursework (30 units) Columbia College, 1990-1994 

Experience: GIS Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 15 years; Administrative Assistant, Stanislaus 

National Forest 1 year; Engineering Technician, Stanislaus National Forest 2 years; Engineering 

Technician, Mt. St Helen's Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest 7 years 

Team Responsibility: GIS Specialist 

James W. Frazier 

Education: B.A. Physical Geography, California State University Long Beach, 1968; M.S. Watershed 

Management, Humboldt State University, 1973 

Experience: Hydrologist, Stanislaus National Forest 32 years 

Team Responsibility: Hydrologist 

415 
 

 

 

Chapter 4.01 Stanislaus 

Preparers and Contributors National Forest
 

Alan J. Gallegos 

Education: B.S. in Geology, University of Southern Colorado 

Experience: Southern Sierra Province Geologist (Sierra, Sequoia and Stanislaus National Forests) and the 

Sierra National Forest Soils Program Manager; 28 years with the Forest Service in Central 

California and prior experience in Central Utah and Northern California. 

Team Responsibility: Geologist 

Sharon Grant 

Education: A.S. Natural Resource Management, Columbia College, 1999; A.S. Computer Geographic 

Information Systems, Columbia College, 1999 

Experience: Hydrology Technician, Stanislaus National Forest 12 years 

Team Responsibility: Hydrology Technician, Writer/Editor 

Steve Holdeman 

Education: B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, 1988, M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, 

University of Tennessee, 1993 

Experience: Forest Aquatic Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 7 years; Private consultant, Aquatic 

Biology 17 years 

Team Responsibility: Forest Aquatic Biologist 

Crispin Holland 

Education: B.S. Rangeland Resource Science, CSU Humboldt, 1994 

Experience: Forest Wildlife, Range and Botany Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest 1 year; Range 

Program Manager, Pacific Southwest Region 4 years; Range Conservationist, Plumas National 

Forest 5 years; Range Conservationist, Stanislaus National Forest 5 years 

Team Responsibility: Analysis Review; Forest Wildlife Biologist 

Alex Janicki 

Education: B.S. Geology, University of Florida, 1970; M.S. Soil Science, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 1980 

Experience: Soil Scientist, Stanislaus National Forest 28 years; Terrain Analyst, U.S. Army Engineering 

Terrain Detachment 2 years 

Team Responsibility: Soil Scientist 

R. Brian Kermeen 

Education: B.S. Landscape Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1974 

Experience: Landscape Architect, Stanislaus National Forest 32 years; Dutch Forest Service (Netherlands) 

2 years 

Team Responsibility: Recreation, Social/Economic and Visual Resources Specialist 

John Maschi 

Education: B.S. Landscape Architecture, Rutgers University, 1976; Master of Landscape Architecture, 

University of Illinois, 1978 

Experience: Forest Planner, Stanislaus National Forest 12 years; Assistant Recreation Officer 6 years; 

Landscape Architect 11 years 

Team Responsibility: Land Management Planning 

Aileen M. Palmer 

Education: B.S. Forestry, University of California, Berkeley, 1975; M.S. Wildlife Management, Colorado 

State University, 1978 

Experience: Consulting Planner/Wildlife Biologist 1 year; NEPA Planner, Stanislaus National Forest 2 

years; Program Manager, Stanislaus National Forest 2 years; Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus 

National Forest 24 years 

Team Responsibility: Wildlife Biologist 

416 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Jason Pyron 

Education: B.S. Fishery Resources, University of Idaho, 2004; Masters of Public Administration, 

Emphasis in Natural Resources, University of Idaho, 2007 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 1 year; Fisheries Biologist, NOAA Fisheries 1 

year; Natural Resource Specialist, Salmon-Challis National Forest 1 year 

Team Responsibility: Wildlife Biologist 

Jim Schmidt 

Education: B.S. Economics, Santa Clara University, 1972; Graduate work, Resource Economics, 

University of California, Riverside, 1973-74; Masters Degree, Forest Management, Emphasis in 

Forest Economics, Oregon State University, 1975 

Experience: GIS Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 17 years; GIS Instructor Columbia College 12 

years; GIS Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest 2 years; Economist, Stanislaus National Forest 

5 years; Economist, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 6 years, Research Analyst; Oregon 

State University 2 years 

Team Responsibility: GIS Specialist 

Jay Power 

Education: B.A. Earth Sciences/Environmental Studies, U. C. Santa Cruz, 1972 

Experience: Patrol Captain, Law Enforcement 4 years; Hydrologist, Klamath National Forest 16 years; 

Geologist, 8 years; Hydrologist, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2 years; 

Geologist, California Division of Mines and Geology 3 years 

Publications: Using shear waves to measure soil strength, Charles Real and Jay Power, California 

Geology, 1975 

Team Responsibility: Law Enforcement 

Chuck James 

Education: Forestry Certificate Columbia College, 1992; A.S. Natural Resources, Columbia College, 

1993; A.S. Geographic Information Systems, Columbia Community College, 2001 

Experience: OHV Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 14 years; Park Ranger, Bureau of Reclamation 4 

years 

Team Responsibility: OHV Specialist 

Beth Martinez 

Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management, Utah State University, 1983; M.S. Forest Planning and 

Administration, Oregon State University, 1987 

Experience: Public Services Program Area Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 16 years 

Team Responsibility: Recreation Specialist 

Christopher Mease 

Education: B.S. Biology, Oregon State University, 1997 

Experience: Fisheries Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 2 years; Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe National 

Forest 7 years; Fisheries Technician, State of Oregon 2 years 

Team Responsibility: Aquatic Biology 

Mark Schug 

Education: GIS Certificate, Columbia College, 2006; B.S. Forestry, Northern Arizona University, 1990; 

Associate in Applied Science, Forestry, 1985 College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 

Wanakena Ranger School, 1985 

Experience: GIS Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 6 years; Forestry Technician 10 years 

Team Responsibility: GIS Specialist 

417 
 

 

Chapter 4.01 Stanislaus 

Preparers and Contributors National Forest
 

Kathy Strain 

Education: B.A. Anthropology, CSU Bakersfield, 1990; M.A. Behavioral Science, Anthropology 

emphasis, CSU Bakersfield, 1994 

Experience: Forest Heritage Resource Program Manager, Stanislaus National Forest 10 years; Ecosystem 

Archaeologist, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 4 years; District Archaeologist Sequoia 

National Forest 4 years. 

Team Responsibility: Heritage Resources 

Terri Walsh 

Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management, Emphasis in Botanical Resources, Prescott College for 

the Environment, Arizona, 1998; A.S. Environmental Science, Columbia College, 1996 

Experience: Botanist, Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team, Forest Service 4 years; Biological 

Technician 9 years 

Team Responsibility: Botanical Resources 

Sue Warren 

Education: A.S. Forest Technology, Green River Community College, Kent, Washington, 1976; B.S. 

Wildlife Biology, University of California, Davis, 1990 

Experience: Travel Management Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 2 years; 

Public Service Program Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 10 years; District Ranger, Sierra 

National Forest 7 years; Wildlife Biologist 3 years 

Team Responsibility: Team Leader 

Federal, State and Local Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Calaveras Big Trees State Park 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

Yosemite National Park 

Tribes 

American Indian Council of Mariposa County 

Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians 

California Valley Miwok Tribe 

Central Sierra Me-Wuk Cultural and Historic Preservation Committee 

Chicken Ranch Tribal Council 

Sheep Ranch Tribe 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

418 
Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

4.02 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS 

The Forest Service is circulating either the EIS or a notice of the availability of the EIS to the 

following agencies, elected officials, tribes, organizations and individuals. 

Federal, State and Local Agencies 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review 

Army Corp of Engineers 

Eldorado National Forest 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 EIS Review Coordinator 

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Regional Administrator 

Federal Highway Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservationists Division Southwest Region 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning 

Rural Utilities Service 

Inyo National Forest 

Office of General Council, San Francisco 

Sequoia National Forest 

Sierra National Forest 

U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific 

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Management 

U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

USDA National Agricultural Library Head Acquisitions and Serials Branch 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator 

USDA Office of Civil Rights 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

Yosemite National Park 

California State Agencies 

Calaveras Big Trees State Park 

California Board of Forestry 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Conservation Board 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division 

California Department of Water Resources 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board 

California Highway Patrol 

California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation 

Lahontan Water Quality Control Board 

Mining and Geology Board 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

Water Resources Control Board 

419 
 

Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

Local Agencies 

Alpine County Library 

Amador County Library 

Calaveras County Fish and Game 

Calaveras County Library 

Calaveras County Sheriff 

California County Sheriff’s Office 

Calaveras County Water District 

El Dorado County Library 

City of San Francisco, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 

Mariposa County Agriculture Commission 

Mariposa County Library 

Modesto Library 

Sacramento County Library 

Summerville Union High School 

Tuolumne County Farm Bureau 

Tuolumne County Library 

Tuolumne County Planning Department 

Tuolumne County Recreation Department 

Tuolumne County Sheriff 

Tuolumne County Visitor’s Bureau 

Tuolumne Regional Water District 

Elected Officials 

Alpine County Board of Supervisors 

Calaveras County Board of Supervisors 

California Assemblyman Tom Berryhill 

California State Senator Dave Cogdill 

Congressman Dan Lungren 

Congressman George Radanovich 

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors 

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors 

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer 

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein 

Tribes 

American Indian Council of Mariposa County 

Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians 

California Valley Miwok Tribe 

Central Sierra Me-Wuk Cultural and Historic Preservation Committee 

Chicken Ranch Tribal Council 

Sheep Ranch Tribe 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

420 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Organizations/Businesses 

4x4 In Motion 4WD Club 

American Motorcycle Association 

American Wildlands 

Arnold Rim Trail Association 

Backcountry Express 4WD 

Backcountry Horsemen 

Bay Area Snowhoppers 

Bear Valley Mt. Resort 

Bear Valley Resort Group 

Bear Valley Snowmobile 

Berry Blest Farm 

Big Trees Property Owners 

Blue Lake Springs 

Blue Ribbon Coalition 

Boards Crossing Campers 

CA 4WD Club 

CA ATV Association 

CA Enduro Riders Association 

CA, Trout Unlimited 

CA Garden Clubs, Inc. 

CA Native Plant Society 

CA Off Road Vehicle Association 

(CORVA) 

CA Rifle & Pistol Assoc. 

CA Wilderness Coalition 

CA/NV Snowmobile Association 

Calaveras Fly Fishers 

Camp Towanga 

Central Sierra Audubon Society 

Central Sierra Environmental 

Resource Center (CSERC) 

Central Sierra Planning 

Commitment to Our Recreational 

Individuals 

Abreo, Bert and Beth 

Adams, Ben 

Adams, James 

Adams, Rick 

Agoni, Anthony 

Aguilar, John 

Aguilar, Sandra 

Agrusa, P 

Ahaly, Harry 

Ahrens, Mike 

Aiello, Alex 

Airola, Bill 

Airola, Bob 

Alameda, Lois 

Alamo, Richard 

Albright, Stacie 

Alcorn, Darryl 

Environment (CORE) 

Contra Costa Jeepers 

DH Cycles 

Dodge Ridge Corporation 

Earth Spirit, Inc. 

Ebbetts Pass Rivers and Trails 

Alliance 

Espirit de Four 4WD Club 

Forest Issues Group 

Friends of the River 

High Sierra Hikers Association 

Hotel Jeffrey 

HPE, Inc. 

Joaquin Jeepers 

Kennedy Meadows Resort 

Lake Alpine Improvement 

Lakemont Pines Homeowners 

Lodge at Manual Mill 

Loma Prieta Sierra Club 

Los Gatos Motorcycle Club 

Love Creek Ranch 

Madhatters 4x4 Club 

Merced Dirt Riders 

Mercer's Guitars 

Modesto Bee 

Motorcycle Industry Council 

Mountain Alliance 

Mountain Chronicle 

Mountain Toppers 

Mud Sweat and Gears 4WD Club 

Nordic Center 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

Pinebrook Homeowners 

Alderson, George and Frances 

Aldive, Don 

Aldridge, Allen 

Alexander, Jeff 

Alexander, Marilyn 

Alford, Heidi 

Alford, Jonathan 

Alford, Warren 

Alldrin, Mel and Joyce 

Allen, Clarke 

Allen, Randy 

Allen, Robert 

Allen, Steve 

Allen, Steven W 

Allred, David 

Alvara, Richard 

Alves, Paul 

Recreation Outdoors Coalition 

Ridge Runners Motorcycle Club 

San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission 

Sardella's Pack Station 

Sierra Club, Motherlode 

Sierra Club, Tuolumne Group 

Sierra Club, Yokuts Group 

Sierra Nevada Adventure Co. 

Sierra Pacific Industries 

Sierra Recreation Managers 

Society of American Foresters 

Sonora Pass Snowgoers 

Stewards of the Sierra NF 

Stockton Bicycle Club 

Sugar Pine Ranch 

Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc 

Trails and Wheels 

Tri-County Offroad Club 

Trout Unlimited 

TRWD 

Tuolumne Co. Chamber of 

Commerce 

Tuolumne County Sportsmen Inc 

Tuolumne County Trails Council 

Tuolumne County Visitors Bureau 

Tuolumne Group Sierra Club 

Tuolumne River Perservation 

Trust 

Valley Trail Riders 

Wilderness Society 

Amarante Jr., Ernest and Carolyn 

Amerine, Corinne 

Amos, Ronda 

Anderman, Veronica 

Anderson, Carl 

Anderson, Jim 

Andre, Gerhard 

Andreini, Soni 

Anker, Helga 

Apodaca, Alex 

Apodaca, Robert 

Applebee, Dan 

Applewhite, Anthony 

Aquilino, Jack 

Araujo, Rick 

Arechiga, Carol 

Areelalr, Drew 

421 
 

 

Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

Arens, Bill Beard, Richard Boughton, Bill 

Arevalo, Carl Beasley, Christine Bower, Rusty 

Armos, Ronda Beauchamp, Harv Bowersox, Randy 

Armstrong, Mr. and Mrs. John B. Beaudry, Jim Bowman, Marge 

Arons, Eric Beck, Thomas Box, Wilson 

Asplund, Shirley Becker, Pat Boyd, Monty 

Atack, Ian Becker, Rahn Boze, Cathi 

Atwood, Brenda Beeman, Leonard Bradbury, Bob and Pat 

Atwood, David Beers, J. Bradley, Mel 

Aveggio, John Behr, Doug Brady, Catherine 

Avery, David and Kathy Belisle, Warren and Bonnie Bramham, Jim 

Avery, Dick Bell, Gary Bramlett, Colette 

Avila, Erik Beller, Rob Bramlett, Daniel 

BA, Niles Bellessa, Gene Brandau, Kim 

Baca, Dino Bergantz, George W. Brandy, Thompson 

Baca, Derek Bergeron, Peggy Branett, Steve 

Baca, Ester Bergman, Shari and Troy Braniff, Troy 

Baca, Renee Berry, David Brantley, Glen 

Baccus, Garrett Berry, Russell Braughman, Richard 

Bailey, Art and Judy Bertoa, Elena Breaux, Sean 

Bailey, Bill Bettencourt, Joe Bredlawy, Bob and Pat 

Bailey, Earleen Bettencourt, Sarah Brennan, Bob 

Bailey, Erika Bibby, Janet Brennan, Sherri 

Bailey, Fred & Marge Bickfund, L Breton, Elera 

Bailey, Marie and Harley Biggerstaff, Julie Bright, Patricia 

Bailey, Mike Bill, Carl Brindos, Jim 

Bailey, Pat Biscaia, Mario Britton, Larry 

Baker, Arthur Biscain, Mario Britts, Bev 

Baker, Dave Bittermount, Steve Brock, Catherine and Lee 

Baker, Dean Blackway, Sam Broglio, R.M 

Baker, Harry Blair, Kevin Brooks, John 

Baker, Randy Blair, Pamela Brooks, Mark 

Baker, Robert Blake, Landon Brotnov, Monte 

Baker, Rod and Gayle Blakeney, Deborah Brown, Aaron 

Baldoin, Michael Blazej, Lucian R. Brown, Chad 

Baldoni, Dan Blefos, Bill Brown, Gary 

Ballard, Jaclyn Blevens, Barbara Brown, James 

Balmain, Doug and Theran Blomerley, Peter Brown, Jeremy 

Balmain, Gary and Karen Bloom, Bart Brown, Ken 

Balman, Jeanne Bloom, Josh Brown, R.C. 

Barker, Brad Bloom, Matt Brown, Randall 

Barkow, Carolyn Boblet, Mary Brown, Stephen 

Barley, James and Masain Bodenhofer, Bruce Brown, Steve 

Barnes, Glynn Bodiford, Loretta Brown, Terry 

Barnes, Melinda Bodiford, Jeanne Brown, Tim 

Barnes, Randy Bodine, Janice Brown, Tony 

Barnett, Sean Bodine, Jim Brunges, Ken 

Barrie, Morris Bodle, Zac and Bud Brunskill, Jackie 

Barsanti, Cris Boele, Sherry Brunskill, John 

Bartholomew, Dan Bolin, Mary Bryant, Devall 

Barton, Brian Bomley, George Buchner, Eric 

Bashore, Jerry Bondenhofer, Bruce Buck, Mike 

Baskin, David Bontman, Jeff Budworth, Bobbette 

Bauder, Tom Booth, David Buffa, Ralph 

Bayer, Gwen and Leland Botelho, Beverly Bunge, Gail 

Beam, Brian Botvolink, Ray Bunts, Katie 

422 
 

Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Burgess, Chelsea Champe, Robert Cunningham, Nicole 

Burgess, Sheryl Chapman, Michael Curtis, Leon 

Burgess, Sam Charles, Jim and Patty Dahlin, Lee and Shirley 

Burgess, Tyler Charlton, Yolanda and Carlos Dahlsren, Alan 

Burleson, Randy Cheary, William and Bernedean Dale, Irene 

Burley, Eric Chernoff, Allen Dalton, Gene 

Burman, Bruce Chesley, Ken and Connie Damaso, Janette 

Burson, Jim Childers, Chuck Damaso, Michael 

Burston, Brett Chin, Fiona Danfield, Thomas 

Burton, Andrew Chisten, Deven Danicourt, Harold 

Burton, Jason Christainson, Donald N. Daniel, George 

Burton, Nicole Christensen, Steve Daren, Burt 

Burton, Phil Cifuton, Alan Davidson, Sam 

Butler, Skip Clark, Don Davis, Aaron 

Byer, Craig Clark, Rene Davis, David 

Cagle, Herman Clark, Robert L. Dawson, Al 

Calderwood, Anne Berner Clark, Weldon Day, Michael 

Caldwell, Terry Clarke, Ken and Kathryn Day, Tom 

Caldwell, Will Claussen, Randy Deabenderfer, Alan 

Callaway, Merita Clinton, Craig Deacon, Lori and John 

Calmau, Paul Clinton, Iretta Dean, A 

Capozzelli, Joanne Cloak, Robert Dean, C 

Carabas, Robert Clonan, Don Dean, Les 

Carbonara, Mike Cluff, Pat Dean, Richard 

Cardona, Mike Cochran, Chasley Dedan, Jack 

Cardoza, Karen and Ray Coffill, Marjorie Deem, Don 

Carkeet Jr., Ross Coker, Yvette DeGennaro, Wayne 

Carlile, Betty Cole, Clifford R DeGraef, Kathy 

Carlos, Joseph Cole, Ron Delap, Susan 

Carlson, Charles Cole, Ty Demartine, R. 

Carlson, Kerry Collwyn, Larry Dennis, Kitty 

Carlson, Kevin Comer-Losmandy, Casey Dennison, Denny 

Carlson, Mark Condra, Robert Denpsey, George 

Carney, Diane Conly, Brian Denzer, Rose 

Carney, James Conner, Narvell Depeld, Nicole 

Carper, Ken Conney, Anthony Dereliver, John 

Carr, Judy Cooper, Audrey Deshaies, J.A. 

Carr, Leon Cope, Carnie Deutsch, Lenny 

Carso, Joanne Copeland, Allen Devoe, Linda 

Carroll, Allison Corky, Sorrick Devoe, Paula 

Carroll, Jim Correic, Jeff Devoto-Dixon, Caryn 

Carroll, Paul Corso, Joanne Dewahas, Matt 

Carson, Ron Costa, Dennis Dianey, Mike 

Carson-Baggett, Jerry and Carole Craig, Tina Diaz, Ed 

Casey, Eric Craiu, Mercedes Diehl, Joe 

Caso, Dennis and Brenda Crandall, Linda and George Dies, William 

Cast, Susan Creech, Dave Dinnell, Sharon 

Castle, Bruce Cremeen, Rebecca Ditler, Jacki 

Castle, James Crook, Mike Ditlie, Robert 

Castle, Sara Crook, Shaun DiTore, Guiliann 

Castro, Roy Cropper, Linda DiTore, Mandalynn 

Cauginie Jr., Nito Crutcher, Randy DiTore, Michael 

Cedergreen, Sandy Cruz, Darrel DiTore, Rebecca 

Cercle, Richard Cully, Christina Dizney, Candy 

Cerda, Chris Cummings, Carl Doddridge, Diane 

Chambers, Claire Cunningham, Letha Dodson, Stan 

423 
 

 

Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

Doherty, Pat Erin, Larry Ford, Tim 

Dolere, Rhiannon Erlandson, Lloyd Foster, Ric 

Dolin, Luke Erwin, Diane Fougner, Craig 

Donahub, Steven Erwin, Larry Fournier, Conrad 

Dooney, Andrea Espersa, SPC Fournier, Dan 

Doty, Richard E. Estes, Norman Fouts, Jerry 

Dow, Delmar Estrada, Charles Foutz, Lisa 

Downum, Dennis Etchearay, Pete Fox, Kathleen 

Drake, Jack Everhart, Doug Frank, Michel 

Dumolt, Terry Everhart, Richard Franse, Bruce 

Dunasky, Charline Evert, Dale Frazer, Doug 

Dunasky, Richard Ewers, Harold Frederick, Earl M. 

Duncan, Glenn and Judy Ewert, Jim Fredrickson, Wes 

Duncan, Joe Ewing, Dorothea Freebury, Alan 

Dunlap, Dan Fagandes, Ken Freebury, Evelyn 

Dunlap, John Fagerroos, Mark Freebury, Jamie 

Dunlap, Tom Farrell, Jeremy Freebury, Niles 

Dunn, Marshall Farrow, J.A. French, Chris 

Dunning, Dan Faurote, Annette Frentzen, Clark 

Dunston, Roy A. Fegal, Neil Friedlander, Lorraine 

Dunwell, Bruce S. Felte, Steve Frost, Catherine 

Duston, Chuck and Pam Fern, Richard Fryer, Gil 

Dykzeul, Jaime Fernandez, S. Fryer, Gina 

Ead, Val Ferrante, Joseph Fryer, Tilbert 

Eagles, Dale Ferrari, Mike Fuchs, Lawrence 

Eakle, Pete and Chris Ferreira, Dave Fueslein, Jerome L. 

Earhart, Linda Figueroa, Jesse Fuller, Reba 

Earhart, Nathan Figueroa, Kathy Funkhouse, Tom 

Ebarb, Renee Filiberti, Mildred Gaarde, Barbara 

Edmundson, Peter Fink, Linda and Ron Gaarde, Ralph 

Edwards, Dennis Firebaugh, Bunny Gaiser, Richard 

Edwards, Glenda Fish, David 

Galen, Weston 

Edwards, Gloria Fish, Terry Gallant, Garrett 

Edwards, Michael Fished, Radvel Gallye, Caccamo 

Edwards, Peg Fisher, Jerry W. Gangi, Anthony 

Edwards, Richey Fiske, Dennis Gann, Earl 

Edward, Spencer Fiske, Ellen Gann, Launa 

Egger, Gary Fiske, Patty Gann, Mary 

Ehrich, Thom Fislter, Kerry Garcia, Jerry 

Eidsvile-Galiza, Vangie Fitter, Kerry Garcia, Marisor 

Elain, John Fleck, Christine Garcia, Ron 

Eldridge, David Fleck, Cody Garcia, Stephanie 

Eldredge, Irene and Irv Fleck, Eric Garcia, Vincent 

Ellefsen, Ed Fleck, Harlie Garcis, Paulish 

Elliott, Doug Fleck, Jaen Garner, Edgar 

Ellis, Ben Fleck, Neil Garrett, Wayne 

Ellis, Donald Fleck, Noah Gasier, John 

Eloul, Liyam Fleming, Melinda Gates, Lee 

Emerald, Ray Fleming, James Gattoni, Frank 

Emerson, Ralph Fletcher, Terry Gee, Mark 

Emmons, Elaine Flowers, Jim Geer, Mr and Mrs. John 

Emmons, Ric Flynn, John Geffries, Heide 

Emrick, Jim Fogerty, C. Geisdorff, Fern 

Engs, Phillip Foiles, Ben Gemmet, Clara 

Eovolf, Wilk Fontana, Mark Gende, Pat 

Erickson, Heather Forbes, Holly Gentling, Jim 

424 
Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Geoff, Red Green, Rod Haugh, Jeff 

Georgiades, Thaleia Green, Ron Havlik, Bari 

Gerber, Bill Greenwood, David Havlik, Frank 

Gerhart, Randy Greer, Dale Hayes, Jerry 

Gerstenberg, Greg Gregory, Steve Hayes, Russ 

Gheno, Tony Grey, Ken Haymond, Edd 

Gibson, Jim Griffiths, R.D. Headley, Mark 

Gibson, Michael Grigore, Sorin Headley, Osceola and Madeli 

Gill, Joanne Grimes, Gary Heath, Michael 

Gillespie, Sandra Gruendi, Ray and Charlotte Hedge, Leonard 

Gillespie, Danny Gruenwald, Anita Heggy, Gloria 

Gillespie, Kelleme Guider, Bob Heller, Stu 

Gillihan, Carl Guillot, Leslie and Victor Hembree, Rourke and Kim 

Gillihan, David Gunther, Tom Henderson, Charlotte 

Gillihan, Eric Guzman, David Henderson, Daniel 

Gillihan, Melissa Haack, Alan Henderson, Pamela 

Gillihan, Vicky Hackamack, Bob Henderson, Robbie 

Girard, Tracy Hadley, Bill Henderson, Robert 

Giuffra, Steve Hadley, Robin and Gail Hendrick, Debbie 

Gleason, John Hager, Reggie Hendricks, Jason 

Glen, Karen Hague, Charlotte Hendricks, Sonny 

Glesin, Michael Hague, Lynn Hendricks, Tiphanney 

Glover, Mark Haickett, Layne Hendricks, Tom 

Glymph, Mason Haile, Dan Hendrickson, Ivan 

Gobel, Roland Haire, James Hendrickson, John 

Godbart, Ruth Hakata, Danielle Henrick, Carol 

Godfrey, Lawrence Hale, Tyson Hensley, Christopher 

Goehring, Brad Hall, Eric Hensley, Justin 

Gohdge, Tom Hall, Jennifer Herman, Cagle 

Gold, Suzette Hall, Richard Hern, Cindi 

Golden, Jim Halliwell, Bob Hess, Jay 

Golden, Sandra Hamilton, John Hiatt, Brandi 

Goldfoos, Bill Hammes, Sean Hiatt, Lorin 

Golding, Gail Hampton, John Hiatt, L DeWayne 

Golub, Al Hancock, Bart Hickman, Colleen 

Good, Ron Hanks, Christopher Hicks, Rick and Chris 

Goodmen, Steve Hans, Richard A Hiett, Malcolm 

Goodson, Bob Hanseon, Fourt Higgins, Jerry 

Gordan, Richard Hanson, Carolyn High, Doug and Michelle 

Gorman, Elaine Harden, Jim Higueta, Dan 

Grace, Margie Harer , Doug Hildebrand, Cindy 

Graf, Teri Harison, Susan Hildenbrand, Don 

Graffio, John Harold, Wesley Hill, Mike 

Graf-Pulvino, Teri Harrell, Dave Hill, Oscar 

Grant, Amy Harrington, Tom and Kathy Hinton, Steve 

Grant, John Harris, Dan Hintz, Chris 

Grant, Taylor Harris, Michale & Amara Hix, Michael 

Granvoois, Tim Harris, Tammy Hix, Stephen 

Grassmuer, Matt Harrison, Ron Hix, Tim 

Graves, Michael Harrison, Walter B. Hockett, Tim 

Graziano, Rick Hart, Dennis Hockstra, Bud 

Green, Brian Hartsay, Lawrence Hodges, Bob 

Green, Jerry Harvickson, Howard Hoffstetter, John 

Green, Kristine Hastings, Eileen Hofmeister, Richard 

Green, Lynn Hastings, Richard Hofstra, Tom 

Green, Mel Haufman, Daren Hohn, Robert 

425 
 

Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

Holland, Nathan 

Hollen, Todd 

Holliday, Ron 

Holstrom, Michael 

Homan, Rand 

Homay, Paul 

Honeycutt, Dennis 

Hoover, Chuck 

Hoover, Vicky 

Hope, Adam 

Hope, Dr. Glenda 

Hopson, Cheryl 

Hopson, Eliza 

Horne, Skip and Lynn 

Horvath, Ann Conlon 

Houck, Toni 

Houghton, Bob 

Houser, Ken 

Housier, Jennifer 

Houston, Bruce 

Houston, Tracy 

Howard, Bill 

Howard, Richard G. 

Howells, Chris 

Howly, John 

Hoye, Pamela 

Hoyle, Carol 

Hoyle, Danielle 

Hoyle, Derek 

Hoyle, Dieane 

Hoyle, Duane 

Hubanks, David 

Huckabey, Rodney 

Hucks, George 

Hufi, Stephen 

Hughes, H.L. 

Hull, Balin 

Hunt, Eric 

Hunt, Ginny 

Hunt, Larry 

Hunt, Robin 

Hursh, Bill 

Huth, Jim 

Iler, Barbara 

Iler, Jim 

Ina, Ken 

Inghs, Pat 

Ingram, James 

Ivan, Don 

Iverson, Bill and Kathy 

Jackson, Cathryn 

Jackson, Edward 

Jackson, Lynda 

Jackson, Larry 

Jacobsen, Jeff 

Jagger, Brian 

Jagger, Patricia 

Janson, Sera 

Jaquez, Rudy 

Jaspar, Richard 

Jeanmond, Michel 

Jenkins, Jeanne 

Jenkins, Larry 

Jensen, Andy 

Jensen, Jerry 

Jeppson, Dave 

Johhannson, John 

Johanson, James 

Johanson, John 

Johnson, Casey 

Johnson, CK 

Johnson, Dave 

Johnson, Dwight 

Johnson, Josh 

Johnson, Katrina and Kevin 

Johnson, Kevin 

Johnson, Ray 

Johnston, Reed 

Johnson, Roger 

Johnston, Reed 

Jond, Jesse 

Jones, Charles 

Jones, Donna R 

Jones, Eleanor 

Jones, Herb 

Jones, James 

Jones, Mike and Dina 

Jonker, Rudolf 

Jow, Michael 

Junger, Bob 

Kachel, Kathleen 

Kafka, Steve and Michelle 

Kais, Corey 

Kalz, Mike 

Kane, Steve 

Kansberg, Mike 

Kappl, Yvonne 

Karches, Bill 

Karches, Linda 

Karney, Jason 

Kaw, Phillis 

Keefe, Bobby 

Keith, Jerry 

Keller, Dwain 

Keller, Scott 

Kelley, Marvin 

Kelly, Jason 

Kelso, Bob and Logan 

Kelso, Megan 

Kelso, Kim 

Kener, Earl 

Kenn, Moniz 

Kennedy, Maya 

Kersler, Barbara 

Kester, Dennis 

Key, Richard 

Kikahua, Jennifer 

Kilian, Elizabeth 

Killgore, Robert 

Killion, Fred 

King, Carrie 

King, Cynthia 

King, Kenneth 

Kinnear, John 

Kinney, Matt 

Kinsfather, John 

Kirkbride, Wayne 

Kissler, Bob and Carol 

Kitchen, Ed 

Kitt, Ron and Dee 

Kitts, Dan 

Klein, Robert 

Kling, Bill and Nina 

Klusman, Don 

Knopf, Tracy and Clay 

Knowles, Chuck 

Kobayashi, Lois 

Kobayashi, Paul 

Kobialka, Gayla 

Kobialka, Jan 

Koehn, Pat 

Kolp, Ken and Jo 

Korba, Troy 

Kraft, Clay & Tracy 

Kramer, Lloyd 

Kretzmann, Douglas 

Krocker, John and Debbie 

Kroeker, Darell 

Kronauge, Paul 

Krumbuegel, Perrin and Marco A. 

Krupka, Mary 

Kruz, Mary 

Kurth, Robin 

La Fontaine, Marena 

Lackey, Ron 

LaFrance, Jim & Trudy 

Laefranchi, Ian 

Laffranchi, Rick 

Laffranchi, Suzette 

La Fontaine, Merena & Tynan 

La France, Jim and Trudy 

Lagrades, Dave 

Lahr, Stafford 

Lamantia, James 

Lamb, Eric 

Lampkin, Olga 

Landess, Kathy 

Lane, William 

426 
 

Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Lane, Stephanie 

Lang, John 

Langsenberg, Dhane 

Larson, Paul 

Lashbrook, Tony 

Latona, Steve 

Latronica, Todd 

Laursen, Art 

Lauterbach, Steve 

Lavanino, Steve 

LaVergne, Andrea 

Lawrence, Robert 

Lawson, Tina 

Lay, Brigett 

Lay, Samuel 

Leach, Scott 

Leachman, Ron 

Leahy, Doug 

Legters, David 

Leiting, Brandon 

Leiting, Mark 

Leiting, Gentye 

Leiting, Haley 

Leitzell, Jim 

Leitzell, Dawn 

LeMay, Sean 

Lemincs, Mike 

Lenior, Ryan 

Lenior, Tamsen 

Lentz, Larry 

LePage, Linnie 

Leonard, Bill 

Lerma, Rosanna 

Lessly, Deana 

Leu, Robert 

Leuschnne, Ray 

Leutzell, Dawn 

Leventhal, Kirsten 

Levert, Ridenour 

Lewis, Dennis E. 

Lewis, George 

Lewis, James 

Lewis, Mike 

Lewis-Dougherty, Cathy 

Libkind, Marcus 

Lichtenberger, Adell 

Liebold, Robert 

Light, Don 

Lihou, Cristopher 

Lillie, Eleanor 

Lind, Rick 

Linden, Raymond and Doris 

Linn, Josh 

Lish, Christophe 

Little, Kenny 

Littlejohn, Scott 

Liyam, Elpoul 

Loades, Jr., John W. 

Loarvey, Bobby 

Locey, Ethan 

Logan, Irv 

Lompart, Michael 

Longwell, Jeff 

Lonsey, Merry 

Looney, Dan 

Lopes, Victoria 

Lorange, Kathleen 

Lott, Ronald 

Loudermilk, Don 

Loudermir, Jack 

Love, Tom 

Lowenstein, Mike 

Lucas, Steve 

Luce, Doug 

Luke, Jim 

Luke, Robert 

Lung, Andy 

Lunney, Keith 

Lusinchi, Antonio 

Lutrell, William 

Lyon, Chris 

Lyon, Sabrina 

Machado, Donald 

Machado, P 

Macias, Tony 

Mackenzie, Greg 

Maddox, James P 

Madewell, Calvin 

Madewell, Charles 

Madewell, Jeffery 

Madewell, Stephanie 

Maggard, Bruce 

Magill, Judith 

Maka, Christine & John 

Makiney, Janice 

Mancini, Randy 

Marchetti, Gino 

Marino, Ernie 

Marino, Missy 

Marino, Steve 

Marsh, Sid 

Marshall, Roland 

Martin, Henri B. 

Martin, Paul 

Martin-Stone, Sheila 

Mason, Megan 

Mason, Stephanie 

Mason, Tom 

Massingill, Mark 

Mathieu, Christine 

Matlakiewicz, Arthur 

Matkin, Jenny 

Matthews, Steve 

Matzek, Mary 

Maxon, Clint 

Maxwell, Craig and Elaine M. 

Maxwell, Justin 

Maxwell, Michael 

Maynard, Brad 

McCann, Catherine 

McConner, Roger 

McDowell, Dennis 

McEllem, George 

McEwer, Bernadette 

McFarland, Jeff 

McGaughey, John 

McGewin, Justin 

McGinnis, Patrick 

McGreevy, Pat 

McKearnon, Chris 

McKenna, Mark J. 

McKowen, Cathy 

McLaughlin, Bill 

McManus, Dan 

McManus, Michael 

McMillin, Loren 

McNeely, Dave 

McRoberts, Mike 

McVicker, Virgil 

Meagher, Sandi 

Meant, Tammy 

Medearis, Ron 

Medina, Gregory 

Meinhardt, R. Cortland 

Mello, Jeff and Julie 

Mello, Ron and Jean 

Melton, Jeff 

Men, Dale 

Mena, Anthony 

Meneses, Edmond 

Mercer, Gerald 

Merrihew, Lois 

Merrill, Karl 

Merrill, Terry 

Mess, Bob 

Methot, Chris 

Mets, Ben 

Mettes, Matt 

Middleton, Rob 

Middleton, Walter C and Kathy 

Mihovich, Barb 

Millay, Steve 

Miller, George 

Miller, Geraldine 

Miller, Mike 

Miller, Robin 

Miller, Roy 

Miller-Gripps, Rebecca 

427 
 

Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

Million, Robin Neumann, Bruce Pancrazio, James 

Milne, Mike Neumann Sr., Bruce D. Pankey, Dale and Jeanette 

Mines, Holly Newell, Pamela Parks, Dan 

Moftenson, Alan Newell, Robert Patropulos, Joyce 

Molloy, Judy Newman, Joe Pattersen, Loro 

Molnar, Judy Nibani, Joe Patterson, Robin 

Moniot, Richard Nichelle, Rich Patterson, Stephanie 

Monroe, Lucky Nichols, Dana Paukert, Larry 

Monsen, Bob Nichols, Mike Paxton, Lori 

Montana, Sergio Nichols, Steven Paxton, Ken 

Moody, Rich Nicholson, Dorothy Paz, Ruth 

Moore, Alan Nicholson, Linda Pearson, Nick 

Moore, Anna Niles, BA Pechan, P.E., Jared 

Moore, John K. Niles, Kathy Pehrson, Heather 

Morduncdo, Angelo Nolte, Matt Pennington, Leal 

Morgan, Alison Nomelli, Tony Penrod, Gary and Carol 

Mori, James Nokes, George Peracca, Karen 

Morris, Linda Norgard, Jim Perehn, Shelly 

Morris, John North, James Pereira, Michael 

Morris, Mike Norton, Elizabeth Pereira, Pete 

Morris, Rick Norton, Ken Pereira, Sandi 

Morrow, Ruth and Arvid Nowak, Tim Perkins, Patricia 

Moschetti, Nick O'Conner, Dan Perry, Carl 

Moskalenko, Oleg O'Connor, Kevin Peters, Ed 

Moss, Carol Oehrelein, Ken Petersen, Paul 

Most, Jakensa Oliver, Richard Peterson, Allen 

Mount, Michael Olivera, Jennifer Peterson, Dan 

Moyle, Cliff Olson, David Peterson, Greg 

Mozingo, Dave Olson, Eric Peterson, Jutta 

Mueller, Roger Olson, Evelyn Peterson, Kathleen 

Mueller, Arlene S. Olson, Jack and Lori Peterson, Paul 

Mullins, Clayton Olson, Rod Petrie, Brian H. 

Mulock, Will O'Mary, Felton Pfeiffer, Matt 

Murphy, Dave and Marlene O'Neil, Brendan Phelan, Jim 

Murphy, Lori O'Neil, Jeannette and Bill Phillips, Dick 

Muscio, Mark Orloff, Lynne Piatt, Tom H. 

Mycel, DH Orrock, Greg Picken, Albert 

Myda, Jeff Orville, Phyllis Pickett, Mike 

Myer, Ron Orville, Robert Pierce, Bill 

Myers, Rick Osterhout, Gary Pierce, Cathie 

Nakamoto, Nunio Ostroff, Larry Pierce, Tim 

Nanney, Fred Ostroff, Janet Pilch, Ann 

Nash, Susan Overcash, Shannon Pirtz, Regan 

Navamaka, Tom Overend, Earleen Pilch, Ann 

Nava, Al Owen, Ellie Piskel, James 

Navamaka, Tom Owens, Cheryl Pistol, Jim 

Navell, Bob Owens, Jim Palgenza, Eric 

Navone, Mike Owens, Lindsey Plummer, Todd 

Nebel, Rammond Oyung, Frank Polson, Craig 

Nedbal, Rich and Linda Pace, John Polzak, Gene 

Neidell, Merle Pagundes, Daniel Popovac, Gwynn 

Neilson, Dave Paintedman, Dirk Porteous, Jim and Gloria 

Nelson, Bob Palmer, Boyd Porzio, Kevin 

Nelson, Brad Palmer, Laura Post, Collin 

Nelson, Gloria Palmer, Wayne Potter, Donald 

Nelson, Mike Pancrazio, Erin Powell, Adam 

428 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Powell, Andrea 

Powell, John 

Powell, Terry 

Powers, Will 

Pratt, Terence 

Prendergast, Josiah 

Prescott, Betty Ann 

Prescott, Steve 

Price, Eric and Dawn 

Price, Greg 

Pringle, Bill 

Pritchard, Vanessa 

Proctor, Barbara 

Puhak, Beverly 

Radovich, Joe 

Radtke, Chris and Erin 

Raggio, Patty 

Ranay, Ryan 

Rand, Homan 

Ranst, Steph 

Raphael, Ron 

Rasmussen, Carl 

Ratto, Thomas 

Ratzlaff, Don 

Rauchschwaldbe, Frank 

Reagan, Rick 

Reed, Jason 

Reed, Jeanette 

Reed, Jim 

Reed, Robert 

Reh, Patricia 

Rehling, Janette 

Rehling, Todd 

Reiben Jr., Fred 

Reibin, Glenn 

Reibin, Lisa 

Reich, Daniel 

Reich, Dave & Trish 

Reichle, Stefani 

Reigin, Sr., Fred 

Reilly, Mike 

Reilly, Patti 

Renfrow, Robert 

Reseck, Karl and Shirley 

Reyes, Carole 

Reyes, Tony 

Reynolds, Doug 

Rhinehart, Mark 

Rhoades, Bob 

Rhode-Moe, Erik 

Rice, Bob and Cathy 

Rich, Frances 

Rich, Sam 

Richard, Anne 

Richardson, Arlen 

Richardson, Ken 

Richardson, Kirk 

Richie, Ann and Wayne 

Ridenour, Levert 

Ridgley, Jeanne 

Rifenburg, Erv 

Rinaldi, Mario 

Ringland, Larry 

Riordan, Ray 

Robbins, Jack 

Robbins, Rodger 

Roberts, Mike 

Roberts, Ted 

Robinson, Jim and Liz 

Robinson, Rick and Nanci 

Robinson, Jim and Liz 

Robinson, John 

Rockey, Marlilyn 

Rockey, Phil 

Rodriguez, Peggy 

Rogers, Blaine 

Rogers, Lawrence and Barbara 

Rogers, Robert R. 

Rohde-Moe, Erik 

Rohort, Pat 

Rolland, Dale 

Rollins, Mat 

Rollins, Roy 

Rosa, Tom 

Rosenthal, Anne 

Ross, Erin C. 

Ross, Les 

Ross, Norm 

Rossi, Robin 

Rovno, Joanne 

Rowe, Amanda 

Rowe, Ken and Ruth 

Rugg, Bill 

Ruggiero, Ken 

Ruhl, Jacob 

Ruiz, John P. 

Rush, Jim 

Russell, John 

Ruth, Bob 

Ruth, Richard 

Ryan, Jan 

Ryan, Joseph 

Sabders, Harriet M. 

Salcedo, Jesse 

Salfen, Dion 

Salmon, W.K. 

Salzer, Dave 

Sampson, Jeremy 

Samski, Doug 

Sanchez, Tom 

Sanders, Ken & Lynn 

Sanford, Jeff 

Sanford, Rette 

Sanquinetti, Lynn 

Santuo, Diane 

Saracino, Pat 

Sarracino, Vicky 

Sarrell, Lauresen 

Satterfield, Melanye 

Sasser, Lance 

Sattler, Steve 

Saugstad, Stewart 

Savidge, Bill 

Saville, Chris 

Sawick, Steve 

Scarborough, Gary A. 

Schaad, Jake 

Schaad, Rick 

Schaeffer, Ph.D., Robin L. 

Schaeffer, Ph.D., Rob 

Schaner, Ron 

Scherer, Jason 

Schermeister, Phil 

Schiefeistein, Robert and Joyce 

Schiess, Steve 

Schmeeckle, Matt 

Schmevett, John 

Schmidt, Jaclyn 

Schmidt, Kerry 

Schmidt, Leo & Mathilde 

Schmidt, Mike 

Schmitz, Michael 

Schneider, Lloyd 

Schneider, Lynne 

Schneider, Walter 

Schoettgen, Thea 

Scholkowfsky, Wayne 

Schoradt, Brent 

Schuerman, Ron 

Schummer, Peter 

Schwarzmann, Rich 

Schwarzmann, Nancy 

Scofield, Kevin 

Scott, Curtis 

Scroggins, Dennis 

Scroggins, Matt 

Scrogins, Travis 

Seagraves, Gretchen 

Seal, Katelyn 

Seal, Shiloh 

Sears, Kevin 

Seaton, Kate 

Secora, Brian 

Segalla, Albert 

Sekel, TJ 

Self, Scott 

Sepolyo, James 

Serafine-Buys, Luann 

429 
 

 

 

Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

Serpa, Dennis Spencer, Edward Synkonicz, Anne 

Serriere, Alexander Spinwall, Kathleen Szymanski, Ron 

Seward, Clif Spires, Sarah Talio, Dennis 

Shade, Betsy St. John, Jim Tamsen, Dixon 

Sharkey, Dyarle St. John, Mary Jane Tan, Bonnie 

Sharon, Winston and Mary Stacking, Steve Tang, Henry 

Sharp, Madeline Stagin, John Tannhauser, Jerry 

Sheffield, Rex Stahl, Greg Tapetillo, Bernabe 

Sheldon, Crouse Standers, Chris Tattz, Larry 

Shelton, Dan Standers, Ted Tayler, Deircra 

Sheppard Jr., Thomas and Jeanette Stanfeld, Shanon Taylor, Ryan 

Shirk, Lawrence Staniford, Joe Taylor, Sandra and Grant 

Shiroyama, Matt Stark, Richard Teeira, Linda 

Sibley, Jeff and Nada Starr, Ben and Judith Teese, Jeff 

Sigler, Larry Steele, BJ Tegley, Jim 

Silva, Luis Steele, Joshua Teixeira, Bill 

Silva, Rose Steele, Robert Telles, Conrad 

Silveiria, Bennie Steinhart, Peter Temple, Dale 

Silverman, Dale Steinman, Arthur C. Tetzleff, Betty 

Silverman, David Stephens, Julia Thomas, D.A 

Simmons, Patrick Stephens, Rick Thomas, Dale 

Simon, James and Diane Steven, Kesley Thomas, Don 

Simpkins, A. Stevens, Kevin Thomas, John and Barbara 

Simpkins, Jeff Stevens, Mark Thomas, Paulette 

Skenfield, Michael Stevens, Rick Thompson, Charles and Jerry 

Skilan, Franco Stevens, Roger Thompson, Jeff 

Skutches, Lynn Stewart, Doug Thompson, Kevin 

Skutches, Mike Stewart, James Thompson, Lawrence 

Slate, Ed Stewart, Kirk Thompson, Mary 

Sloan, Ron Stoelk, Stephen Thompson, Robert J. 

Smith, Art Stoller, Mark Thomson, Marcus 

Smith, Brian Stone, Pamela Thors, Andy 

Smith, Claudia Stone, Pat Tiede, Craig and Karen 

Smith, Joseph Stone-Meneses, Stephanie Titchenal, Darleen 

Smith, Justin Stortroen, Ole and Sherry Tomczyszyn, Michael 

Smith, Kenny and Rosalee Stough, David Tonnesen, Jon 

Smith, Robin Stout, Neil and Annette Torgerson, Rick 

Smith, Robert F. Stovens, Anthony Tormasock, Lorie 

Smith, Sandra Strader, Vera Toth, Mike 

Smith, Steve Strickland, Shawn Tourkakis, Tim 

Smitheman, Bob Stuart, Russell Treece, Fred 

Snell, J. Stump, Don Trimble, David 

Soderberg, Connie and Jim Sturgess, Michael Trip, Terry 

Solnick, Sue and Steve Sturtevant, Bev and Ralph Troglin, Todd 

Sommerfeld, Chris Sulcxynski, Agata Trotter, Melanie 

Sorensen, Sondra Sullivan, Terri and Dennis Trotter, Vess 

Sorenson, Sonny Sullivan, Terry Trumbull, Thomas 

Sorini, Mike Sutton, Curt Tucker, Nate 

Sorrick, Corky Sutton, Robert Tucker, Sharon 

Sosa, Andrew Swager, Gary Turner, Dwayne 

Sosr, D Swanger, Nick Turner, John 

Sours, Richard Sweden, Russ Turner, Mike 

Souther, Garrett Sweet, Rocky Turner, Neil 

Sowell, John and Patti Sweitzer, David Turpin, Lyle 

Spen, Eileen Swickard, D.K. Turpin, Scott 

Spencer, Bob and Judith Swier, Barbara Twining, Chucker and Debra 

430 
Motorized Travel Management Consultation 

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination 

Underwood, Rob Warren, Mike Willey, Ken 

Ungari, Bruce Warren, Rahima Williams, Demi 

Upperman, James Watland, Gary Williamson, John 

Vail, Lt. Bill Watson, Brian and Penny Wilson, Allen 

Val, Wynn Watson, Jerry Wilson, Cathy 

Van Buskirk, Annette Watson, Steve Wilson, Rad 

Van Dykhuzn, Jeff Watt, Dustin Windor, Samantha 

Van Tol, Bernie Wattles, Clyde Winn-Reed, Sharlene 

Vanahan, Curt Watts, Tracy Winstead, Ralph 

Vance, Gary Wearin, Tim Witherspoon, Joe and Levon 

Vander Weide, Kurt Weaver, Boyd Wolff, Alexander 

Vandercook, John Weaver, Daisy Womack, Randy 

Vanter, Aster Webb, George Womack, Vicki 

VanWinkle, Fred Weber, C.J. Wonser, Ester and Michael 

Varnbuhler, Gay Weeks, Ken Wood, Herb 

Velasquez, Fred Weinert, Adam Wood-Castaneda, Deborah 

Vella, Jim Weiny, Ira Woodrow, Terry 

Velleber, Jorge Weissenberger, Stein Woodrow, Terry & Dianne 

Vera, Mary Welch, Michael Woortz, Jaciyn 

Vernon, Laura Welch, Scott Wooster, Kelly 

Vers, Laura Wellhausen, Barbara Wunder, Jeff 

Vess, Trotter Wells, C. Robert Wunder, Niki 

Vetesy, Lance Wells, Trent Wyatt, Kevin 

Vieira, Debbie Welsh, Don Wylie, John D. 

Vieira, Joe Wernpritz, Michael Wyrick, Wayne 

Vierra, Wayne Wesley, Ann Yager, Tom 

Vigil, Fred Wesley, Harold Yanughn, Arlene 

Vinal, John West, Robin Yeargan, Gigi and Richard 

Vincent, Bob West, Roger Yeargan, Gil 

Vincent, Dona Weston, Galen Yenis, Marir 

Vincent, Glen Wetchor, Dorothy Yin, Lo I 

Vincent, Larry Wetherall, Ken Yin, Won 

Vining, Michael Wheat, Tim A. Yoder, Dan 

Vleisides, Nick Wheeler, Dave Yoder, Rick 

Voisinet, W. Wheeler, Jody Yoshioka, Glen 

Von Gilstray, Michael Wheeler, Lee Young, Anita 

Voone, Ashley Wheeler, Marcy Young, Jerry 

Voorhes, J.M. Whim, George Young, Joxal 

Voorhes, Jeff and Marney White, Doug Young, Lowell 

Vorce, Ray White, Rudy Young, Marshall 

Voytilla, Ben Whited, Brenda Young, Steve 

Vroman, Mike Whitehead, Jerrt Zamora, Fabian 

Wadlsa, D Whitehead, Larry and Carol Zayac, Carla 

Waelly, Phillip Whiteman, Rick Zeller, George 

Wahsdal, Jim Whiting, Jeff Zetzlaff, Ted and Betty 

Walker, Brian Wiegand, David Zimmerman, Ron 

Walker, Martin Wienert, David Zock, Brad 

Walking, Durve Wiig, Alan 

Wallace, Brian A. Wiki, Jeff 

Wallace, Kenneth Wilcox, Al and Mary 

Wallace, Steven Wilcox, Beth 

Walters, Tracy Wildman, Steve 

Ward, Tom Wilensky, Steve 

Warren, Jane Wilfert, H. 

Warren, Jeffre Wilkins, Carol 

Warren, Kevin Willeh, John 

431 
Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus 

Distribution of the EIS National Forest
 

432 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Index 

Index 

Actions 

additions to the NFTS, 14, 25, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40, 

45, 48, 56, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 

76, 77, 78, 79, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 102, 

116, 126, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 172, 206, 

212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 224, 

228, 241, 244, 245, 258, 259, 260, 262, 264, 

265, 269, 275, 277, 278, 280, 282, 283, 285, 

292, 391, 404 

changes to the existing NFTS, 2, 14, 28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 45, 57, 85, 100, 119, 135, 

158, 205, 209, 228, 247, 254, 261, 264 

cross country travel, 5, 6, 21, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 

46, 77, 80, 82, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 

116, 124, 130, 138, 147, 149, 153, 157, 164, 

165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 197, 202, 206, 212, 

235, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 256, 

257, 258, 260, 262, 263, 264, 280, 281, 282, 

284, 288, 291, 292, 295, 296, 299, 301, 302, 

305, 307, 308, 309, 311, 313, 317, 318, 323, 

325, 329, 330, 331, 333, 335, 338, 341, 342, 

343, 346, 348, 350, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 

359, 360, 363, 365, 366, 369, 370, 372, 373, 

377, 380, 382, 385, 388, 391, 395, 397, 398, 

402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 

411, 412 

mitigation, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 30, 35, 39, 44, 45, 

51, 92, 95, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 206, 207, 

212, 214, 218, 220, 221, 223, 224, 261, 262, 

263, 264, 269, 278, 281, 284, 286, 291, 293, 

299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, 

313, 317, 318, 321, 322, 325, 329, 330, 332, 

334, 338, 341, 342, 344, 348, 349, 350, 351, 

353, 355, 356, 357, 364, 365, 366, 367, 372, 

373, 374, 375, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 388, 

390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 397, 398, 399, 400, 

411 

season of use, 6, 7, 11, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 

26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 39, 40, 43, 48, 54, 73, 77, 

87, 90, 95, 99, 100, 115, 117, 118, 119, 125, 

126, 135, 141, 194, 199, 202, 209, 214, 216, 

218, 221, 231, 235, 241, 245, 254, 259, 291, 

293, 299, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 313, 317, 

320, 325, 329, 332, 338, 348, 353, 355, 357, 

364, 365, 367, 372, 380, 381, 388, 390, 392, 

393, 397 

wet weather closure, 7, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 

31, 55, 129, 133, 134, 135, 148, 157, 165, 

195, 198, 214, 218, 220 

Affected Environment, 1, 39, 41, 42, 58, 101, 120, 

141, 152, 154, 159, 168, 177, 210, 229, 255, 

264, 293, 294, 298, 305, 306, 311, 312, 323, 

324, 334, 336, 345, 347, 353, 362, 370, 379, 

386, 396, 410 

Air Quality, 46, 47, 117, 414 

Alternatives 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), 7, 18, 33, 35, 

36, 77, 106, 128, 147, 153, 157, 164, 169, 

171, 172, 195, 212, 234, 257, 278, 300, 308, 

314, 326, 340, 349, 354, 364, 372, 381, 388, 

397 

Alternative 2 (No Action), 21, 33, 35, 36, 80, 109, 

129, 141, 149, 153, 157, 165, 170, 171, 172, 

196, 206, 212, 216, 238, 249, 256, 257, 263, 

280, 285, 286, 296, 297, 301, 308, 318, 330, 

341, 350, 356, 365, 373, 382, 391, 398 

Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited), 21, 83, 

109, 130, 150, 153, 158, 165, 170, 197, 217, 

240, 258, 281, 302, 309, 318, 330, 342, 350, 

356, 366, 373, 382, 391, 399 

Alternative 4 (Recreation), 22, 33, 35, 36, 86, 

109, 132, 150, 153, 158, 166, 170, 171, 172, 

197, 217, 241, 258, 282, 302, 309, 318, 330, 

342, 350, 356, 366, 374, 382, 391, 399 

Alternative 5 (Resources), 25, 33, 35, 36, 89, 

112, 133, 151, 154, 159, 167, 170, 171, 172, 

197, 220, 244, 259, 284, 303, 310, 321, 332, 

343, 351, 357, 367, 374, 383, 392, 400 

Aquatic Features 

aspen, 70, 76, 142, 143, 152, 345 

bogs, 53, 60, 67, 76, 79, 88, 152, 288 

Critical Aquatic Refuge, 272 

fens, 53, 54, 55, 64, 288 

marsh, 155 

wet meadows, 54, 58, 67, 142, 297, 396, 409 

wetlands, 64, 74, 91, 140, 288, 363, 409 

Aquatic Wildlife 

aquatic habitat, 273, 361, 362, 363, 364, 366, 

367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 

377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 385, 386, 

387, 388, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 

398, 399, 400, 401 

aquatic species, 273, 287, 360, 361, 363 

Aquatic Wildlife Sensitive 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, 294, 370, 371 

Hardhead, 294 

Limestone Salamander, 294 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, 379, 380 

Western Pond Turtle, 20, 24, 40, 294, 386, 387, 

411 

Yosemite Toad, 294, 396 

Aquatic Wildlife T&E 

California Red-legged Frog, 294, 362, 363, 409 

California Tiger Salamander, 294 

Central Valley Steelhead, 294 

Delta Smelt, 294 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, 294, 407 

Calaveras Big Trees State Park, 46, 67, 127, 178, 

418, 419 

Climate Change, 47 

Counties 

Alpine County, 420 

Calaveras County, 62, 420 

433 
Stanislaus 

Index National Forest 

Mariposa County, 46, 69, 74, 418, 420 

Tuolumne County, 46, 62, 269, 271, 420, 421 

Cultural Resources, 44, 97, 99, 102, 103, 107, 

110, 113, 147 

Economy 

economic, 176, 199, 416 

employment, 175, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 

income, 175, 176, 181, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 

414 

Enforcement, 11, 45, 98, 130, 135, 195 

Environmental Consequences, 1, 39, 41, 76, 106, 

124, 146, 153, 156, 162, 169, 195, 211, 212, 

234, 256, 275, 294, 298, 307, 313, 325, 337, 

347, 353, 363, 371, 380, 387, 396 

cumulative effects, 29, 37, 39, 41, 42, 47, 57, 79, 

80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89, 92, 101, 104, 119, 129, 

130, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 

165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 210, 214, 216, 

217, 220, 221, 254, 257, 258, 264, 265, 278, 

280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 293, 295, 296, 306, 

311, 312, 323, 324, 335, 346, 352, 358, 359, 

369, 377, 378, 384, 385, 386, 394, 395, 403 

cumulative watershed effects, 207, 214, 216, 

217, 220, 221, 263, 264, 265, 277, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 285 

route proliferation, 5, 6, 33, 36, 37, 55, 74, 80, 

83, 129, 133, 147, 149, 153, 157, 158, 164, 

165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 196, 203, 206, 208, 

214, 216, 218, 230, 240, 251, 254, 257, 258, 

259, 263, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285, 288, 291, 

300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 308, 309, 310, 311, 

314, 318, 321, 323, 326, 330, 332, 335, 340, 

341, 342, 343, 346, 349, 350, 351, 354, 356, 

357, 359, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 372, 373, 

374, 377, 381, 382, 383, 385, 388, 391, 392, 

395, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402 

summary of effects, 36, 92, 94, 107, 110, 113, 

134, 135, 171, 172, 198, 221, 224, 246, 248, 

259, 260, 285, 306, 312, 324, 335, 346, 352, 

359, 370, 378, 386, 395, 402 

Fire and Fuels 

fire, 47, 48, 129, 133, 272, 274, 304, 358, 419 

fuels, 3, 47, 48, 59, 73, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92, 196, 

230, 233, 288, 304, 305, 310, 311, 312, 322, 

323, 324, 334, 335, 344, 345, 352, 358, 376, 

384 

prescribed fire, 210, 214, 394 

suppression, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92, 230, 232, 255, 

345 

treatments, 195, 257, 258, 305, 312, 324, 335, 

368, 394 

wildfire, 48, 73, 210, 214, 334, 352 

Forest Plan 

Forest Plan Direction, 50, 116, 172, 252, 262, 

272, 403, 404, 405, 406, 410, 411 

S&Gs, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 50, 52, 95, 98, 

114, 172, 205, 224, 286, 287, 288 

SNFPA, 52, 66, 115, 261, 287, 305, 337, 345, 

358, 368, 376, 384, 393 

Indicators, 53, 93, 102, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 

153, 156, 162, 169, 206, 211, 212, 221, 222, 

223, 224, 232, 248, 253, 271, 273, 306, 312, 

324, 336, 338, 347, 352, 354, 360, 370, 378, 

386, 395, 402 

Invasive Species 

noxious and invasive weeds, 11, 48, 51, 53, 55, 

56, 70, 71, 72, 74, 80, 83, 85, 89, 91, 92, 93, 

96 

Issues 

non-significant issues, 10 

significant issues, 10, 11, 117, 119, 120 

Monitoring, 130, 404 

National Visitor Use Monitoring, 116, 117, 121, 

122, 123, 124, 175, 176, 177, 181, 184, 186, 

187, 191, 253, 255 

Motor Vehicle Use Map 

MVUM, 2, 5, 6, 21, 43, 45, 135, 198, 199, 203, 

235, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 

248 

Noxious Weeds 

noxious and invasive weeds, 11, 48, 51, 53, 55, 

56, 70, 71, 72, 74, 80, 83, 85, 89, 91, 92, 93, 

96 

Private Land, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 18, 25, 29, 33, 48, 62, 

67, 69, 70, 74, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92, 118, 127, 129, 

130, 131, 133, 147, 196, 199, 228, 230, 233, 

244, 247, 304, 310, 311, 322, 334, 335, 344, 

345, 351, 358, 368, 376, 384, 394 

Proposed Wilderness 

Bald Peak, 139, 169 

Tryon Peak, 169 

Range 

grazing, 49, 67, 72, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92, 101, 142, 

196, 230, 257, 258, 304, 305, 344, 345, 358, 

359, 368, 375, 377, 384, 393, 401 

Recreation 

backpacking, 143, 144, 188 

bicycling, 189, 305 

hiking, 5, 43, 70, 121, 139, 142, 144, 145, 169, 

188, 189, 191, 252, 259, 273, 289, 305, 335, 

346 

horseback, 5, 70, 189 

non-motorized, 2, 6, 13, 16, 20, 25, 29, 33, 36, 

37, 77, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 

122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 

133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 142, 143, 147, 148, 

150, 151, 156, 176, 182, 186, 188, 189, 191, 

192, 197, 198, 199, 252, 258, 305, 335, 346 

nordic skiing, 139, 144, 145 

quiet recreation, 11, 36, 116, 124, 125, 128, 129, 

131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 197, 199 

recreation use, 42, 120, 121, 130, 133, 144, 145, 

176, 177, 193, 196, 199, 252, 275, 305, 323, 

335, 352 

special events, 48, 49, 227, 233 

Regulations 

California Vehicle Code, 28, 31, 48, 225, 226, 

227, 236, 242 

California Water Code, 261 

Clean Air Act, 8, 414 

Clean Water Act, 8, 261, 270, 414 

Endangered Species Act, 8, 28, 51, 52, 80, 287, 

414 

Environmental Justice, 175, 200, 414 

434 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Index 

Federal Highway Safety Act, 230 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, 8, 106, 414 

National Historic Preservation Act, 8, 28, 97, 98, 

140, 413 

NEPA, 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 18, 28, 30, 32, 40, 41, 43, 

45, 49, 117, 202, 205, 207, 328, 412, 413, 

416, 419 

NFMA, 50, 115, 119, 120, 205, 225, 251, 414 

Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, 261 

Travel Management Rule, 2, 6, 8, 33, 43, 45, 49, 

50, 97, 115, 172, 202, 225, 226, 249 

Research Natural Areas 

Bell Meadow RNA, 152 

Clark Fork Candidate RNA, 152 

Critchfield RNA, 76, 152 

Grizzly Mountain RNA, 76, 152 

Reservoirs 

Beardsley, 255, 271, 347 

Cherry, 16, 17, 28, 42, 137, 141, 143, 147, 162, 

163, 171, 255, 347 

Donnells, 271 

New Melones, 178, 270, 272, 369, 376 

Pinecrest, 16, 42, 120, 142, 145, 147, 162, 163, 

211, 252, 255, 271, 272 

Spicer, 142, 146, 147, 255 

Riparian 

Critical Aquatic Refuge, 272 

Riparian Conservation Area, 262, 296 

Riparian Conservation Objectives, 286, 341, 

355, 397 

riparian vegetation, 65, 76, 142, 155, 362, 363, 

368, 376 

Roadless Areas 

Arnot Creek, 137, 141, 171 

Bald Peak, 76, 137, 139, 141, 142, 152, 168, 

169, 171 

Bell Meadow, 142 

Carson-Iceberg, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146 

Cherry Lake, 143 

Dome, 143 

Eagle, 143 

Mt. Reba, 143 

Night, 144 

North Mountain, 144 

RARE II, 137 

Raymond Peak, 36, 144, 172
 

Trumbull Peak, 145 

Tuolumne River, 36, 145, 172
 

Waterhouse, 145 

Wheats Meadow, 142 

Sensitive Plants 

Big-scale balsamroot, 59, 61 

Common moonwort, 59, 66 

Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower, 54, 60, 61, 68, 75, 

78, 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 92, 95 

Mariposa clarkia, 59, 61, 69, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 

95 

Merced clarkia, 59, 69, 78, 81, 84, 87, 91, 95 

Mountain lady’s slipper, 59, 61 

Pansy monkeyflower, 60, 61 

Pleasant Valley Mariposa lily, 59, 95 

Scalloped moonwort, 59, 66 

Short-leaved hulsea, 59 

Slender lupine, 60 

Slender stalked monkeyflower, 60 

Subalpine fireweed, 59 

Tahoe draba, 59, 63, 78, 81, 84, 87, 91, 95 

Tuolumne fawn lily, 54, 59, 61, 67, 75, 78, 79, 

81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 96 

Tuolumne iris, 60, 61, 70, 84, 87, 91, 95 

Upswept moonwort, 59, 66 

Western goblin, 59 

Yosemite lewisia, 60, 63, 78, 81, 84, 87, 91, 95 

Yosemite onion, 59, 61, 62, 76, 78, 81, 84, 87, 

90, 95 

Yosemite woolly sunflower, 59, 61, 63, 95 

Sensitive Plants (Moss and Lichen) 

Broad nerved, 60 

Brook pocket moss, 60 

Elongate Copper-moss, 60 

Three ranked Hump-moss, 60
 

Veiny aquatic lichen, 60, 61
 

Sensitive Plants (Watchlist) 

brown-margined buckwheat, 61 

mountain bent grass, 61 

round-leaved sundew, 61 

Sierra bolandra, 61 

subalpine cryptantha, 61
 

Sweetwater Mtns. milk-vetch, 61 

Society and Culture 

social, 10, 13, 39, 175, 177, 181, 184, 413 

Soil, 5, 27, 29, 31, 37, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 61, 64, 

65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 77, 82, 83, 86, 89, 96, 

139, 146, 148, 149, 155, 171, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 

220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 231, 240, 253, 255, 

256, 263, 281, 300, 301, 303, 339, 354, 361, 

362, 365, 367, 373, 374, 375, 381, 390, 392, 

393, 398, 399, 400, 414, 417 

Special Areas 

Research Natural Areas, 50, 76, 137, 152, 153, 

252, 253 

Roadless Areas, 11, 31, 137, 141, 146, 147, 

171, 172, 305 

Special Interest Areas, 50, 75, 137, 154, 156, 

252 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 11, 36, 50, 137, 138, 

139, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 

168, 172, 252 

Wilderness, 6, 11, 14, 30, 36, 46, 49, 50, 101, 

109, 124, 125, 128, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 

144, 145, 146, 149, 160, 161, 165, 168, 169, 

170, 171, 172, 177, 195, 252, 253, 264, 271, 

421 

Yosemite National Park, 4, 11, 14, 30, 49, 62, 

63, 64, 68, 69, 120, 127, 143, 144, 160, 177, 

178, 252, 255, 274, 353, 401, 418, 419 

Special Interest Areas 

Bourland Creek Trestle SIA, 154 

Bull Run SIA, 154 

Columns of the Giants SIA, 155 

Emigrant Road and the Big Trees-Carson Valley 

Road SIA, 138, 154, 155 

435 
Stanislaus 

Index National Forest 

Jawbone Falls SIA, 154, 155 

Jordan Creek/Bower Cave SIA, 155, 157, 158, 

159 

Niagara Creek and Falls SIA, 154, 155 

Pacific Madrone SIA, 155 

Sonora-Mono Toll Road SIA, 154, 156 

Trumbull Peak SIA, 63, 156 

Windeler Cave SIA, 154, 156 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

late-successional, 295, 314, 326 

PACs, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 

320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 

329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 353, 

354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 

ungulates, 290, 295 

Terrestrial Wildlife MIS 

American Marten, 294, 298, 403 

Black-backed Woodpecker, 294 

California Spotted Owl, 229, 294, 312, 313, 404 

Fox Sparrow, 294 

Hairy Woodpecker, 294 

Mountain Quail, 294 

Mule Deer, 294, 336, 337, 405 

Northern Flying Squirrel, 294 

Yellow Warbler, 294 

Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive 

American Marten, 294, 298, 403 

Bald Eagle, 294, 347, 405 

California Spotted Owl, 229, 294, 312, 313, 404 

California Wolverine, 294 

Great Gray Owl, 294, 353 

Northern Goshawk, 287, 294, 324, 325, 404 

Pacific Fisher, 294, 306, 307, 403 

Pallid Bat, 294 

Peregrine Falcon, 294, 406 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox, 294 

Western Red Bat, 294 

Willow Flycatcher, 294 

Terrestrial Wildlife T&E 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, 294, 407 

Transportation 

combined use, 27, 34, 226, 236, 242, 248 

mixed use, 27, 34, 44, 226, 228, 229, 234, 236, 

241, 242, 248, 415 

roads analysis, 43, 231, 232 

Vegetation, 49, 76, 142, 143, 144, 146, 152, 274, 

301, 304, 308, 311, 317, 323, 329, 332, 333, 

334, 342, 343, 355, 357, 358, 376, 394 

Vehicles 

4WD, 1, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 34, 

126, 127, 129, 133, 134, 143, 146, 156, 162, 

163, 188, 227, 238, 298, 301, 303, 304, 307, 

308, 310, 313, 317, 320, 322, 325, 329, 332, 

334, 337, 340, 343, 344, 349, 351, 355, 357, 

358, 363, 364, 367, 368, 371, 380, 387, 396, 

421 

ATV, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, 34, 117, 126, 

131, 133, 141, 146, 154, 160, 162, 163, 164, 

168, 207, 212, 216, 222, 227, 263, 269, 279, 

298, 301, 303, 304, 307, 308, 310, 313, 317, 

320, 322, 325, 329, 332, 334, 337, 340, 343, 

344, 349, 351, 355, 357, 358, 363, 364, 367, 

368, 371, 380, 387, 396, 421 

motorcycles, 27, 125, 131, 207, 212, 216, 222, 

263, 298 

OHV, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42, 

43, 45, 54, 55, 64, 67, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 102, 

106, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 

123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 

135, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195, 197, 

198, 199, 200, 203, 207, 226, 230, 234, 235, 

248, 257, 258, 261, 269, 274, 286, 299, 305, 

311, 323, 335, 338, 345, 358, 369, 377, 385, 

394, 401, 406, 414, 417 

wheeled over snow, 6, 7, 17, 19, 23, 26, 33, 35, 

38, 117, 129, 133, 139, 207, 229, 238, 253 

Visual Resources, 44, 251, 253, 260, 416 

VQO, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256 

Watershed, 13, 37, 44, 208, 210, 262, 264, 265, 

266, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279, 281, 282, 

283, 284, 286, 415 

cumulative watershed effects, 37, 263, 264, 269, 

277, 282, 285 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Clark Fork, 160 

Clavey River, 160 

Merced River, 120, 159, 160 

Middle Fork Stanislaus River, 161 

Niagara Creek, 161 

North Fork Mokelumne River, 161 

North Fork Stanislaus River, 161 

South Fork Tuolumne River, 161 

Stanislaus River, 159, 161 

Tuolumne River, 120, 145, 159, 162 

Wilderness 

Carson-Iceberg, 76, 138, 142, 144, 152, 160, 

169 

Emigrant, 76, 142, 143, 144, 145, 152, 271, 273, 

401 

Mokelumne, 49, 138, 143, 144, 161, 255 

Wildlife 

aquatic species, 273, 287, 360, 361, 363 

CWHR, 298, 306, 313, 396 

late-successional, 295, 314, 326 

PACs, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 

320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 

329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 353, 

354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 

terrestrial species, 287, 288, 293, 306, 312, 324, 

336, 347, 352, 360, 361, 364, 368, 370, 371, 

372, 378, 379, 381, 383, 386, 388, 390, 392, 

395, 402 

ungulates, 290, 295 

Wildlife MIS 

American Marten, 294, 298, 403 

Black-backed Woodpecker, 294 

California Spotted Owl, 229, 294, 312, 313, 404 

Fox Sparrow, 294 

Hairy Woodpecker, 294 

Mountain Quail, 294 

Mule Deer, 294, 336, 337, 405 

Northern Flying Squirrel, 294 

436 
Motorized Travel Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Index 

Yellow Warbler, 294 

Wildlife Sensitive 

American Marten, 294, 298, 403 

Bald Eagle, 294, 347, 405 

California Spotted Owl, 229, 294, 312, 313, 404 

California Wolverine, 294 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, 294, 370, 371 

Great Gray Owl, 294, 353 

Hardhead, 294 

Limestone Salamander, 294 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, 379, 380 

Northern Goshawk, 287, 294, 324, 325, 404 

Pacific Fisher, 294, 306, 307, 403 

Pallid Bat, 294 

Peregrine Falcon, 294, 406 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox, 294 

Western Pond Turtle, 20, 24, 40, 294, 386, 387, 

411 

Western Red Bat, 294 

Willow Flycatcher, 294 

Yosemite Toad, 294, 396 

Wildlife T&E 

California Red-legged Frog, 294, 362, 363, 409 

California Tiger Salamander, 294 

Central Valley Steelhead, 294 

Delta Smelt, 294 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, 294, 407 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, 294, 407 

437 
Stanislaus 

Index National Forest 

438 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix A 

Environmental Impact Statement Abbreviations and Acronyms 

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

4WD 4-Wheel Drive 

AC Asphalt 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADM Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use) 

AGG Aggregate 

ALL All Vehicles 

AMS Aquatic Management Strategy 

APE Area of Potential Effects 

ATV All Terrain Vehicle 

BA Biological Assessment 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BMI Benthic Macro Invertebrate 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BOT Botany 

BST Bituminous Surface Treatment 

CAL Calaveras 

CAR Critical Aquatic Refuge 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CUR Current 

CVC California Vehicle Code 

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects 

CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

DC Dispersed Campsite 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DEM Digital Elevation Model 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENF Eldorado National Forest 

ERA Equivalent Roaded Acres 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FPO Forest Protection Officer 

FS Forest Service 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FSS Forest Service Sensitive 

FYLF Foothill yellow-legged frog 

GEO Geology 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GR Groveland 

HCRA Home Range Core Area 

HCS Hydrologically Connected Segment 

HFC Hydrologic Function Class 

439 
 

Appendix A Stanislaus 

Abbreviations and Acronyms National Forest
 

HLO Highway Legal Only 

HR Heritage Resources 

HSA Hydrologically Sensitive Area 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

IMP Improved Native Material 

INV Inventory 

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area 

LEI Law Enforcement and Investigations 

LEO Law Enforcement Officer 

MC Motorcycle 

MEHR Maximum Erosion Hazard Rating 

MI Miles 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

ML1 Maintenance Level 1 (closed to public motorized use) 

ML2 Maintenance Level 2 

ML3 Maintenance Level 3 

MMU Motorized Mixed Use 

MOI Memorandum of Intent 

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map 

MW Mi-Wok 

MYLF Mountain yellow-legged frog 

NAT Native 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF National Forest 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NFTS National Forest Transportation System 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

OR Outstandingly Remarkable 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PAC Protected Activity Center 

PER Permit Only 

RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 

RCA Riparian Conservation Area 

RCO Riparian Conservation Objective 

RD Ranger District 

REC Recreation 

RFA Recreation Facility Analysis 

RMO Road Management Objective 

RN Roaded Natural 

RNA Research Natural Area 

RO Regional Office 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIA Special Interest Area 

440 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix A 

Environmental Impact Statement Abbreviations and Acronyms 

S&G Standard and Guideline 

SEA Season of Use 

SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions 

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized 

SPNM Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

SQF Sequoia National Forest 

SRC Source 

SS Site Specific Review (1-4) 

1. The route was considered; a field visit was not necessary; the effects of 

adding the route to the NFTS are acceptable (meet law, regulation, and 

policy; routine maintenance is assumed). 

2. The route was considered, a field visit was made and the effects are 

acceptable (meet law, regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is 

assumed). 

3. The route was considered, a field visit was made and site-specific 

mitigation is prescribed to reduce the effects to acceptable (meet law, 

regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is assumed). 

4. The route was considered, a field visit was made and a determination 

was made that the effects could not be mitigated. The route is not 

recommended by the specialist for inclusion. 

SSI StreamScape Inventory 

STF Stanislaus National Forest 

SUR Surface 

SUV Sports Utility Vehicle 

SYS System (National Forest System) 

t-ALL NFTS road converted to All Vehicles trail 

t-ATV NFTS road converted to ATV trail 

t-MC NFTS road converted to Motorcycle trail 

t-4WD NFTS road converted to 4WD trail 

TE Threatened and Endangered 

TES Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive 

TMO Trail Management Objective 

TOC Threshold of Concern 

UNR Unauthorized Road 

UNT Unauthorized Trail 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VQO Visual Quality Objective 

WLF Wildlife and Fish 

WOS Wheeled Over Snow 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

X-C Cross Country 

YNP Yosemite National Park 

441 
Appendix A Stanislaus 

Abbreviations and Acronyms National Forest
 

442 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix B 

Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis 

B. Cumulative Effects Analysis 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The Forest queried its databases, 

including the Schedule of Proposed Actions to determine past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. This appendix lists the specific findings and information used for the cumulative 

effects analysis presented for each resource in Chapter 3. This list is not all inclusive since budgets 

and changing landscape conditions may warrant changes in management priorities or direction. 

Past Actions 

For the purposes of cumulative effect analysis, past actions are land disturbance projects fully 

implemented under completed NEPA decisions. In order to understand the contribution of past 

actions to cumulative effects, this analysis relies on existing conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions (see section 3.01). Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human 

actions and natural events that affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

The current vegetation database, updated in 2000, reflects existing conditions as of that year. In 

addition to actions reflected by the 2000 data, a complete assessment of cumulative effects must 

consider land disturbance actions implemented since that time. Table B-1 lists the land disturbance 

actions fully implemented from 2000-2008. Table B-2 shows the acres burned by wildfire from 2000­

2008. 

Table B.01-1 Past Land Disturbance Actions (2000-2008) 

Project Purpose RD Acres 

Ackerson Salvage GR 336 

Anderson Reforestation GR 253 

A-Rock Reforestation Vegetation GR 6,085 

Bandarita Reforestation GR 818 

Bear Mountain Vegetation GR 322 

Bellfour Vegetation MW 6 

Blue Canyon Vegetation CAL 18 

Brown Darby Vegetation CAL 7,300 

Buck Meadows Reforestation GR 82 

Buena Vista Reforestation MW 288 

Burnout Reforestation MW 387 

Buzz Tail Salvage MW 3,399 

Camp 34 Reforestation MW 27 

Camp 8 Vegetation MW 627 

Castle Vegetation SU 537 

Cherry Plum Reforestation GR 60 

China Vegetation GR 1,000 

Corner Vegetation SU 51 

Crabtree Vegetation SU 250 

Crandall Fuels MW 1,447 

Crockpot Vegetation GR 41 

Crush Vegetation MW 632 

Curtis Vegetation MW 126 

Deer Creek Vegetation MW 453 

443 
 

 

Appendix B Stanislaus 

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest
 

Project Purpose RD Acres 

Deer Flat Reforestation MW 171 

Defroster Vegetation MW 182 

Dodge Ridge Vegetation MW 250 

Domingo Vegetation CAL 60 

Dorrington Vegetation CAL 18 

Dry Meadow Vegetation CAL 738 

Expressway Vegetation CAL 7 

Ganns Vegetation CAL 13 

Granite Vegetation GR 4,322 

Grizzly Reforestation GR 912 

Grohls Vegetation CAL 5 

Harley Vegetation CAL 37 

Hazel Brown Reforestation GR 117 

Ichabod MP Vegetation CAL 92 

Interface MP Vegetation CAL 663 

Ixion MP Salvage CAL 2,528 

Johnson Vegetation GR 94 

Jordan Reforestation GR 130 

Kibbie Salvage GR 243 

Kim Practice Fuels GR 25 

Leland Gully MP Vegetation SU 7 

Leland Watershed Watershed SU 10 

Little Hot Saw Fire Salvage SU 17 

Lodge MP Vegetation SU 274 

Lyland Fork MP Vegetation SU 724 

Miller/Donnell Vegetation SU 27 

Mineral Fire Vegetation SU 22 

Mi-Wok Adm Thin Vegetation MW 40 

Moss Creek Fuels GR 223 

New Hunt Reforestation Vegetation MW 380 

Niagara Reforestation SU 55 

Niagara Fire Salvage Vegetation SU 137 

Old Default Vegetation CAL 15 

Old Gulch Vegetation CAL 90 

Pumpkin Hollow MP Vegetation CAL 567 

Quartz Summit Knobs Vegetation CAL 497 

Randall Vegetation MW 57 

Refuge Fireline Salvage CAL 9 

Roast Pigeon Reforestation SU 105 

Rogge-Ackerson Reforestation Vegetation MW 1,500 

Ruby MP Vegetation MW 144 

Ruby/Twin Rivers Vegetation MW 310 

Sammy Vegetation MW 729 

Sampson Vegetation MW 914 

Shovel Grave Vegetation CAL 40 

South 108 Vegetation MW 1,156 

South Dodge Vegetation MW 548 

South Landing Fuels MW 680 

Spinning Wheel PG&E Vegetation GR 61 

Three Fires Salvage Vegetation GR 2,300 

Twin Thin MP Vegetation GR 1,800 

444 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix B 

Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Project Purpose RD Acres 

Upper Cow Forest Resource Vegetation SU 895 

West Sheer Vegetation SU 488 

White Brush Reforestation SU 205 

White Out MP Salvage SU 208 

Wilson Loop Reforestation GR 747 

Yellow Bee MP Vegetation SU 21 

Interface Recreation Trails Recreation CAL NA 

Summit Ranger District Road Management Road SU NA 

Summit Ranger District Road Management South Road SU NA 

total 51,151 

CAL=Calaveras; GR=Groveland; MW=Mi-Wok; SU=Summit 

Table B.01-2 Past Land Disturbance Actions: Wildfires (2000-2008) 

Year Acres 

2000 421 

2001 26,333 

2002 884 

2003 16,459 

2004 3,500 

2005 121 

2006 238 

2007 492 

2008 36,973 

total 85,421 

Present Actions 

For the purposes of cumulative effect analysis, present actions are land disturbance projects with 

completed NEPA decisions that are not yet fully implemented on the ground. Table B-3 lists the 

present land disturbance actions followed by brief descriptions of each. Detailed information about 

most projects is available on the internet [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/decisions.shtml]. 

Table B.01-3 Present Land Disturbance Actions 

Project Purpose RD Decision Acres 

Bear Mountain Fuels GR 2006 2,300 

Blue Mountain Fuelbreak Fuels CAL 2001 2,186 

China Flat Fuels GR 2008 1,700 

Dodge Ridge Parking and Snowtubing Facilities Special Use SU 2004 100 

Hells Hollow Fuelbreak Vegetation GR 2006 151 

Lake Alpine Station Relocation Facility CAL 2005 5 

Leland Helicopter Fuels SU 2008 101 

Long Shanahan Vegetation GR 2007 377 

Peach Grower's Fuels GR 2007 639 

Silver Creek Bridge Recreation CAL 2007 1 

Sourgrass Vegetation CAL 2008 1,393 

Strawberry Vegetation SU 2007 2,500 

total 11,453 

CAL=Calaveras; GR=Groveland; MW=Mi-Wok; SU=Summit 

445 
 

Appendix B Stanislaus 

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest
 

Bear Mountain: fire hazard reduction by thinning trees and reducing ladder and ground fuels; 

includes shredding, biomass, gully restoration, meadow enhancement, road decommissioning and 

mechanical sawlog harvest. 

Blue Mountain Fuelbreak: fuelbreak construction through small timber sale. 

China Flat: mastication on 62 units totaling 3,818 acres; hand thinning, piling, and pile burning on 

23 units totaling 1,698 acres; underburning on all but one of the units, totaling 4,606 acres; broadcast 

burning on a 632 acre fuels unit, a large meadow in the Jordan Creek/Bower Cave Special Interest 

Area; road maintenance on approximately 39 miles of existing NFS roads within the project area. 

Dodge Ridge Parking and Snowtubing Facilities: construct a parking facility to increase parking 

for Dodge Ridge ski resort. The snowtubing facility decision was deferred until more information 

could be gathered and analyzed. 

Lake Alpine Station Relocation: relocate building to new site along Highway 4 at Silver Tip. 

Construct foundation for building, vault toilet, and parking area. 

Leland Helicopter: remove merchantable trees greater than 10 inches and less than 30 inches DBH, 

primarily suppressed and intermediate trees. The thinned trees would be spaced at a 1/2 to 1 crown 

spacing between residual crowns (approximately 20 feet between crowns depending on tree size). The 

emphasis is on retaining the largest, healthiest and most vigorous trees. All large black oak and 

riparian hardwood species would be retained. Over topped black oak trees would be released where 

feasible. During thinning, sugar pine and ponderosa pine would be favored for retention. Trees over 

30 inch DBH would only be removed where necessary for operational safety. In addition, the 

Forestwide Hazard Tree Guidelines would be used, allowing larger size hazard (dead and dying) trees 

to be removed when applicable. Thinning would be conducted on 101 acres. Biomass Treatment: Due 

to the high cost of biomass removal on steep slopes and the rising cost of fuel, the following options 

would be allowed: 1) Flown out, chipped at the landing, and removed, or 2) Hand cut, piled, and 

burned. Biomass treatment would be conducted on 101 acres. Jackpot Burning: Burn concentrations 

of biomass size material left on site and natural fuel concentrations. Activities would be conducted in 

the fall or spring depending on favorable weather conditions. Burning activities would be scattered 

throughout the 101 acres of treatment units. 

Long Shanahan: mechanical thinning with sawlog and biomass removal from 23 units covering 

1,310 acres. Due to the very low sawlog volumes that are not economical to remove, the mechanical 

thinning will be implemented immediately on only 7 units covering 350 acres (units 16125fb, 25116, 

25121fb, 25131, 25148, 25154 and 25156). The remaining 16 units covering 960 acres will only be 

mechanically thinned under this decision, should market conditions change and the units become 

economical to thin for forest health improvement. All fuels reduction and other treatments to these 

units remain the same as described in the EA for Alternative 1. The effects would be the same as were 

analyzed and disclosed in the EA. 2. Hazard trees will be removed along the power lines that traverse 

several units. This action will occur within the planned units and will not significantly alter the 

planned treatments or the effects. 3. The wildlife Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) will not be 

applied to the following units: 16160, 16127fb, 25010, 25112, 25112a, 25117, 25121fb, 25131fb, 

25134, 25141 and 25154. Small portions of these units fall within a set distance of wildlife activity 

centers. Based on the habitat, topography and the distance to known nests, the District Biologist 

determined that the LOPs are unwarranted in these units. All other units retain the LOPs as shown in 

the EA (p. 23). LOPs do not apply to road construction or timber hauling, which do not occur in the 

activity centers. 4. Logging slash along Highway 120, Smith Station Road and Sprague Road will be 

hand piled for burning by the Forest Service. Stumps will be cut low along these roads. The exact 

width of this treatment will vary with the visibility from the road. 5. Subsoiling of the major skid 

trails within the 350 acres of commercial timber harvest will cover no more than 17 acres. 

446 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix B 

Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Peach Grower's: reducing accumulated fuels and improving forest health on approximately 742 

acres; this includes 626 acres of mechanical thinning for sawlog and biomass removal, 20 acres of 

machine pile and burn, 98 acres of hand thinning, and 645 acres of prescribed burning. Remove 

approximately 2.0 million board feet of sawlogs and 11,000 green tons of biomass. The project 

includes treatments designed to enhance wet meadows as well as temporary road construction, road 

reconstruction, road barrier closures, and road decommissioning. In addition, Road 1S18Y, which 

borders the northern end of the project boundary, will not be decommissioned. 

Silver Creek Bridge: authorizes a pedestrian bridge over Silver Creek on the west side of Lake 

Alpine approximately 400 feet downstream from the Lake Alpine Dam and allows issuance of 

Special Use Authorization to NCPA for operations and maintenance of the bridge. Bridge approaches 

will be constructed to insure safe access to the crossing. This bridge would allow access to both ends 

of the dam. This bridge would be a low water crossing. The deck of the bridge would normally be 

dry, but during high dam releases the bridge could be topped and inundated by high flows. During 

these periods, NCPA would helicopter their employees to the south side of the dam. The bridge will 

be designed for pedestrian, snow, wind and seismic loads in compliance with the current American 

Association of State Highway Transportation Code (AASHTC). In addition, do not construct the 1/8 

mile of trail connecting the bridge with existing trail 19E01 on the south side of the bridge. 

Sourgrass: commercial thinning and biomass removal in distinct treatment units totaling 

approximately 999 acres; pre-commercial thinning and biomass removal in distinct treatment units 

totaling approximately 103 acres; prescribed burning of surface fuels over approximately 538 acres of 

thinned and unthinned stands 

Strawberry: fuel reduction and forest health treatments on approximately 2,500 acres and about 20 

miles of road system treatments as described in the EA (pp.18-19). The addition of diameter limits 

within the two spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) proposed for treatment in the analysis. 

The western PAC within stands 1, 33, and 199 will have a maximum diameter limit of 25 inches 

DBH and the eastern PAC within stands 96, 97, 98 and 99 will have a maximum diameter limit of 21 

inches DBH. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

For the purposes of cumulative effect analysis, reasonably foreseeable future actions are land 

disturbance projects in preliminary planning stages without completed NEPA decisions. Table B-4 

lists the reasonably foreseeable future land disturbance actions followed by brief general descriptions 

of the project purpose types. 

Table B.01-4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Land Disturbance Actions 

Project Purpose RD Decision Acres 

2 Mile Vegetation MW 2009 2,100 

Abernathy Fuels GR 2011 417 

Ascension Fuels GR 2011 99 

Bailey Vegetation CAL 2009 1,200 

Basin Vegetation MW 2010 469 

Bear Springs Fuels MW 2012 627 

Bear Valley Mountain Resort Expansion Special Use CAL 2010 1,500 

Beaver Vegetation CAL 2014 845 

Bloods Fuels CAL 2011 975 

Boards Vegetation CAL 2013 1,775 

Bourland Fuels CAL 2012 2,230 

Buck Meadows Fuels GR 2012 854 

Cascade Vegetation GR 2011 384 

447 
 

 

Appendix B Stanislaus 

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest
 

Project Purpose RD Decision Acres 

Cottonwood Vegetation MW 2010 1,537 

Coward Fuels GR 2011 1,292 

Dodge Meadow Fuels MW 2011 575 

Dodge Ridge Vegetation SU 2010 822 

Eagle Creek Vegetation MW 2013 732 

Faust (Lewis) Vegetation MW 2012 1,441 

Fence Vegetation SU 2010 1,000 

Fisher Vegetation CAL 2014 1,025 

Flagpole Fuels CAL 2012 695 

Folsom Vegetation CAL 2013 2,630 

Fraser Fuels MW 2011 431 

Gravel Range Vegetation GR 2012 391 

Great Hunt Reforestation Vegetation MW 2010 997 

Grizzly Vegetation CAL 2014 1,425 

Hemlock Fuels CAL 2012 1,396 

Herring Fuels SU 2011 749 

Hunter Ridge Fuels MW 2012 300 

Jackass Mountain Fuels GR 2012 254 

Jawbone Station Vegetation GR 2013 892 

Lower Blue Creek (4-08-005-CAL) Private NA 438 

Matsen Fuels MW 2011 1,150 

Medusa Vegetation CAL 2010 1,534 

Middle Beaver Creek (4-07-037-TUO) Private NA 567 

Middle Fork Vegetation GR 2009 520 

Monotti Fuels GR 2010 2,562 

Moran Creek (4-07-042-CAL) Private NA 11 

Motorized Trails: add dispersed recreation 

access routes to the trail system 

Trail All 2010 NA 

Motorized Trails: construct approximately 5 

miles of new trail or trail re-routes in order to 

complete the OHV trails program 

Trail MW 2010 NA 

Murphy, Matsen, Paper Fuels MW 2011 2,913 

Paper Fuels MW 2011 927 

Phase II Vegetation MW 2009 1,500 

Pinecrest Interior Fuels SU 2009 950 

Prather Vegetation CAL 2010 1,202 

Reynolds Creek Vegetation GR 2010 2,134 

Ruby Hill Vegetation MW 2013 1,221 

Sand Bar Vegetation GR 2012 859 

Schoettgen Fuels CAL 2011 564 

Scott Ridge Fuels MW 2011 1,700 

Soldier Creek Fuels GR 2009 2,300 

Swamp Creek (4-08-020-CAL) Private NA 549 

Teton Fuels SU 2009 979 

Thompson Fuels CAL 2011 1,145 

Upper Blue Creek (4-08-018-CAL) Private NA 172 

Upper Griswold Creek (4-08-023-TUO) Private NA 628 

Walton Cabin, Bear Springs, Hunter Fuels MW 2013 927 

total 59,511 

CAL=Calaveras; GR=Groveland; MW=Mi-Wok; SU=Summit 

448 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix B 

Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Fuels: fuel treatments can be incorporated into vegetation projects or stand alone. Fuels treatment 

project activities include hand and machine pile, broadcast burning, understory burning or tree 

removal for the development of fuelbreaks. 

Private: the California Division of Forestry (CAL FIRE) website lists harvest plans proposed on 

private lands. 

Special Use: Bear Valley Mountain Resort expansion is in the initial scoping stage with the 

proponent proposing a number of developments. 

Trail: an unknown number of unauthorized routes accessing dispersed recreation sites may be 

analyzed and added annually to the NFTS. The number of miles added is unknown. Approximately 

5.0 miles of new motorized trails are needed to complete connections, bypass private property or 

address re-route recommendations. 

Vegetation: vegetation projects generally have the following activities occurring on the landscape: 

tree removal, shredding, pre-commercial thinning, biomassing, temporary road construction, road 

decommissioning, road maintenance and reconstruction, and other site specific resource projects. 

These future projects have estimated dates of project decisions with an implementation date of one to 

two years later. 

449 
Appendix B Stanislaus 

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest
 

450 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

C. Forest Plan Direction 

The Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, 

directs the management of the Stanislaus National Forest. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

(S&Gs) that specifically apply to Motorized Travel Management are listed below with their 

originating source indicated as follows: 

 Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1991 (LMP 91) 

 Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan Amendment, 1998 (MVTM) 

 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 2004 (SNFPA) 

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines 

Cultural Resources 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory and Evaluation 

(2-A) 

LMP 91 

Complete a cultural resource inventory prior to 

any land disposal action or any Forest or 

Forest- permitted or assisted action, activity or 

program that has the potential of altering 

prehistoric or historic cultural values to identify 

all potentially eligible cultural properties which 

may be affected (36 CFR 219.24). 

Field survey coverage intensity shall be determined according to 

the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines on 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation and California Office of 

Historic Preservation Archaeological Survey Guidelines. 

Follow site recording methods established by the California 

Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Site Record 

Handbook. 

Follow the standards for inventory reports in the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards and Guidelines on Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation. 

Perform controlled sample surveys in designated Wilderness. 

Consult with members of the potentially affected local Native 

American community to identify specific locations and issues. 

Assess the scientific, historic and ethnic Use appropriate Programmatic Agreements and Treatment 

significance for each cultural property before Plans whenever possible. 

determining further treatment (36 CFR 219.24). Apply the National Register of Historic Places criteria in 36 CFR 

60 and regulations in 36 CFR 63 to determine the eligibility of a 

cultural property to the National Register. 

Use FSM 2361, FSM 1680, and Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation's "Treatment of Archaeological Properties: A 

Handbook", and the traditional values of local Miwok, Washo 

and Paiute Indian communities as guidelines for evaluating 

significance. 

Evaluate the effect of Forest undertakings on 

the resource. 

Apply the Criteria of Effect in 36 CFR 800, and follow FSM 2361 

for determining the effect of an undertaking. 

Cultural Resource All identified cultural resources are to be Use the guidelines in FSM 2361 and FSM 1680 for developing 

Protection (2-B) protected until they are evaluated. The integrity and implementing protective measures. 

LMP 91 and significant values of eligible properties and 

National Historic Landmarks are to be 

protected. When necessary, mitigative 

excavation or data recovery may be 

accomplished. 

Comply with 36 CFR 800 regulations and follow the guidelines 

in 36 CFR 66, FSM 2361, and the 13 principles in the 

"Treatment of Archaeological Properties" Handbook (ACHP). 

Conduct compliance inspections on all special use permits 

containing cultural resource stipulations or conditions. Protect 

documents, photographs and other information relevant to the 

administrative, social and contextual history of the Forest for 

research and public use. 

Utilize law enforcement patrols to help prevent site vandalism 

and conduct law enforcement investigations when cultural 

resources are impacted using ARPA, 36 CFR 261.9, and other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Cultural Resource 

Enhancement and 

Plan interpretation, research and restoration 

projects for the benefit of the public and of 

Work with Interpretive Services to develop high quality 

brochures, publications and/or audio-visual presentations. Work 

451 
Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Interpretation (2-C) 

LMP 91 

cultural resources. 

Treatments of cultural properties, including 

maintenance of historic properties, should be 

appropriate to their assessed values (as 

documented in the Statement of Significance in 

the Request for Determination of Eligibility and 

National Register nomination form), the state of 

knowledge and methods of cultural resource 

disciplines, and the public interest. 

The significant values of National Register and 

eligible historic structures shall be conserved by 

physical protection and maintenance or 

recording to professional standards if physical 

preservation is not possible. 

with cooperators to develop high quality interpretive, 

stabilization, and/or restoration projects. 

Comply with 36 CFR 800 regulations and follow the guidelines 

in 36 CFR 66, FSM 2361 and the 13 principles in the 

"Treatment of Archaeological Properties" Handbook (ACHP). 

Issue permits under the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-95) for non-Federal archaeological 

research projects on the Forest. 

Encourage non-Federal research projects on the Forest. 

Encourage the Sierra Miwok, Washo, and Mono Lake Paiute to 

contribute to the Forest's cultural resource management 

activities, to enhance public understanding of their traditional 

and contemporary cultures. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Bald Eagle (5-E) Meet the Forest’s share of the bald eagle Provide a 1⁄4 mile buffer between target nest stands and 

LMP 91 recovery plan goal of three active breeding 

sites. 

developed recreation facilities. When nesting bald eagles 

are found, implement suitable restrictions on nearby 

activities based on the Regional habitat management 

guidelines and the habitat capability model for the species. 

Protect all historic and active nests, as required by the Bald 

Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Recovery Species Management activities will comply with the Conduct a Biological Evaluation for any project which may 

Management (5-L) Endangered Species Act. affect a species proposed for Federal listing. 

LMP 91 Modify or mitigate projects where necessary to avoid 

adverse impacts to habitats for species which are 

candidates or proposed for Federal listing. 

Peregrine Falcon (5-L) Meet the Forest’s share of the peregrine For each peregrine falcon territory, avoid high levels of 

LMP 91 falcon recovery plan goals of two active 

breeding territories by providing superior 

nesting habitat at two nest sites. 

human activity near suitable nesting sites. When active 

nesting is found, restrict logging, road building and other 

disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of the nest site between 

March 1 and July 31. 

Manage territories to enhance habitat for common prey 

species such as band-tailed pigeons, woodpeckers, jays 

and robins. Utilize opportunities to fund peregrine 

reestablishment through hacking or cross-fostering until the 

species is delisted. Protect all historic and active nests, as 

required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Range 

Practices Standards and Guidelines 

Noxious Weed 

Management (9-E) 

SNFPA 

Inform forest users, local agencies, special use permittees, groups, and organizations in communities near 

National Forests about noxious weed prevention and management. 

Work cooperatively with California and Nevada State agencies and individual counties (for example, Cooperative 

Weed Management Areas) to: (1) prevent the introduction and establishment of noxious weed infestations and 

(2) control existing infestations. 

As part of project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk assessment to determine risks for weed spread (high, 

moderate, or low) associated with different types of proposed management activities. Refer to weed prevention 

practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy to develop mitigation measures for high and 

moderate risk activities. 

When recommended in project-level noxious weed risk assessments, consider requiring off-road equipment and 

vehicles (both Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation to be weed free. Refer to weed 

prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. 

Minimize weed spread by incorporating weed prevention and control measures into ongoing management or 

maintenance activities that involve ground disturbance or the possibility of spreading weeds. Refer to weed 

prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. 

Conduct follow-up inspections of ground disturbing activities to ensure adherence to the Regional Noxious Weed 

Management Strategy. 

Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate with other agencies and the public in developing 

452 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Practices Standards and Guidelines 

a certification program for weed free hay and straw. Phase in the program as certified weed free hay and straw 

becomes available. This standard and guideline applies to pack and saddle stock used by the public, livestock 

permittees, outfitter guide permittees, and local, State, and Federal agencies. 

Include weed prevention measures, as necessary, when amending or re-issuing permits (including, but not 

limited to, livestock grazing, special uses, and pack stock operator permits). 

Include weed prevention measures and weed control treatments in mining plans of operation and reclamation 

plans. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. Monitor for 

weeds, as appropriate, for 2 years after project implementation (assuming no weed introductions have occurred). 

Conduct a risk analysis for weed spread associated with burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) 

treatments. The BAER team is responsible for conducting this analysis. Monitor and treat weed infestations for 3 

years after the fire. 

Consult with American Indians to determine priority areas for weed prevention and control where traditional 

gathering areas are threatened by weed infestations. 

Complete noxious weed inventories, based on regional protocol. Review and update these inventories on an 

annual basis. 

As outlined in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy, when new, small weed infestations are 

detected, emphasize eradication of these infestations while providing for the safety of field personnel. 

Routinely monitor noxious weed control projects to determine success and to evaluate the need for follow-up 

treatments or different control methods. Monitor known weed infestations, as appropriate, to determine changes 

in weed population density and rate of spread. 

Recreation 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (10-B) 

LMP 91 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a management concept that applies Forestwide. Every acre of 

National Forest land treated by this Forest Plan fits into one of the ROS classes listed below. 

1. ROS Primitive Manage the area to be essentially free from 

evidence of man-induced restrictions and 

controls. Provide a range of primitiverecreation opportunities and experiences. 

Meet the ROS objective of Primitive. Interaction between 

visitors is very low and the evidence of other users is 

minimal. Mechanized use is prohibited. Resource 

improvements will normally be limited to minimum, 

unobtrusive facilities. Road development and timber 

harvest are not permitted. 

2. ROS Semi-primitive Manage the area so that on-site controls are Meet the ROS objective of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. 

Non-motorized minimized and restrictions are subtle. 

Provide a range of semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities and 

experiences. 

Interaction between visitors is low but there is evidence of 

other users. Motorized use is normally prohibited. Resource 

improvements will normally be limited to minimum, 

unobtrusive facilities. 

3. ROS Semi-primitive 

Motorized 

Manage the area so that on-site controls 

and restrictions are evident but not 

dominant. Provide a range of semi-primitive 

motorized recreation opportunities and 

experiences. 

Meet the ROS objective of Semi-primitive Motorized. 

Interaction between visitors is low to moderate and there is 

evidence of other users. Motorized use is normally allowed, 

but may be subject to seasonal restrictions. Resource 

improvements occur but are subordinate to the surrounding 

natural environment. 

4. ROS Roaded Manage the area so there is only moderate Meet the ROS objective of Roaded Natural. Interaction 

Natural evidence of the sights and sounds of man. 

Provide a range of roaded natural recreation 

opportunities and experiences. 

between users is usually low to moderate with evidence of 

other users prevalent. Resource modification practices are 

evident. Conventional motorized use is provided for in 

construction standards And facilities designs. 

A full range of other resource activities is permitted to the 

extent that the general practice description is met. 

5. ROS Rural Manage the area to accommodate 

substantial modification of the natural 

environment. Provide a range of rural 

recreation opportunities and experiences. 

Meet the ROS objective of Rural. Sights and sounds of man 

are evident. Interaction between users is moderate to high. 

Facilities are designed for use by large numbers of people 

and intensified for motorized use and parking. A full range 

of other resource activities is permitted to the extent that 

the general practice description is met. 

Motor Vehicle Travel 

Management (10-G) 

Motor Vehicle Travel Management applies Forestwide. Every acre of National Forest treated by this 

Forest Plan fits into either the Closed or Restricted categories as shown below. 

453 
Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

MVTM 

1. Closed Motor a. Closed to motorized use 

Vehicle Travel 

Management 1. Consider temporary exceptions when threat to life or property dictate otherwise. 

2. Consider temporary exceptions for administrative access. 

b. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate evidence 

of, and access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

2. Restricted Motor A. Social Setting 

Vehicle Travel 

Management 1. Private Property: 

a. Inventory, rank and acquire route rights-of-way as needed. 

b. Recognize private property during route inventory and revisions. 

c. Locate designated routes to avoid private property unless opportunities and agreements for a 

connected network of routes exist. 

d. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize conflicts with private property caused by motorized use. 

2. User Groups: 

a. Seek partnerships with the State, industry, users and other federal and local agencies to develop 

a successful motorized recreation program. 

1. Encourage users to work with local authorities to seek opportunities for hill climbs and 

motocross events on lands other than National Forest. 

2. Stay in tune with motorized users. Users are essential in laying out road and trail networks 

and organized groups are interested in resource protection. User participation and support 

are essential ingredients to all motorized recreation management activities. 

3. Work with user organizations and vehicle dealers to identify needs, utilize volunteers and 

spread a conservation ethic. 

4. Strengthen work with the State and BLM to address joint management of trail networks and 

define roles. 

5. Use Adopt-a-Trail to maintain routes. 

6. Use public to monitor motorized use and report problems. 

b. Monitor public concerns and preferences to identify new issues. 

1. Maintain and update the Forest OHV mailing list and periodically make related information 

available to the public. 

2. Create a file for public comments and agency responses and review for trends and issues. 

c. Use public participation to complete route inventories and make recommended changes in the 

route system. Include both users and non-users in this process. 

d. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize conflicts with other user groups caused by motorized use. 

B. Resource Setting 

1. Cultural Resources: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Cultural Resources. In 

addition: 

a. Complete cultural resource inventory and analysis as part of all site-specific motor vehicle 

travel management projects. 

b. Complete a module for motorized use and add to the programmatic agreement for the 

treatment of cultural resources. 

c. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate 

and minimize damage to cultural resources caused by motorized use. 

2. Fire: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Fire. In addition: 

a. Locate routes and manage motorized use to minimize conflicts with fuel break and other fire 

management activities. 

b. Emphasize good fire prevention practices in Forest Service generated public information 

material, news releases, and public service announcements. 

c. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize fire losses caused by motorized use. 

3. Fish and Wildlife: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife. In addition: 

a. The wildlife areas subject to special management are: 

1. Peregrine Falcon 

454 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

a. Implement a limited operating period (LOP), from February 1 through July 31, on all 

peregrine falcon territories active within the preceding five years, for at least 0.5 miles 

from the nest. 

1. Restrict motor vehicle activities and new road construction, during this LOP, 

according to a management plan for the area. 

b. Prohibit new motor vehicle activity within 200 feet of lake shorelines that are used by 

peregrine falcons. 

2. Bald Eagle 

a. Within Designated Territories (delineated bald eagle management areas, or additional 

territories, based on nesting occupancy): 

1. Implement a LOP, from January 1 through August 31. 

a. Apply LOP restrictions to motor vehicle activities on level 1 roads and OHV 

routes open to the general public. 

b. Allow new road construction, during the LOP, only when surveys 

determine no nesting activity. 

c. Encourage use of existing roads and skid trails for vegetation and fire 

management purposes. 

d. Construct new roads only for vegetation or fire management purposes; 

close these new roads following their management use. 

2. Prohibit new motor vehicle activity in wetlands, streamside management zones, 

and within 200 feet of lake shorelines that are used by bald eagles. 

b. Outside Designated Territories (new active bald eagle nests outside of designated 

management territories): 

1. From January 1 through August 31, implement the following restrictions in a 

buffer area around the nest for a distance determined by the Wildlife Biologist on 

a site-specific basis. 

a. Re-route existing OHV use to routes at a safe distance from the nest. 

b. Close or detour existing roads in the proximity of the nest site. 

c. Prohibit motor vehicle activities in the roost area. 

3. California red-legged frog 

a. Within 300 feet of streams or ponds that have potential suitable habitat: 

1. Construct new roads or trails or use off-road routes for motorized vehicles only 

after conducting amphibian surveys to the most recent protocol for the frog. 

2. Allow stream crossings only where the route, through the water, and the 

adjacent streamside areas are naturally resistant to tires or are hardened with 

rock or other materials. 

4. Spotted Owl, Fisher, Marten, Goshawk, Great Gray Owl, Western Pond Turtle 

a. Active nests of sensitive raptors not otherwise protected in specified management 

areas): 

1. Provide special measures to protect nests discovered close to motorized trails or 

4WD routes where needed for nesting success. 

b. Within Fisher/Marten reproductive areas in Forest Plan Near Natural and Wildlife 

management areas. 

1. Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized 

vehicles only where compatible with the road/trail density standards below, and 

where approved in the fisher/marten area management plan. 

c. In area adjacent to waters with known populations of western pond turtle: 

1. Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized 

vehicles only if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied habitat or where approved by a 

Wildlife Biologist. 

5. Early Successional Species (mule deer and associates) 

a. Deer winter concentration areas or critical winter deer range may be closed to 

motorized use from 11/15 to 4/15. 

b. Deer summer concentration areas or critical summer deer range may be closed to 

motorized use from 4/15 to 8/1. 

b. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize conflicts with fish and wildlife caused by motorized use. 

4. Range: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Range. In addition: 

455 
Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize conflicts with range caused by motorized use. 

5. Recreation: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (as amended) for Recreation. In addition: 

a. Designate a managed system of existing motorized routes maintained to standards. 

1. Conduct route condition ratings, using the Route Condition Rating form and its instructions. 

a. Utilize interdisciplinary skills and public participation. 

b. Manage routes as follows: 

1. For routes rated Green (OK): Sign open to motorized use with width restrictions, 

if any. Schedule maintenance to remain in Green. 

2. For routes rated Brown (Needs maintenance): Sign open to motorized use with 

width restrictions, if any. Schedule maintenance to move up to Green, with 

priorities set to avoid moving into Orange. 

3. For routes rated Orange (Needs Major Attention): Close to motorized use. 

Schedule maintenance, rehabilitation or mitigation to move up to Brown, then 

Green; or, obliterate. 

b. Designated Routes: include roads, routes and trails as described below. If resource damage or 

unresolvable conflicts are likely, the route should be repaired, relocated or closed. Designated 

routes may be installed, signed and maintained by Special Use Permittees. 

1. Off-Highway: include Motorcycle, ATV, OHV, 4WD and Combined Use routes as 

described below. 

a. Designated Motorcycle Routes: include narrow single track trails. Designated 

Motorcycle Routes are open only to single track vehicles less than 24 inches wide 

(Motorcycles Only). 

b. Designated ATV Routes: include narrow double track trails. Designated ATV Routes 

are open only to vehicles less than 50 inches wide (Motorcycles and ATVs Only). 

c. Designated OHV Routes: include full width roughly graded (level 2) Forest System 

roads which are open to public motorized use. Designated OHV routes also include 

other full width routes and trails which are open to motorized use. Designated OHV 

Routes are open to all vehicles, but not maintained for conventional highway vehicles. 

d. Designated 4WD Routes: include full width roads, routes or trails which are not 

maintained for conventional highway vehicles; 4WD travel is recommended. 

e. Designated Combined Use Routes: include portions of high standard roads for 

Combined Use by street legal and non-street legal vehicles. 

2. Over-Snow: include Wheeled Over-Snow (WOS) routes and Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) 

routes as described below. 

a. Designated WOS Routes: include surfaced roads and other routes which are open 

for WOS use by ATVs. 

b. Designated OSV Routes: include roads, routes and trails which are open to 

motorized use. Cross-country over snow travel, by vehicles designed specifically for 

that purpose, will be permitted when there is 12 inches or more of snow and no 

contact is made with native soil or vegetation. 

c. Provide comprehensive user information and education programs. 

1. Renew the “Host” program emphasis and provide training. 

2. Include well done entry stations and bulletin boards at staging areas and contact stations. 

3. Provide professional quality signs, maps and brochures. 

4. Emphasize a conservation ethic through literature, handouts and radio announcements 

with the message being the same: tread lightly, stay on roads and trails to protect our sport, 

our meadows and our environment. 

5. Encourage motorized use in appropriate areas. 

d. Provide comprehensive project level planning, perhaps within a watershed analysis. 

1. Incorporate control measures such as fencing and rehabilitation measures for presently 

disturbed areas. 

2. Involve interdisciplinary skills and public participation in route condition ratings, nominations, 

designations, closures, construction and maintenance. 

3. Include sign planning, installation and maintenance in contracts for construction and 

maintenance of routes. 

4. Strategically locate staging areas serving as trailheads near street legal access points. 

5. Consider future changes, additional designations and route developments to enhance OHV 

456 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

opportunities for loop travel. 

6. Consider other selected maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 Forest roads for Combined Use 

where this would enhance OHV opportunities. 

7. Provide motorcycle and ATV trail riding opportunities in the Hull Creek, Crandall, Penny 

Pines, Liberty and Pilot Ridge areas. 

e. Prepare California Backcountry Discovery Trail (CBDT) nominations after project level analysis 

and sign routes that are accepted by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 

1. Provide maps and other information on CBDT segments. Include information on segments 

open to OSV use and other similar OSV opportunities. 

f. Seek opportunities to increase OSV route grooming as additional non-Forest Service funding is 

available. 

g. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize conflicts with other recreationists caused by motorized use. 

6. Riparian: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Riparian. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to riparian areas caused by motorized use. 

7. Sensitive Plants: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Sensitive Plants. In addition: 

a. Protect sensitive plants from motorized activities which might cause the plants to become 

federally threatened or endangered. 

1. Allow OHV use through populations of sensitive plants only where the planned impacts are 

considered acceptable and where proliferation of routes into adjacent parts of the 

population does not occur. 

2. Locate OHV staging areas where associated off-site use does not damage sensitive plants. 

b. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to sensitive plants caused by motorized use. 

8. Soils: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Soils. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize soil loss caused by motorized use. 

9. Special Areas: Follow Management Area Direction (as amended) for Special Interest Areas, 

Research Natural Areas, and Experimental Forest. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to special area values caused by motorized use. 

10. Transportation: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Transportation. The existing 

direction to manage the road system to protect wildlife and riparian values also applies to OHV routes 

and OSV routes. In addition: 

a. Prohibit non-street legal vehicles on roads or routes not designated for OHV use. 

b. Consider closing to all motorized use those roughly graded roads that do not enhance motorized 

opportunities. 

c. Comply with the Highway Safety Act and prepare Combined Use orders as necessary. 

d. Utilize seasonal closures to protect road and route surfaces. 

e. Develop entrance strategies to discourage normal passenger vehicle travel on designated OHV 

routes. 

f. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize traffic conflicts caused by motorized use. 

11. Vegetation: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Diversity. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to vegetation caused by motorized use. 

12. Visual Resource: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Visual Resource. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to the visual resource caused by motorized use. 

13. Water: Follow Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Water. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to water quality caused by motorized use. 

14. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Follow Management Area Direction (as amended) for Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and 

minimize damage to Wild and Scenic River values caused by motorized use. 

457 
 

Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

15. Wilderness: Follow Management Area Direction (as amended) for Wilderness. In addition: 

a. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate 

evidence of, and access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

C. Management Setting 

1. Administration: 

a. Prohibit motorized use and close motorized routes in non-motorized areas. 

b. Prohibit cross-country overland OHV travel. 

c. Recognize OHV activities as legitimate uses of the National Forest and provide opportunities, 

where compatible the other direction and guidelines established in the Forest Plan and this 

Amendment. 

d. Manage OHV activities to meet the intent of the Executive Orders 11644 and 11989. 

e. Control and direct OHV use to protect resources, promote the safety of all users, and minimize 

conflicts among the various uses of the Forest (36 CFR 219.21 (g)). 

f. Resolve motorized activity problems presenting an immediate threat to life or property through an 

immediate closure to vehicle type(s) causing the problem. 

g. Include an evaluation of motorized activities in timber sale, reforestation, fuelbreak, fire 

suppression and other projects that may affect Motor Vehicle Travel Management. For traffic 

safety, roads or routes may be temporarily closed during management activities. 

h. Consider applications for organized events on a case-by-case basis. 

i. Treat different types of motorized use fairly. 

1. Motor vehicle travel is restricted to designated routes. Manage motorized routes as open 

unless signed or physically closed. 

a. Cross country overland travel is not permitted. 

b. Cross country over snow travel, by vehicles designed specifically for that purpose, is 

permitted when there is 12 inches or more of snow and no contact is made with native 

soil or vegetation. 

2. Permit motor vehicle travel up to 100 feet from roads, routes and established travel ways 

for direct access to campsites, parking, woodcutting, or gathering forest products provided 

that: 

a. no resource damage occurs; and, 

b. such access is not otherwise prohibited. 

j. Provide consistent signing. 

1. Roads: Forest roads are signed as described below. 

a. Roads maintained for conventional highway vehicles: standard highway sign, or 

Forest Service sign with horizontal route number, installed at road intersections. 

b. Roads not maintained for conventional highway vehicles: standard Forest 

Service sign, or carsonite type marker (on Designated OHV Routes), with vertical 

route number, installed at road intersections. 

2. Off-Highway: Forest roads, routes and trails are signed as described below. 

a. Designated Motorcycle Routes: carsonite type marker with motorcycle symbol 

(vertical route number, if shown) installed at access points and intersections with other 

designated routes. 

b. Designated ATV Routes: carsonite type marker with ATV or motorcycle/ATV symbol 

(vertical route number, if shown) installed at access points and intersections with other 

designated routes. 

c. Designated OHV Routes: standard Forest Service sign, or carsonite type marker, 

with vertical route number, installed at access points and intersections with other 

designated routes. 

d. Designated 4WD Routes: standard Forest Service sign, or carsonite type marker, 

with 4WD (Jeep) symbol and vertical route number, installed at access points and 

intersections with other designated routes. 

e. Designated Combined Use Routes: yellow diamond shaped highway sign with ATV 

symbol in addition to standard signs indicating Combined Use by street legal and nonstreet legal vehicles, installed at both ends of the Combined Use segment. 

3. Over-Snow: Forest roads, routes and trails are signed as described below. 

a. Designated WOS Routes: ATV symbol installed at access points from winter parking 

458 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

areas. 

b. Designated OSV Routes: snowmobile symbol installed at access points from winter 

parking areas. 

4. Closed: Forest roads, routes and trails that are closed to motorized use are indicated by: 

a. the presence of closed signs, gates or barriers. 

2. Law Enforcement: 

a. Provide appropriate levels of enforcement: 

1. A Forest Service presence in the use area and application of law enforcement based on the 

need are essential. 

2. Forest Service personnel riding the type of vehicles used in the area; these contact persons 

must be well equipped with machine and safety gear and they must be qualified riders or 

drivers. 

b. Update Forest Orders and enforce closures and other restrictions. 

Sensitive Plants 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Sensitive Plants Interim 

and Recovery 

Management (12-A) 

LMP 91 

Provide for protection and habitat needs of 

sensitive plants, so that Forest activities will 

not jeopardize their continued existence. 

Protect sensitive plants from activities which might cause 

them to become Federally listed as Threatened or 

Endangered. 

Identify populations of sensitive plants which occur in areas 

planned for timber sales or other projects. 

Modify planned projects to avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts to sensitive plants. 

Where projects may jeopardize a sensitive plant species 

perform a Biological Evaluation, botanical investigation and 

develop management guidelines, as necessary, for the 

species involved. 

Conduct surveys and monitoring necessary to detect 

potentially damaging disturbances, changes in known 

populations and locations of new populations. 

Sensitive Plant Surveys 

(12-A) 

SNFPA20 

Conduct field surveys for TEPS plant species early enough in the project planning process that the 

project can be designed to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. Conduct surveys 

according to procedures outlined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2609.25.11). If additional field 

surveys are to be conducted as part of project implementation, survey results must be documented in the 

project file. 

Soils 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Soil Support Services 

(13-A) 

LMP 91 

Forest projects and activities shall be 

conducted to maintain or improve soil 

productivity. (36 CFR 219.27(a) (1), 

219.27(a)(2), 219.27(b)(5), 219.27(f)). 

Forest Soil Quality Standards and Best 

Management Practices will be implemented. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Implement BMPs to mitigate the environmental impacts of 

erosion, compaction, and soil displacement. Require 

special soil mitigation to use ground skidding equipment on 

slopes steeper than 35%. Require special soil mitigation to 

use ground skidding equipment on soils that erode, 

displace, or compact easily. Where actual or potential slope 

instability is identified, specific mitigating measures will be 

developed by an interdisciplinary team including a 

geologist. 

20 1920-2, April 19, 2005; Corrected Errata - SNFPA 2004 ROD - TEPS Plant Survey Standard and Guideline 

459 
 

 

 

Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Visual Resources 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Visual Resource Maintain current data files for: Visual Quality Provide visual analysis using aerial photos, existing VAC maps, 

Inventory and Planning Objectives (VQOs), Visual Absorption field analysis, computer perspective plots or simulations for 

(17-A) Capability (VAC), and Existing Visual Condition projects with a VQO of Partial Retention or Retention. 

LMP 91 (EVC). 

Provide visual resource recommendations to 

land managers and interdisciplinary team 

members who are assessing land altering 

projects with a VQO of Partial Retention or 

Retention. 

Predict future visual condition on a project basis. 

Visual Quality Objectives Manage areas to provide a characteristic Meet the adopted VQO for all landscape altering projects. 

(VQOs) (17-B) 

LMP 91 

natural appearing landscape commensurate 

with the description stated for each VQO 

practice. Resource management activities will 

be guided by the appropriate Landscape 

Management handbooks and Forest 

VQOs will be compatible with the applicable ROS classes. 

Maintain visual quality by including mitigation measures for all 

activities that have the potential to alter the landscape beyond 

the adopted Visual Quality Objective. 

Landscape Architects' recommendations. Specific facility and vegetative treatment within major highway 

VQOs are desired ratings outlined under the view sheds will be guided by approved View shed Plans. 

Forest Service system of Visual Resource 

Management. VQ0s apply Forestwide; every 

acre of National Forest land treated by this 

Forest Plan fits into one of the VQO classes 

listed below (No Maximum Modification): 

1. VQO Preservation Allow ecological changes only, except for trails. Design and locate trails, trail bridges, and other trail related 

improvements as unobtrusive as possible in the landscape. 

2. VQO Retention Provide a natural appearing landscape where 

changes are not readily evident. 

Foreground Distance Zone 

Impacts of management activities in highly visible foreground 

areas will be reduced through special treatments. 

Middleground and Background Zones 

Visual diversity shall relate to the concept of a “natural 

appearing forested landscape” in a sequence and continuity of a 

view in the middleground or background. Special cutting may 

be applied. 

3. VQO Partial Provide a natural appearing landscape where Foreground Distance Zone 

Retention changes are evident but are subordinate to the 

surrounding characteristic landscape. 

Where safe, maintain old-growth specimen character trees in 

the immediate foreground distance zone. 

Visual diversity shall relate to the concept of a “natural 

appearing forested landscape” in a sequence and continuity of a 

view in the foreground. 

Special cutting permitted. Impacts of management activities in 

highly visible foreground areas will be reduced through special 

treatments. 

Middleground and Background Zones 

Visual diversity shall relate to the concept of a “natural 

appearing forested landscape” in a sequence and continuity of a 

view in the middleground or background. 

4. VQO Modification Allow for modified conditions where changes 

are readily evident and may dominate the 

surrounding characteristic landscape. 

460 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Water 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Water Quality 

Management (18-A) 

LMP 91 

Comply with all applicable Federal and State 

water quality standards. Prevent or minimize as 

much as possible any water quality impacts 

which may be caused by Forest management 

activities. 

Achieve the goals for preventing or minimizing 

water pollution as stated in the Federal Clean 

Water Act. Implement water quality Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in 

the Management Agency Agreement with the 

California Water Resources Control Board for 

protection of non-point water pollution sources. 

Comply with applicable provisions of the Water 

Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) of the 

California Central Valley Regional Water 

Control Board. 

Implement water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as 

needed for all Forest management activities. BMPs are a 

system of nearly 100 practices designed to minimize or prevent 

water pollution from Forest management activities. They cover 

such activities as timber harvest, road construction, mining, 

recreation, fire management and grazing. 

Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in 

selected areas to determine if they are being carried out and if 

they are accomplishing their objectives. 

Analyze cumulative watershed effects (CWE) on all applicable 

proposed Forest management activities to determine off-site 

effects on the beneficial uses of water. 

Management Area Direction 

Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Primitive (10-B-1) 

LMP 91 

Provide for very low interaction between 

visitors with a range of primitive recreation 

experiences. Evidence of other users is 

minimal. 

Manage to a ROS Class of Primitive. This is the adopted 

ROS level for management of all Wilderness. The ROS 

Class of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized is an acceptable 

interim level for certain areas within Wilderness. 

Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management 

(10-G-1) 

MVTM 

Closed to motorized use. Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management. 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate evidence of, and 

access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

VQO Preservation 

(17-B-1) 

LMP 91 

Allow ecological changes only. Trails, trail 

bridges, and other trail related improvements 

will be designed and located to be as obscure 

as possible. 

Manage to the VQO of Preservation. This is adopted VQO level 

for all Wilderness. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Primitive (10-B-1) 

LMP 91 

Provide for very low interaction between 

visitors with a range of primitive recreation 

experiences. Evidence of other users is 

minimal. 

Manage to the ROS Class of Primitive. This is the adopted 

ROS level for all Wild Rivers within Wilderness. 

ROS Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized (10-B-2) 

LMP 91 

Provide for low interaction between visitors 

with a range of SPNM recreation 

experiences. Evidence of other users is 

unobtrusive. 

Manage to the ROS Class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. 

This is the adopted ROS level for all Wild Rivers outside of 

Wilderness and some Scenic or Recreational rivers. 

ROS Semi-primitive 

Motorized (10-B-3) 

LMP 91 

Provide for low to moderate interaction 

between visitors with a range of SPM 

recreation experiences. Evidence of other 

users is moderate. 

Manage to the ROS Class of Semi-primitive Motorized. This 

is the level for some Scenic Rivers. 

ROS Roaded Natural 

(10-B-4) 

LMP 91 

Provide for moderate interaction between 

visitors with a range of roaded natural 

recreation experiences. Evidence of other 

users is moderate. 

Manage to a ROS Class of Roaded Natural. This is the 

adopted ROS level for some Recreational Rivers and some 

Scenic Rivers. 

Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management 

(10-G-1) 

MVTM 

Closed to motorized use. Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management. 

Clark Fork 

Headwaters - Wilderness 

461 
 

 

Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

Clavey River 

Bell Creek (6 mile Wild portion) 

Lily Creek (9 mile Wild portion) 

3N01 - Cottonwood Road (4 mile Wild portion) 

Cottonwood Road - Tuolumne (14 mile Wild portion) 

Middle Fork Stanislaus 

Kennedy Creek 

Clark Fork - Donnell Reservoir 

Sand Bar - North Fork Stanislaus 

North Fork Mokelumne 

Wilderness - Salt Springs Reservoir 

North Fork Stanislaus 

Highland Creek - Mckays (13 mile Wild portion) 

Mckays - Middle Fork Stanislaus 

South Fork Tuolumne 

Stanislaus 

Tuolumne 

Yosemite - Early Intake 

Cherry Creek - Lumsden 

Lumsden Area - Don Pedro 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate evidence of, and 

access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

Restricted Motor Provide opportunities for motorized Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle Travel recreation compatible with Wild and Scenic Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect Wild and 

Management River values as shown below. Scenic River values. 

(10-G-2) Clark Fork 

MVTM Wilderness - Middle Fork Stanislaus 

Clavey River 

Bell Creek (1 mile Scenic portion) 

Lily Creek (2 mile Scenic portion) 

Bell/Lily Confluence - 3N01 

3N01 - Cottonwood Road (4 mile Scenic portion) 

Cottonwood Road - Tuolumne (2 mile Scenic portion) 

Middle Fork Stanislaus 

Deadman Creek 

Relief Reservoir - Clark Fork 

North Fork Mokelumne 

Highland Lake - Wilderness 

North Fork Stanislaus 

Highland Creek - Mckays (3 mile Recreational portion) 

Merced 

Tuolumne 

Early Intake - Cherry Creek 

Lumsden Area 

Niagara Creek 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and minimize damage 

to Wild and Scenic River values caused by motorized use. 

VQO Preservation (17-B1) 

LMP 91 

Provide a high quality visual setting where 

changes are unnoticed both within the 

Management Area and from the rivers. 

Manage to a VQO of Preservation. This is the adopted VQO 

level for all Wild Rivers within Wilderness. 

462 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

VQO Retention (17-B-2) 

LMP 91 

Provide a high quality visual setting where 

changes are not readily evident. 

Manage to a VQO of Retention. This is the adopted VQO level 

for Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers which are outside of 

Wilderness. 

Portions of some Scenic and Recreational Rivers exist in a 

condition equal to Partial Retention. This is an acceptable 

interim level, which will be upgraded to Retention over time 

through natural process and/or rehabilitation. 

Near Natural 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized (10-B-2) 

LMP 91 

Provide for low interaction between visitors 

with a range of SPNM recreation 

opportunities. Evidence of other use is 

unobtrusive. 

Manage to ROS Class of SPNM. 

Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management 

(10-G-1) 

MVTM 

Closed to motorized use. Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management. 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate evidence of, and 

access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

VQO Retention (17-B-2) 

LMP 91 

Provide a high quality visual setting where 

changes are not readily evident. 

Manage to a VQO of Retention. 

Wildlife 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS - Semi-primitive Provide for low to moderate levels of Manage to the ROS class of Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

Motorized (SPM) (10-B­ interactions between forest visitors with a consistent with wildlife values and implementation plans. 

3) range of Semi-primitive Motorized recreation This is the adopted ROS level for the Wildlife Management 

LMP 91 experiences. Evidence of other use is 

moderate. 

Areas. 

ROS - Roaded Natural Provide for moderate levels of inter- actions Manage to the ROS class of Roaded Natural, consistent 

(RN) (10-B-4) between Forest visitors with a range of with Wildlife values and implementation plans. This is the 

LMP 91 roaded natural recreation experiences. 

Evidence of other use is moderate. 

adopted ROS level for the Wildlife Management Areas 

where existing improvements represent the ROS Class of 

Roaded Natural. 

Restricted Motor Provide opportunities for motorized Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle Travel recreation compatible with Wildlife values. Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect Wildlife 

Management (10-G-2) values. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

MVTM rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and minimize damage 

to Wildlife values caused by motorized use. 

VQO - Retention (17-B-2) Maintain the visual character of the VQO Manage to a VQO of Retention. 

LMP 91 Retention for the pleasure of the viewing public. 

Design land and vegetation disturbing projects 

to meet Retention. 

Base size, shape and dispersion of harvest units, road 

construction, and other resource disturbance on meeting 

Retention. 

VQO – Partial Retention 

(17-B-3) 

LMP 91 

Design land and vegetation disturbing projects 

to meet Partial Retention, in middleground 

distance zones where this is the VQO. 

Base size, shape, and dispersion of harvest units, road 

construction and other resource disturbances on meeting 

middleground Partial Retention. 

463 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Special Interest Areas 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Primitive (10-B-1) Maintain a range of recreation experiences, Manage dispersed recreation in these areas to maintain or 

ROS Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized (10-B-2) 

ROS Semi-primitive 

Motorized (10-B-3) 

since classes vary between identified 

Special Interest Areas. Keep Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) levels at the 

adopted class. 

improve the adopted ROS classes, consistent with Special 

Interest Area values and implementation plans. 

ROS Roaded Natural 

(10-B-4) 

LMP 91 

Closed Motor Vehicle Closed to motorized use. Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management Travel Management: 

(10-G-1)  Emigrant Road and Big Trees-Carson Valley Road 

MVTM Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate evidence of, and 

access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

Restricted Motor Provide opportunities for motorized Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle Travel recreation compatible with SIA values. Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect SIA values: 

Management 

(10-G-2) 

MVTM 

 Column of the Giants 

 Sonora Mono Toll Road 

 Jordan Creek/Bower Cave 

 Pacific Madrone 

 Trumbull Peak 

 Windelar Cave 

 Bourland Trestle 

 Bull Run 

 Niagara Creek 

 Jawbone Falls 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and minimize damage 

to SIA values caused by motorized use. 

VQO Preservation 

(17-B-1) 

LMP 91 

Allow ecological changes only. Manage to a VQO of Preservation. This is the adopted VQO 

level for Special Interest Areas within Wilderness. 

VQO Retention (17-B-2) 

LMP 91 

Maintain a near natural visual character. 

Provide a high quality visual setting where 

changes are not readily evident. 

Manage to a VQO of Retention. This is the adopted VQO level 

for Special Interest Areas outside of Wilderness. 

Research Natural Areas 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized (10-B-2) 

LMP 91 

Close RNAs to all mechanized use, except 

wheelchairs needed for barrier free access. 

Provide for low interaction between visitors 

with a range of SPNM recreation 

experiences. Evidence of other uses is 

unobtrusive. 

Manage to ROS class of SPNM. This is the adopted ROS 

level for RNAs. 

Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management 

(10-G-1) 

MVTM 

Closed to motorized use. Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Closed Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management. 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to eliminate evidence of, and 

access by, unauthorized motorized use. 

VQO Preservation 

(17-B-1) 

LMP 91 

Allow only ecological changes. Manage to a VQO of Preservation. This is adopted VQO level 

for RNAs. 

464 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Experimental Forest 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Roaded Natural 

(10-B-4) 

LMP 91 

Provide for low to moderate interaction 

between Forest visitors with a limited range 

of Roaded Natural recreation experiences. 

Evidence of other uses is moderate. 

Manage to the ROS Class of Roaded Natural. This is the 

adopted ROS level for the Experimental Forest. 

Restricted Motor 

Vehicle Travel 

Management 

(10-G-2) 

MVTM 

Provide opportunities for motorized 

recreation compatible with Experimental 

Forest values. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect 

Experimental Forest values. 

Conduct surveys, observe conditions and carry out 

rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and minimize damage 

to Experimental Forest values caused by motorized use. 

VQO Retention (17-B-2) 

VQO Partial Retention 

(17-B-3) 

LMP 91 

Maintain a range of near natural through 

modified visual conditions, since the VQOs vary 

within an Experimental Forest. Keep VQOs at 

the adopted levels. 

Manage to the adopted VQO level consistent with Experimental 

Forest values. Coordinate activities with PSW Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

Scenic Corridor 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS - Roaded Natural 

(RN) (10-B-4) 

LMP 91 

Provide for moderate interaction between 

visitors with a range of roaded natural 

recreation experience. Evidence of other 

use is moderate. 

Manage to a ROS Class of Roaded Natural. This is the 

adopted ROS level for scenic corridors. 

Restricted Motor Provide opportunities for motorized Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle Travel recreation compatible with Scenic Corridor Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect Scenic 

Management (10-G-2) values. Corridor values. Conduct surveys, observe conditions and 

MVTM carry out rehabilitation, as needed, to mitigate and minimize 

damage to Scenic Corridor values caused by motorized 

use. 

VQO - Retention (17-B-2) Maintain the visual character of Foreground Manage to a VQO of Retention. 

LMP 91 Retention areas for the pleasure of the viewing 

public, where this is the VQO. 

Design land and vegetation disturbance 

projects to meet Retention, in Middleground 

distance zones where these is the VQO. 

Base size, shape, and dispersion of harvest units, road 

construction, and other resource disturbances on meeting 

Retention, where this is the adopted VQO. 

VQO - Partial Retention 

(17-B-3) 

LMP 91 

Design land and vegetation disturbance 

projects to meet Partial Retention, in 

Middleground distance zones where this is the 

VQO. 

Base size, shape and dispersion of harvest units, road 

construction and other resource disturbances on meeting Partial 

Retention, where this is the adopted VQO. 

General Forest (GF91) 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Roaded Natural 

(RN) (10-B-4) 

LMP 91 

Provide for moderate interaction between 

visitors with a range of Roaded Natural 

recreation experiences. Evidence of other 

use is moderate. 

Manage to an ROS Class of Roaded Natural. This is the 

adopted ROS level for General Forest (GF91). 

Restricted Motor 

Vehicle Travel 

Management (10-G-2) 

MVTM 

Provide opportunities for motorized 

recreation compatible with General Forest 

(GF91) values. 

Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect General 

Forest (GF91) values. 

VQO - Modification (M) 

(17-B-4) 

LMP 91 

Management activities may visually dominate 

the surrounding characteristic landscape, but 

should borrow the form, line, color and texture 

of the natural surroundings. 

Manage to a VQO of Modification. This is the adopted VQO 

level for General Forest (GF91). 

465 
Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

Developed Recreation Sites 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Roaded Natural Provide for moderate interaction between Manage to the ROS Class of Roaded Natural. This is the 

(10-B-4) forest visitors with a range of roaded natural adopted ROS level for developed recreation sites. Allow 

LMP 91 recreation experiences. Evidence of other 

use is moderate. Retain site qualities that 

will not degrade future development 

opportunities on proposed sites. 

dispersed recreation on proposed sites in the interim and 

perform other multiple use activities that are compatible 

with preserving or improving site quality. 

ROS Rural (10-B-5) 

LMP 91 

Provide for moderate to high interaction 

between forest visitors with a range of rural 

recreation experiences. Evidence of other 

use is moderate to high 

Manage to ROS Class of Rural. This is an acceptable level 

for certain developed sites. Administer facilities to 

accommodate large numbers of people for motorized use 

and parking. 

Restricted Motor Provide opportunities for motorized Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle Travel recreation compatible with Developed Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect Developed 

Management Recreation Site values. Recreation Site values. 

(10-G-2) Limit vehicle use to roads and parking areas. 

MVTM Allow administrative use of OHVs and OSVs in connection 

with operation of the sites. 

Allow non-street legal vehicle use for the purpose of 

accessing designated routes from staging areas. 

VQO Partial Retention Provide a natural appearing forest setting within Manage to a VQO of Partial Retention. This is the adopted VQO 

(17-B-3) the constraints of existing site character and its for developed recreation sites. Maintain or construct recreation 

LMP 91 kind of use. facilities and roads within the site in order to be as obscure as 

possible when viewed from within or immediately adjacent to 

the site. 

Plant and maintain the optimum amount of vegetation in order 

to keep a natural appearing setting that functionally and 

aesthetically satisfies visitors when viewed from within or 

immediately adjacent to the site. 

VQO Modification 

(17-B-4) 

LMP 91 

This is an acceptable VQO for certain developed sites, but 

preferably should be upgraded to Partial Retention where 

physical developments allow, by applying Partial Retention 

Standards and Guidelines to all areas of the developed site. 

Winter Sports Sites 

Practices General Direction Standards and Guidelines 

ROS Roaded Natural 

(10-B-4) 

ROS Rural (10-B-5) 

LMP 91 

Developed winter sports sites are so large 

and diverse that a range of ROS classes 

exist. Maintain recreation experience levels 

at the ROS class of Roaded Natural in 

outlying portions of the winter sports site. 

Maintain lifts and other auxiliary facilities with the least 

impact on visitor experience. Use existing vehicle routes for 

permittee maintenance and administration. 

Restricted Motor Provide opportunities for motorized Manage to Forestwide S&Gs for Restricted Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle Travel recreation compatible with Winter Sports Travel Management. Use restrictions to protect Winter 

Management Site values. Sports Site values. 

(10-G-2) Limit vehicle use to roads and parking areas. 

MVTM Allow administrative use of OHVs and OSVs in connection 

with operation of the sites. 

VQO Partial Retention Provide a natural appearing forest setting within Through the master plan process, mitigate impacts to insure 

(17-B-3) the context of developed winter sports sites. optimum visual quality after construction of facilities. Model 

LMP 91 expanded lifts, runs, and other improvements with potential 

impacts by computer graphic simulations and field checks. 

Prepare vegetative management plans for these sites. Manage 

to a VQO of Partial Retention. This is the adopted VQO level for 

developed winter sports sites. 

VQO Modification 

(17-B-4) 

LMP 91 

This is an acceptable VQO, but preferably should be upgraded 

to Partial Retention, where physical developments allow, by 

applying Partial Retention Standards and Guidelines to all areas 

of the winter sports sites. 

466 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix C 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction
 

Land Allocations (SNFPA) 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) 

Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing 

recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate 

proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments 

for their potential to disturb nest sites. 

Fisher and Marten Den Sites 

Mitigate impacts where documented evidence of disturbance to the den site from existing recreation, 

off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for 

new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreation and other developments for their 

potential to disturb dens. 

Riparian Conservation Areas 

Evaluate new proposed management activities within CARs and RCAs during environmental analysis 

to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at the project level and the AMS 

goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the 

risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for 

aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species. 

Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and other special 

aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural surface and 

subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where necessary to restore connectivity. 

Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream 

passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to in 

stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Where possible, maintain and restore the timing, 

variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows, wetlands, 

and other special aquatic features. 

Prior to activities that could adversely affect streams, determine if relevant stream characteristics are 

within the range of natural variability. If characteristics are outside the range of natural variability, 

implement mitigation measures and short-term restoration actions needed to prevent further declines 

or cause an upward trend in conditions. Evaluate required long-term restoration actions and 

implement them according to their status among other restoration needs. 

Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities 

(for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, 

chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does 

not apply to developed recreation sites, sites authorized under Special Use Permits and designated 

off-highway vehicle routes. 

Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recreation sites, dispersed 

campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use sites during landscape analysis. 

Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent species. 

At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to ensure consistency with standards and guidelines 

or desired conditions. 

467 
Appendix C Stanislaus 

Forest Plan Direction National Forest
 

468 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix D 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary
 

D. Glossary 

36 CFR 212 2005 Travel Management Rule which replaced CFR 295 

36 CFR 261 Establishes prohibitions necessary to manage and control use on National Forest 

Development Trails. 

36 CFR 293 Prohibits motorized use in Wilderness and Primitive Areas. 

4WD Route Full width roads or trails which are not maintained for conventional highway vehicles; 

4WD travel is recommended. 

Adaptive A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes 

Management and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; 

and, if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those 

outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition 

that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain (36 CFR 

220.3). 

Administrative Unit A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable 

unit of the National Forest System. 

Adopt-a-Trail Trail maintenance program where individuals or group volunteer to adopt and 

maintain specific routes. 

All Terrain Vehicle OHVs less than or equal to 50” with three or more low-pressure tires, handle-bar 

(ATV) steering and a seat designed to be straddled by the operator. 

All Vehicles All vehicle types are allowed to use the road or trail (36 CFR 212). 

Alluvial	 Pertaining to processes or materials associated with transportation or deposition by 

running water. 

Anadromous Fish Species of fish that mature in the sea and migrate into streams to spawn. Salmon is 

an example. 

Andic Specific physical and chemical properties of soils formed in volcanic materials. 

Annual Maintenance Work performed to maintain serviceability or repair failures during the year in which 

they occur. Includes preventive and/or cyclic maintenance performed in the year in 

which it is scheduled to occur. Unscheduled or catastrophic failures of components 

or assets may need to be repaired as a part of annual maintenance. 

Aquatic Growing or living in or frequenting water; taking place in or on water. 

Aquatic Diversity A watershed generally ranging from 13,000-600,000 acres selected for special 

Area consideration and management because of relatively good water quality, free-flowing 

character (without dams) and/or the presence of the best remaining populations of 

native fish and amphibians in the Sierra Nevada. 

Aquatic Ecosystem A stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the biotic (living) 

communities that occur therein. 

Arc Macro Language AML is an ARC/INFO computer programming language. 

(AML) 

ARC/INFO The name of a Geographic Information System software program. 

Area A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much 

smaller, than a Ranger District. 

Area of Potential This is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or 

Effects (APE)	 indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of 

an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the 

undertaking. 

469 
Appendix D Stanislaus 

Glossary National Forest
 

Arterial Roads	 Classified roads that provide service to large land areas; arterial roads are usually 

developed and operated for long-term land and resource management purposes and 

constant service. 

Aspect The direction a slope faces. For example, a hillside facing east has an eastern 

aspect. 

Biological Diversity The number and abundance of species found within a common environment. This 

(Biodiversity) includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and the ecological processes 

that connect everything in a common environment. 

Biota The plant and animal life of a particular region. 

Biotic Potential Factors that influence the ability of an animal to utilize its environment, including: 

reproductive rates, dispersal ability, habitat and life requisite specificity, and 

adaptability. Combine, these factors assign biotic potential of the animal. 

Blue Oak Woodlands An ecosystem dominated by blue oak, valley oak, interior live oak (tree form), or 

Oregon white oak. 

Buffer Used in the context of GIS; a buffer is a zone of a specified distance around a feature 

in a coverage. 

California Wildlife A system of classifying vegetation in relation to its function as wildlife habitat. TreeHabitat Relationships dominated habitat is classified according to tree size and canopy closure. 

(CWHR) 

Canopy The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the 

uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be used to describe lower layers in a multistoried forest. 

Chief The Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture (36 CFR 212). 

Classified Roads Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are 

determined to be needed for motor vehicle access, such as State roads, County 

roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and roads authorized 

by the Forest Service that are intended for long-term use. 

Code of Federal A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register 

Regulations (CFR) by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. 

Collaboration Managers, scientists and citizens working together to plan, implement and monitor 

National Forest management. The intention is to engage people who have 

information, knowledge, expertise and an interest in the health of National Forest 

ecosystems and nearby communities. 

Collector Roads Classified roads serving smaller land areas than arterial roads; collector roads collect 

traffic from local roads and usually connect to forest arterial roads or State and 

County highways. They are operated for either constant or intermittent service 

depending on land use and resource management objectives. 

Combined Use Designation of a highway, or a portion thereof, of high standard (passenger car) 

roads available for Combined Use by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles 

(California Vehicle Code, Division 16.5, Chapter 1, Section 38026). 

Connected Actions Actions that: (i) automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental 

impact statements; (ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken 

previously or simultaneously; or, (iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action and 

depend on the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 1508.25). 

Connectivity (of The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors, or 

Habitats) “stepping stones” of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to which 

similar habitats are linked. 

Coverage A digital map or layer of data in the ARC/INFO software program. 

Council on The Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of NEPA (40 CFR 

Environmental 1508.6). 

Quality (CEQ) 

Critical Aquatic A relatively small watershed, ranging in size from about 3,000 to 85,000 acres, that is 

Refuge (CAR) sometimes nested within an emphasis watershed and has localized populations of 

rare and/or at-risk populations of native fish and/or amphibians. 

470 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix D 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary
 

Critical Habitat Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. 

Critical Refuge A relatively small watershed, ranging in size from about 3,000 to 85,000 acres, that is 

sometimes nested within an emphasis watershed and has localized populations of 

rare and/or at-risk populations of native fish and/or amphibians. 

Cryptogamic Soil Arid and semi-arid soil surface communities consisting of green algae, 

Crusts (Microbiotic cyanobacteria, diatoms, non-lichenized fungi, lichens, bryophytes, bacteria, 

Soil Crusts) protozoans in various combinations. They stabilize soil surfaces, concentrate certain 

mineral and organic nutrients, alter water infiltration while consistently reducing 

sedimentation, and facilitating seed germination and seedling establishment. 

Cumulative Impact The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Decommission Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads or trails to 

a more natural state (FSM 7703.2(1)). 

Deferred Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was 

Maintenance scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When 

allowed to accumulate without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred 

maintenance leads to deterioration of performance, increased costs to repair, and 

decrease in asset value. Deferred maintenance needs may be categorized as critical 

or non-critical at any point in time. Continued deferral of non-critical maintenance will 

normally result in an increase in critical deferred maintenance. Code compliance 

(e.g. life safety, ADA, OSHA, environmental, etc.), Forest Plan Direction, Best 

Management Practices, Biological Evaluations other regulatory or Executive Order 

compliance requirements, or applicable standards not met on schedule are 

considered deferred maintenance. 

Degradation Reduction in quality. The process whereby the water quality and chemical, physical 

or biological integrity of a water body is decreased. Habitat quality can be changed 

by certain management activities. If the quality is reduced then habitat degradation 

has occurred. 

Draft Environmental A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of the NEPA (40 CFR 

Impact Statement 1508.11) that is released to governmental agencies and the general public for review 

(DEIS) and comment. 

Demographic Random fluctuations in birth and death rates. 

Stochasticity 

Designated Road, A National Forest System road, trail or area that is designated for motor vehicle on a 

Trail or Area motor vehicle use map (36 CFR 212). 

Desired Future Land or resource conditions that are expected to result based on goals and 

Conditions objectives. 

Digital Elevation A digital GIS file typically used to represent terrain relief. 

Model (DEM) 

Early Forest The biotic (or life) community that develops immediately following the removal or 

Succession destruction of vegetation in an area. For example, grasses may be the first plants to 

grow in an area that was burned. 

Ecology The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or the 

study of these interrelationships. 

Ecosystem An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move them. Living 

things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocks and 

minerals. Weather and wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems. 

Endangered Species Those plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary 

of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

471 
Appendix D Stanislaus 

Glossary National Forest
 

Endemic An organism that evolved in and is restricted to a particular locality. The Little Kern 

golden trout found only in the Sierra Nevada region is an example. 

Environmental The state (or condition) which all populations are provided the opportunity to 

Justice comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, 

are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse 

manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment. 

Environmental A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of NEPA (CFR 

Impact Statement 1508.11). 

(EIS) 

Environmentally The alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as expressed
 

Preferable in NEPA section 101 (42 USC 4321). Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable 

Alternative alternative is that which causes the least harm to the biological and physical 

environment; it also is the alternative which best protects and preserves historic, 

cultural, and natural resources. In some situations, there may be more than one 

environmentally preferable alternative (36 CFR 220.3). 

Environmental Random variation in environmental attributes such as temperature, precipitation, and 

Stochasticity fire frequency. 

Ephemeral Stream Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt. They have no 

permanent flow. 

Equivalent Roaded A standardized unit of measure for land disturbance. A road prism is considered the 

Acres reference to which other types of land disturbing activities are measured. A road is 

given an ERA coefficient of 1.0 (1 acre of road is equal to 1.0 ERA). Other 

disturbances such as logging, site preparation and wildfires are equated to a road 

surface by ERA coefficients that reflect their relative level of contribution to changes 

in runoff and sediment regimes in the watershed. 

Escarpment A long, more or less continuous cliff or relatively steep slope produced by erosion or 

by faulting. 

Executive Order Directs federal agencies to establish policies and provide for procedures that will 

11644 ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed 

so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. 

Fauna The animal life of an area. 

Flora The plant life of an area. 

Focal Species A species of concern. 

Forest Road or Trail A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest 

system that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and 

development of its resources (36 CFR 212). 

Forest A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an administrative unit. 

Transportation Atlas 

Forest A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in a forest transportation atlas, 

Transportation including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access facilities, safety devices, and
 

Facility other improvements appurtenant to the forest transportation system (36 CFR 212). 

Forest The system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and 

Transportation airfields on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212). 

System 

Fuelbreak A system of linear or mosaic patch treatments of forest or shrub vegetation designed 

and treated to reduce fire spread, intensity, and create barriers to fire spread. 

Fuels Plants and woody vegetation, living and dead that are capable of burning. 

Fuels Management The planned manipulation and/or reduction of living and dead forest fuels for forest 

management and other land use objectives. 

472 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix D 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary
 

Fuels Treatment The treatment of fuels that left untreated would otherwise interfere with effective fire 

management or control. For example, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels 

that accumulate on the forest floor. 

Fuelwood Wood cut into short lengths for burning in a fireplace, woodstove or fire pit. 

Functional The grouping of roads by the character of service they provide (American 

Classification Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001). 

Geographic A computer system capable of storing, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying 

Information Systems geographic information. 

(GIS) 

Green Sticker A motor vehicle built since 2003 that is in compliance with the 1998 California Air 

Vehicle (non- Resources Board off highway vehicle exhaust pursuant to California Vehicle Code 

highway legal)	 Book Division 16.5 prior to 2003 and also registered pursuant to California Section 

38160. Currently, the registration identification for California comes in the form of a 

green sticker. These driven cycles, sand buggies, dune buggies, all terrain vehicles 

(ATV), or any motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep or four wheel drive 

(4WD). 

Habitat The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions. 

Herbaceous A plant having little or no woody tissue. 

Heritage Program The comprehensive Forest Service program of responsibilities with regard to historic 

preservation. A pro-active program to manage prehistoric and historic cultural 

resources and cultural traditions for the benefit of the public through preservation, 

public use, and research. 

High Clearance All sport utility vehicles (SUVs), light trucks, motorcycles, and other highway-legal 

Vehicle vehicles designed for operation on rough terrain. These vehicles are also OHVs. 

Highway Highway is a way or a place of whatever nature publicly maintained and open to the 

use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel (CA Vehicle Code Section 360). 

However, the 38000 Division of the California Vehicle Code (the Off Highway Motor 

Vehicle section) states that for purposes of this division (38000) the term “highway” 

does not include fire trails, logging roads, service roads regardless of surface 

composition, or other roughly graded trails and roads upon which vehicular travel by 

the public is permitted (CA Vehicle Code 38001). 

Highway Legal Only Full width roads open to highway legal vehicles only. 

Highway Vehicle Any motor vehicle that is licensed or certified under State law for general operation 

on all public roads within the State. 

1. Passenger Vehicle: All passenger vehicles such as sedans, and other typical 

low clearance vehicles less than 10,000 GVW licensed to operate on public 

roads 

2. High Clearance Vehicle: All sport utility vehicles (SUVs), light trucks, 

motorcycles, and other highway-legal vehicles designed for operation on rough 

terrain. These vehicles are also OHVs. 

Hydrologically Locations near water where drainage off a route is likely to enter a watercourse 

Connected Segment 

(HCS) 

Hydrologically	 see Riparian Conservation Area 

Sensitive Area (HSA) 

Image A graphic representation of a person or thing, typically produced by an electronic 

device. Common examples include remotely sensed data and photographs. 

Indigenous Any species of plant or animals native to a given land or water area by natural 

occurrence. 

Interdisciplinary A diverse group of professional resource specialists who analyze the effects of 

Team Alternatives on natural and other resources. Through interaction, participants bring 

different points of view and a broader range of expertise. 

473 
Appendix D Stanislaus 

Glossary National Forest
 

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from 

streams or from some surface, such as melting snow. 

Irretrievable A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. For 

example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while 

an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the 

action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber 

production. 

Irreversible A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of use 

of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those 

factors, such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time 

Juvenile Return Rate at which juvenile birds return to the nesting grounds. Generally reported as 

Rates percentage of migratory juvenile birds returning to the nesting grounds, after 

wintering elsewhere (e.g., tropics), from total number of hatched birds marked with 

leg bands in the previous year. Juvenile return rates may indirectly indicate ability of 

young birds to survive migration. 

Lahars Landslide or mudflow material of pyroclastic (hot ash or tephra) on the flank of a 

volcano or the deposit formed by such a landslide or mudflow. 

Landscape A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to 

factors such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts. 

Late Forest The stage of forest succession in which most of the trees are mature or over mature. 

Succession 

Long-Term Risk A risk to be experienced within the next 50 to 100 years. 

Maintained for Public A Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Highway Administration defines 

Use National Forest system roads open to the public as those roads open to unrestricted 

use by the general public in standard passenger cars, including those roads open on 

a seasonal basis or for emergencies. 

Maintenance The upkeep of the entire forest transportation facility including surface and shoulders, 

parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary 

for its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR 212). 

Management Action Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National Forest. 

Meadow Areas of moist low lying and usually level grasslands. Generally, the water table is 

just below the surface of the soil and the most abundant vegetation is usually favored 

by wet but not constantly flooded soil. 

Mesic Moderately moist climates or environments. 

Vegetation: generally refers to vegetation found in moist environments. 

Soils: refers specifically to soils with mean annual temperatures of 8 to 15 degrees 

centigrade. 

Mitigation Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation. 

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment. 

Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action. 

Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Mixed Use see Motorized Mixed Use 

Montane Hardwood For the purposes of this analysis, it refers to vegetation communities dominated by 

Forests California black oak, canyon live oak, Pacific madrone, or tanoak. 

Mosaic Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape. For example, areas with 

trees and areas without trees occurring over a landscape. 

474 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix D 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary
 

Motor Vehicle	 Any vehicle which is self propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; and 

(2) any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-operated, that is 

designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is 

suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (36 CFR 212). 

Motorcycle (MC) Two-wheeled vehicles on which the two wheels are inline, not side-by-side. 

Motorized Mixed Use Designation of an NFTS road for use by both highway-legal and non-highway legal 

vehicles” (FSM 7705). 

Motor Vehicle Use A map reflecting designated roads, trails and areas on an administrative unit or a 

Map Ranger District of the National Forest system (36 CFR 212). 

Multiple Use The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National 

Forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of 

the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of 

these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient 

latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; 

that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without 

impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the 

relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses 

that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. (Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act; Public Law 86–517) 

National Codifies the national policy of encouraging harmony between humans and the 

Environmental Policy environment by promoting efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, 

Act (NEPA) thereby enriching our understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. It 

declares the federal government to be responsible for: (a) coordinating programs and 

plans regarding environmental protection; (b) using an interdisciplinary approach to 

decision-making; (c) developing methods to ensure that non-quantifiable amenity 

values are included economic analyses; and (d) including in every recommendation, 

report on proposals for legislation, or other major federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the environment a detailed environmental impact statement 

(EIS). 

National Forest As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, the 

System "National Forest System" includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn 

from the public domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired 

through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the National Grasslands, 

and land utilization projects administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tennant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), and other lands, waters or interests 

therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for 

administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system (36 CFR 212). 

National Forest Roads and trails constructed with engineering design by Forest Service experts and 

System Route	 with consideration of resource impacts classified as National Forest System roads or 

trails. 

National Forest A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented 

System Road	 right-of-way held by a State, county or other local public authority (36 CFR 212). 

National Forest A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented 

System Trail right-of-way held by a State, county or other local public authority (36 CFR 212). 

Natural Resource A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs. 

Natural Succession The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditions of 

the prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are favorable 

for the establishment of the next stage. 

Nitrogen oxides	 A general term pertaining to compounds of nitric oxide (NO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

(NOx) and other oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion 

processes and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. 

Noxious Weeds Aggressive, non-native plant species that have been introduced. They can be difficult 

to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, or carrier of insects or disease. Examples of 

noxious weeds would be scotch broom, yellow star thistle, and cheatgrass. 

475 
Appendix D Stanislaus 

Glossary National Forest
 

Off Highway Vehicle Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately 

(OHV) over land. These vehicles may also be a High Clearance Highway Vehicle. 

1. OHV > 50”: OHVs greater than 50” in width, such as sport utility vehicles 

(SUVs), rock crawlers, UTVs, and sand rails. 

1.1. Wheeled OHV > 50”: OHVs greater than 50” in width operating on wheels 

1.2. Tracked OHV > 50”: OHVs greater than 50” in width operating on tracks, 

including SUVs or utility vehicles with track conversion kits. 

1.3. Other OHV > 50”: Other OHVs greater than 50” in width that are not 

wheeled or tracked. 

2. OHV <= 50”: OHVs less than or equal to 50” in width. 

2.1. Wheeled OHV <= 50”: OHVs less than or equal to 50” in width operating on 

wheels such as ATVs, motorcycles, and balancing scooters. 

2.1.1. ATV: OHVs less than or equal to 50” with three or more lowpressure tires, handle-bar steering and a seat designed to be 

straddled by the operator. 

2.1.2. Motorcycle: Two-wheeled vehicles on which the two wheels are 

inline, not side-by-side. 

2.1.3. Other Wheeled OHV <=50: Other wheeled OHVs less than or equal 

to 50” in width. Includes balancing scooters. 

2.2. Tracked OHV <= 50”: An OHV less than or equal to 50” in width operating 

on tracks. Includes ATVs with track conversion kits and snowmobiles when 

not operating over snow. 

2.3. Other OHV <= 50”: Other OHVs less than or equal to 50” in width that are 

not considered to be ATVs or motorcycles and are not wheeled or tracked. 

OHV Recreation Recreation activities that are conducted, using off high vehicles. Activities include 

riding ATVs, hunting, riding motorcycles, driving for pleasure, rock crawling (36 CFR 

212). 

Old Forest (Old Areas that contain large, old trees relative to the species-specific, environmentallyGrowth) constrained growth capacity of the site. 

Open to Public Except during scheduled periods, extreme weather conditions, or emergencies, open 

Travel to the general public for use with a standard passenger auto, without restrictive gates 

or prohibitive signs or regulations, other than for general traffic control or restrictions 

based on size, weight, or class of registration (23 CFR 660.103). 

Over Snow Vehicle Motor vehicles designed for over-snow that run on a track or tracks and/or a ski(s), 

(OSV) while in use over snow. The same vehicle would be an OHV when not in use over 

snow (36 CFR 212.1). 

1. Over Snow Vehicle > 50”: Over-snow vehicles greater than 50” in width, 

including snow coaches, snow cats, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with track 

conversion kits. 

2. Over Snow Vehicle <= 50”: Motorized over-snow vehicles less than or equal to 

50” in width 

2.1. Snowmobile: Motorized over-snow vehicles that operate on a track, use 

one or more skis for steering, have handle-bar steering, and a seat 

designed to be straddled by the operator. 

2.2. Other OSV <= 50”: Other over-snow vehicles less than or equal to 50” in 

width, including ATVs with track conversion kits. 

Paleoecological The study of ancient or prehistoric ecosystems. 

Passenger Vehicle All passenger vehicles such as sedans and other typical low clearance vehicles less 

than 10,000 GVW licensed to operate on public roads. 

Patch An area of vegetation, similar in structure and composition. 

Perennial Stream A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis. 

Polygon Used in a GIS to represent an area, a polygon is a digital feature class defined by 

arcs, or lines, that make up its boundary. A polygon would be used to represent 

areas such as lakes and land parcels on a map. 

476 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix D 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary
 

Preferred Alternative The alternative(s) which the Agency believes would best fulfill the purpose and need 

for the proposal, consistent with the Agency’s statutory mission and responsibilities, 

giving consideration to environmental, social, economic, and other factors and 

disclosed in an EIS. 

Prescribed Fire or A type of fuel treatment whereby fire is intentionally set in wildland fuels under 

Burn prescribed conditions and circumstances. 

Proposed Action A proposal made by the Forest Service to authorize, recommend, or implement an 

action to meet a specific purpose and need. 

Protected Activity Designated areas that are afforded protection to specific species by restricting 

Centers (PACs) certain management activities. For example, California spotted owl PACs protect owl 

habitat and breeding areas by restricting timber harvest. 

Public Involvement The use of appropriate procedures to: inform the public, obtain early and continuing 

public participation, and consider the views of interested parties in planning and 

decision-making. 

Public Land Land for which title and control rests with a government – Federal, state, regional, 

county, or municipal. 

Public Road Roads under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority that are open to 

public travel (23 U.S.C 101(a)). 

Quiet Recreation Recreation activities which are non-motorized and require human power. Examples 

include hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing, swimming, snow shoeing, and crosscountry skiing. The area in which the recreationists participate is relatively free of 

human intrusion. Natural sounds can be heard easily. 

Reactive Organic A photochemically reactive chemical gas composed of non-methane hydrocarbons 

Gas (ROG) that may contribute to the formation of SMOG; volatile organic compounds. 

Reasonably Those Federal or non-Federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are 

Foreseeable Future existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals. Identified proposals for Forest 

Actions Service actions are described in 220.4(a) (1) (36 CFR 220.3). 

Record of Decision A concise public record of the responsible official’s decision to implement an action 

(ROD) when an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared. 

Remote Sensing Acquiring information about a geographic feature without contacting it physically. 

Methods include aerial photography and satellite imaging. 

Resilience The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and ecological processes 

following a disturbance. 

Responsible Official The Agency employee who has the authority to make and implement a decision on a 

proposed action (36 CFR 220.3). 

Riparian Area	 The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. 

Riparian Identified areas within a certain distance from streams, special aquatic features or 

Conservation Area riparian vegetation. RCA width and protection measures are determined through 

(RCA) project level analysis. 

Riparian Ecosystem The ecosystem around or next to water areas that support unique vegetation and 

animal communities as a result of the influence of water. 

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail 

(36 CFR 212). 

Road Construction or Supervising, inspecting, actual building and incurrence of all costs incidental to the 

Reconstruction construction or reconstruction of a road. 

Road Improvement Activities that result in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, expand 

its capacity, or change its original design function. 

Road Management RMOs establish the appropriate vehicle classes and uses for each road segment (36 

Objective (RMO) CFR 212). 

Obliteration A form of decommissioning that re-contours and restores natural slopes. 

Road Realignment Activities that result in a new location for an existing road or portions of an existing 

road, including treatment of the old roadway. 

477 
Appendix D Stanislaus 

Glossary National Forest
 

Road Reconstruction Activities that result in road realignment or road improvement, as defined below: 

Roadless Areas For the purposes of this EIS, a generic term that includes inventoried roadless areas.
 

Route A road or trail. 

Satellite Image A picture of the earth taken from a satellite in orbit around the earth. 

Schedule of A Forest Service document that informs the public about those proposed and 

Proposed Actions ongoing Forest Service actions for which a record of decision, decision notice or 

(SOPA) decision memo would be or has been prepared. The SOPA also identifies a contact 

for additional information on any proposed actions (36 CFR 220.3). 

Scope The range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be considered in an environmental 

impact statement (40 CFR 1508.25). 

Scoping An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and 

for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7). 

Sensitive Species Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impacts from 

activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest Service at the 

regional level and is not part of the designation of threatened or endangered species 

made by the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. 

Seral Stage The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left 

alone, the seral stage will give way to another plant or animal community that 

represents a further stage of succession. 

Shared Use Motorized and non-motorized recreationists share the same trails. 

Short-Term Risk A risk to be experienced within the next 10 to 15 years. For example, prescribed 

burns can disturb habitat in the short-term, but in the long-term the fire resiliency of 

the habitat may be improved. 

Silvicultural System The cultivation of forests; the result is a forest of a distinct form. Silvicultural systems 

are classified according to harvest and regeneration methods and the type of forest 

that results. 

Silviculture The art and science that promotes the growth of single trees and the forest as a 

biological unit. 

SMOG A combination of smoke and other particulates, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen 

oxides and other chemically reactive compounds which under certain conditions of 

weather and sunlight may result in a murky brown haze. The primary source of smog 

in California is motor vehicles. 

Snag A standing dead tree. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife species 

and their prey. 

Snowmobile Motorized over-snow vehicles that operate on a track, use one or more skis for 

steering, have handle-bar steering, and a seat designed to be straddled by the 

operator. 

Spatial Data A GIS contains spatial data. The spatial data represents geographic features 

associated with real-world locations. 

Species A class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; 

a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or 

subgenus; comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of 

interbreeding. 

Stand A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age and 

condition. 

Standards and The primary instructions for land managers. Standards address mandatory actions, 

Guidelines (S&Gs) while guidelines are recommended actions necessary to a land management 

decision. 

Stand-Replacing Fire A fire that burns with sufficient intensity to kill the majority of living vegetation over a 

given area (grass and brush fires are stand replacement fires for that vegetation 

type, in forest vegetation types when 75- 80% of the stand is killed by fire are also 

considered stand replacement fires). 

478 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix D 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary
 

Stewardship Caring for the land and its resources in order to pass healthy ecosystems on to future 

generations. 

Suitability	 The appropriateness of certain resource management to an area of land. Suitability 

can be determined by environmental and economic analysis of management 

practices. 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Pungent colorless gases formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur containing 

fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Considered a major air pollutant. 

Sustainability The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Sustainable The yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given intensity 

of management is said to be sustainable. Recreation activities are sustainable if the 

human activity does not reduce ecologic sustainability. 

Taxa The name applied to any one group or entity in the scientific classification system. 

Temporary Road or A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, 

Trail lease or other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas. 

Thermic A soil with a mean annual soil temperature of greater than or equal to 15 degrees 

centigrade, but less than 22 degrees centigrade and a difference between the mean 

summer and winter soil temperatures of greater than 5 degrees centigrade measured 

at 50 cm below the surface. 

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a 

specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Total Organic Gases Gaseous organic compounds including relative organic gases and the relatively 

(TOG) unreactive organic gases such as methane. 

Traffic Management These strategies are: encourage, accept, discourage, eliminate, and prohibit. The 

Strategies ‘encourage’ strategy directs forest visitors to important destinations via desirable 

routes. The discourage strategy informs potential users of road conditions that may 

detract from the experience they seek when visiting a National Forest. The ‘eliminate’ 

and prohibit strategies are used to close roads with physical barriers or regulatory 

signs and orders (FSH 7709.59-25.31). 

Trail A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and 

managed as a trail (36 CFR 212). 

Trail Management TMOs establish the appropriate vehicle classes and uses for each trail segment (36 

Objective (TMO) CFR 212). 

Trail Vehicle Vehicles designated for trail use, such as bicycles, snowmobiles, trail bikes, trail 

scooters, and all terrain vehicles (FSM 2353.05). 

Travel Management An atlas that consists of a forest transportation atlas and a motor vehicle use map or 

Atlas maps. 

Unauthorized Road A road that is not a NFTS road or a temporary road. It is not included in a forest 

transportation atlas. 

Unauthorized Trail A trail that is not a NFTS trail. It is not included in a forest transportation atlas. 

Understory The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath branches and foliage formed 

collectively by the upper portions of adjacent trees. 

Unroaded Area Any area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and configuration 

sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated with its roadless condition. 

Unroaded areas do not overlap with inventoried roadless areas. 

Visual Quality	 The forest visual resources; terrain, geological features, or vegetation. 

Watershed The entire region drained by a waterway, lake, or reservoir. More specifically, a 

watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water 

to the streamflows at that point. 

479 
Appendix D Stanislaus 

Glossary National Forest
 

Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support (and that under normal circumstances do or would support) a prevalence of 

vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil 

conditions for growth and reproduction. 

Wheeled Over Snow	 Specific routes identified as an exception to the normal season of use restrictions 

Routes allowing for over snow travel by ATVs when 12 inches or more of snow is present; 

these routes are dual designated as Snow Trails. 

Wildland An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, 

powerlines and similar transportation facilities. 

Xeric A soil moisture regime common to Mediterranean climates that have moist cool 

winters and warm dry summers. A limited amount of water is present but does not 

occur at optimum periods for plant growth. 

480 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix E 

Environmental Impact Statement Law Enforcement
 

E. Law Enforcement 

Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) personnel are responsible for protecting the 

public, employees, natural resources, and other property under the agency’s jurisdiction. Additionally, 

LEI investigates and enforces applicable laws and regulations that affect the National Forest System 

(NFS) lands, and prevents criminal violations. The new Travel Management Rule (TMR) is one such 

regulation. 

Subpart B 212.51 of the TMR requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle 

use, and the prohibition of cross-country wheeled motorized vehicle travel by the public. In addition, 

this section of the rule requires identifying season of use and type of vehicle use. This is a 

considerable change in public motorized access management from previous conditions where most 

Forests were managed as “open to cross-country travel.” The implementation of designated routes 

and areas for motorized vehicles will be the responsibility of all agency employees, especially in the 

area of education and enforcement. The law enforcement program is primarily responsible for issuing 

violations to enforce Subpart B 212.51 of the rule. 

The national LEI budget is funded by appropriated dollars from Congress to provide law enforcement 

services on the NFS lands. The Travel Management program is one of many Forest programs to 

benefit from federal law enforcement funding. For the past few years, law enforcement funding 

increased and that translated into an increase in field law enforcement personnel21. Stanislaus patrol 

staffing has recently increased from three officers to five officers. LEI staff work in co-operation 

with National Forest line officers to accomplish their resource management objectives, yet LEI is 

administratively separated to maintain legal and investigatory independence. 

To enhance enforcement of CFR 212.51, Region 5 Forest Recreation Programs applied for and 

received grant dollars (green sticker funding) from the State of California Off-Highway Motor 

Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program. These State funds are earmarked specifically for 

enforcement of off-highway vehicle laws and regulations on the various Forests, and are performed 

primarily by Forest Protection Officers (FPOs). In addition, Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) 

support the FPOs as needed, especially if serious violations occurred. In recent years, State law 

enforcement grants ranged from 3-4 million dollars annually with similar funding anticipated for the 

2008-2009 grant cycle. In the past three years, the Stanislaus NF has received a total of $436,000 for 

OHV and OSV law enforcement from the State of California. 

Authority and Jurisdiction 

The Forest Service exercises its law enforcement authority when violation of laws or regulations 

occurs on NFS lands or when incidents affect the NFS. The existing authorities for enforcement are 

completely adequate and no new laws will be needed to enforce CFR 212.51. 

Every National Forest annually updates a law enforcement plan. All Forest Service employees have a 

duty to know and understand their authorities and responsibilities, and to properly enforce laws and 

regulations relating to the Forest within their authority and capability. LEI and agency personnel 

provide a regular and recurring presence on vast amounts of public land, roads, trails, and areas taking 

appropriate action if illegal activity is discovered. Violations involving motorized vehicles are 

primarily enforced FPOs, which patrol off-highway use roads, trails, and areas. These include 

violations such as operating a motor vehicle in violation of federal regulations and California Vehicle 

Code (CVC), parking improperly, resource damage to soils, vegetation or wildlife, and disorderly or 

21 Region 5 Law Enforcement budget figures increased for the past 4 years and the number of law enforcement officers increased by 65. 

481 
 

Appendix E Stanislaus 

Law Enforcement National Forest
 

unruly behavior. LEOs use discretion when deciding what type of action to initiate when handling 

violations to the following federal laws that pertain specifically to motor vehicle use. 

 The Act of June 4, 1897 (Title 16 United States Code 551) is the authority for issuing regulations 

at Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261 (36 CFR 261). Specific OHV travel 

management regulations are in sections 261.9 – Property, 261.13 –Motor Vehicle Use, and 

261.15 Use of Vehicles Off-Road. These CFRs cover a wide array of misdemeanor infractions. 

 The Act of March 3, 1905 (Title 16 United States Code 559) authorizes all employees of the 

Forest Service to make arrests for violation of the laws and regulations pertaining to National 

Forests. Normally, arrest authority is limited to trained law enforcement personnel. (Any 

employee may take immediate action when necessary to protect life and prevent serious damage 

to or destruction of property, escape of a suspect, or loss of material evidence when such action 

can be done with reasonable safety.) 

The legal foundation for enforcement on the Stanislaus National Forest was established by Congress 

as “proprietary jurisdiction”. This term means that the Federal Government has acquired some degree 

of right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the 

area. The legal scope of the Forest Service is limited to laws established for that property, or 

National Forest. However, enforcement agencies with State authority in California retain their full 

legal authority on the Stanislaus Forest. Notably, for enforcement of violations committed by motor 

vehicle operators, the California Highway Patrol and the four county Sheriffs have separate authority 

and jurisdiction to enforce OHV laws under the California Vehicle Code. 

In November of 2008, the Regional Forester signed a new regional order that allows Forest Service 

officers to enforce the OHV section (CVC 38000) of the California Vehicle Code on National Forest 

Roads. 

Cooperation 

The Forest Service shares responsibility and cooperates with local, State, and other Federal agencies 

in the execution of its law enforcement program. The authority for cooperation among agencies, 

especially as it pertains to CFR 212.51, is within the following laws: 

 The Act of August 10, 1971 (Title 16 United States Code 551a) authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to cooperate with, and provide reimbursement to, any State or political subdivision 

thereof, for the enforcement of their laws within NFS. This law does not deprive any State or 

local law enforcement agency from exercising its criminal and civil jurisdiction on lands that are 

part of the NFS. 

 The California Penal Code, Section 830.8 provides that Forest Service law enforcement personnel 

may exercise State Peace Officer authority where the sheriff of the county wherein the officer 

works provided specific written permission for the officer. 

 The CVC, Section 38301 allows State law enforcement officer to enforce any of the Federal 

CFRs related to motor vehicles on NFS lands.22 

Each Forest maintains close working relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies with law enforcement responsibilities in or adjacent to the Forest boundary. Significant 

cooperating agencies relative to enforcing CFR 212.51 include the local county sheriff departments, 

the California Department of Fish and Game, California Highway Patrol, California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection, and occasionally one or more Federal agencies depending on the 

22 CVC Section 38301. (a) It is unlawful to operate a vehicle in violation of special regulations which have been promulgated by the 

governmental agency having jurisdiction over public lands, including, but not limited to, regulations governing access, routes of travel, 

plants, wildlife habitat, water resources and historical sites. 

482 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix E 

Environmental Impact Statement Law Enforcement
 

violation. Forest Service law enforcement personnel cooperate fully with these agencies in carrying 

out their law enforcement responsibilities by providing assistance; liaison, advice, and information. 

Forests maintain Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements with their respective county sheriff’s 

office. In Region 5, the total cost for the 2008 Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements is 

$891,397.23 These dollars are for performance of duties in addition to the normal activities in which 

the sheriff’s deputies handle crimes against persons and their property that may occur within the NFS 

boundary. In these agreements, both parties recognize that public use of NFS lands is usually located 

in areas that are remote or sparsely populated and the enforcement of State and local law is related to 

the administration and regulation of NFS lands. Within the Cooperative Law Enforcement 

Agreements, an Operating Plan is developed outlining the supplemental work to be performed by the 

cooperating agency. Operating plans may provide: 

 Supplemental patrols in areas of high use. 

 Supplemental patrols on weekends or during particular months of high use. 

 Additional officers for large group gatherings or events (enduros) 

 Vehicle checkpoints for vehicle registration spark arrestors, and other miscellaneous items. 

Implementation and Tracking 

Implementation of the Forest Service law enforcement program is continually adapting as law 

enforcement personnel assess the changing patterns of visitor use and attitudes, and the trends in 

violations, especially for property and resource damage. One method of assessment is the analysis of 

Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS) data. 

LEIMARS tracks all known violations of criminal law or regulation on NFS lands (FSH 5309.11, 

chapter 40 and FSM 5340). Additionally, imbedded in LEIMARS is the Case Tracking System, 

which tracks all felony and serious misdemeanor cases. These tracking systems: 

 Capture and record information on location, volume, damages, and type of violations occurring 

on NFS lands. 

 Provide a retrieval system of data on incidents and violations that is responsive to the needs of all 

organizational levels. 

 Provide agency managers with a means to identify and monitor law enforcement activities. 

 Specifically identify problem areas and periods of activity. 

 Provide a method to record and analyze incidents involving violations or suspected violations on 

NFS lands. 

Trends in violations can be analyzed and appropriate action(s) taken, if needed. Appropriate action(s) 

may involve one or more techniques or adaptive strategies. In the law enforcement community, this is 

often referred to as the “three E strategy” of engineering, education, and enforcement. With the 

changes to how the public accesses and travels on NFS lands, it is anticipated that the law 

enforcement program will use a combination of strategies, especially during the first five years of 

implementation of the MVUM. 

23 Region 5 Law Enforcement Cooperative Agreement 2008 spreadsheet. 

483 
Appendix E Stanislaus 

Law Enforcement National Forest
 

Implementation Strategy 

Engineering - Education - Enforcement 

The Engineering strategy is designed to prevent or reduce inadvertent violations, resource damage, 

and crime vulnerability. The strategy’s goal is to remove the opportunity to commit a violation. LEI 

personnel work with each Forest, particularly the recreation and engineering programs, to implement 

some or all of the following specific tactics: 

 Proper design of improvements and facilities. 

 Facility security measures such as installation of barricades, gates, and other natural obstacles. 

 Forest signing, both directional and informational, to assist the public to ensure they stay on 

designated trails, and out of the wilderness and other sensitive areas. 

 Physically close and rehabilitate decommissioned roads and trails. 

The Educational strategy focuses on specific user groups, school groups, recreation users, and the 

public. The goal is to develop responsible and concerned public land use attitudes in forest users; it’s 

violation prevention. Forest LEOs and FPOs make regular contacts in the field informing the users of 

the regulations and need for the prohibition. The LEI personnel work with each Forest, particularly 

the recreation and public information programs, to identify and implement some or all of the 

following specific tactics. 

 Motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) are easily available to public. 

 Post route markers and signs. 

 Distribute maps and brochures promoting responsible use. 

 Conduct environmental interpretation activities in local communities, at schools, and with special 

interest groups. 

 Use of all forms of the media (television, radio, and newspapers), especially prior to, and during, 

the high use periods. 

 Ensure all employees understand the Travel Management Rule. 

 Utilize high visibility prevention patrols and public information checkpoints, especially during 

the peak use periods. 

 Encourage cooperating law enforcement agencies to make visitor contacts and provide violator 

information to Forest Officers. 

 Ride with other agency officers to demonstrate solidarity to the public. 

 Issue news releases of arrests and successful prosecutions, including offender names, criminal 

penalties, and court ordered restitution. 

The Enforcement strategy is to affect crime prevention measures that are designed to reduce specific 

criminal activity, deter potential and repeat offenders, maximize enforcement actions and visibility, 

and increase prosecutorial successes. All enforcement actions should result in a better understanding 

of regulations pertaining to the management of NFS lands. LEI personnel work with each Forest, to 

identify and implement some or all of the following specific tactics: 

 Schedule officers to work during the identified problem periods, including holidays and 

weekends. 

 Utilize high profile “saturation patrols” and stationary surveillance posts in the identified problem 

areas. 

484 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix E 

Environmental Impact Statement Law Enforcement
 

 Utilize the most effective and efficient means of patrol, including foot, horseback, all-terrain 

vehicle, snowmobile, watercraft, and aircraft. 

 Aerial over-flights to enforce restriction under CFR 212.51. 

 Enlist the aid of volunteers. 

 Initiate an awards program. 

 Supplement patrols with cooperating law enforcement agencies in areas of concern. 

 Use technical investigative equipment (cameras, monitors, sensors) to assist officers with 

detecting and monitoring violations at known or suspected violation sites. 

 Conduct planned and approved compliance checkpoints. 

 Follow-up on complaints to document violations, damages, and identify suspect vehicles or 

persons. 

 Require cooperating law enforcement agencies to assist with reporting and/or enforcing violations 

within their authority. 

 Patrol with other cooperating law enforcement agency officers. 

 Conduct unpredictable patrol schedules. 

 Conduct special enforcement actions (unmarked vehicle deployment, surveillance, traffic checkpoints). 

 Utilize LEIMARS and Central Violations Bureau databases along with the State motor vehicle 

data, to identify repeat offenders for enhanced prosecution. 

 Pursue court ordered restitution or civil collections for resource and property damages. 

 Encourage prosecutorial and judicial support. 

 Execute bench warrants related of off-highway vehicle violations. 

Assumptions 

Based on many years of enforcing off-highway vehicles, implementing change in access and 

enforcement of CFR 212.51, from a law enforcement perspective, assumes the following to be true. 

Additionally, these assumptions are based on several case studies in R5 (see Case Example below). 

These assumptions may change in time with analysis of the LEIMARS database. 

Enforcement Assumptions 

 Enforcement of the laws and regulations related to CFR 212.51are enforced equally in authority 

and weight as with all other Federal laws and regulations. 

 As with any change in a regulation on NFS lands, there is usually a transitional period for the 

public to understand the changes. It is anticipated there will be a higher number of violations to 

CFR 212.51 in the first couple of years and the number of violations will decline as the users 

understand and comply with the rules. 

 Users in communities adjacent to the Forest will comply within 1-2 years. 

 Frequent users but further in distant from the Forest will comply within 2-3 years. 

 Infrequent users regardless of distant may take up to 5 years to comply. 

 Law enforcement officer and agency personnel’s presence and enforcement actions will 

positively affect OHV users’ behaviors and attitudes. 

485 
 

Appendix E Stanislaus 

Law Enforcement National Forest
 

 The MVUM clearly defines the designated routes, season of use, and type of use; therefore, 

making violations unequivocal. 

 Once the MVUM is published, the designated network of roads and trails with signs, and user 

education programs, will reduce the number of violations. 

 FPOs spend a large percentage of their time on Travel Management issues, and depending on the 

Forest the estimate range from 30 to 50 percent. LEOs spend approximately 10-20% of their time 

on enforcement of off-highway vehicle issues.24 

Agency Funding Assumptions 

 Appropriated program funding levels and number of law enforcement personnel does not affect 

enforcement of CFR 212.51. All laws and regulations are enforced equally. 

 Appropriated funds will remain level or increase slightly in the next five years. 

 The State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program (green 

sticker funding) enhances and provides additional law enforcement presence in the field at the 

Forest level. 

Public Attitude and Compliance Assumptions: 

 Forest users want to do the right thing and will obey the rule25, once they understand the rule and 

motor vehicle use map. 

 User compliance26 is based on the State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation 

Division data and is anticipated to be: 

- 95% of the users are fully compliant. 

- 2-3% of the users thinks about and may violate a law. 

- 1-2% of the users will violate the law. 

Measure of Success 

Measuring the success of the compliance with CFR 212.51 will be done using the LEIMARS 

database. An analysis of the data may alert a Forest to a particular problem area for violations such as 

a group campsite area that may be surrounded by flat meadow areas inviting riders to potentially 

violate the regulation. A successful program will see a positive change in the following measures: 

 Measure 1: A reduction in the number of off-route travel violations. 

 Measure 2: A reduction in the number of resource damage violations 

24 Barnett, G. 2004-2005 Law Enforcement Workload Analysis. 

25 Tyler, Tom R. Why People Obey the Law, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 320 26 User compliance was computed by using the State Vehicular Recreation Area Fiscal year 2006/2007 data: 4.2M SVRA visitors divided 

by the 210,000 citations written, is approximately 5 percent non-compliant, and 95% compliant. 

486 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix E 

Environmental Impact Statement Law Enforcement
 

Case Example 

Law Enforcement History of the Interface OHV Area 

The Interface OHV use area is an area of Forest Service land that is within a mile or two of the 

mountain communities of Avery, Hathaway Pines, Arnold, and White Pines. In the late 1990s and 

early 2000s, this area experienced an increase in use by OHV riders originating from these 

communities. In some cases the riders would start from their residence and ride onto National Forest 

land. Sometimes they would trailer their machines a short ways to the end of a road to begin riding. 

Because of this use, many nearby residents who had moved to the area because of the solitude of the 

forested area and the nearby National Forest began to object to the OHV use, especially the noise. 

After a series of contentious meetings, the Forest Service completed an EIS, signed by Forest 

Supervisor Tom Quinn in late 2003. He selected a compromise alternative that closed the area nearest 

to the residential area to OHV use (Penny Pines), provided for use in an interim area (Valley View), 

until such time that an area that was more acceptable to all parties (Summit Level area above White 

Pines) was prepared with trails, signs and trailheads. In the spring of 2006, the trails on Summit Level 

became available to OHV riders and the Valley View area was closed to motorized use. Riders had 

about 21⁄2 years to adjust to the decision and move to the new area. During the several years of 

transition, the area was actively patrolled by Forest Service FPOs and LEOs and by an OHV deputy 

from Calaveras S.O. The Calaveras OHV manager spent a lot of time and money installing trail signs, 

posting information signs, maintaining gates and closing closed routes. 

Thus, over a period of about 21⁄2 years OHV users had to adapt to 3 significant changes in the location 

of the riding areas and designated routes, yet the users became compliant with the new system. 

Initially there remained strong feeling against the decision to close Valley View to motorized use. 

There was a backlash against those who had supported the closure, and continued to be problems with 

local residents riding on closed trails, signs destroyed and gates torn down27. By 2007, OHV users 

adapted to the new system of trails and roads with few enforcement issues. The Penny Pines and 

Valley View areas area became a quiet place for hiking, biking and exercising animals. 

Jay H. Power 

Stanislaus National Forest 

27 The person who apparently orchestrated much of the resistance moved out of the area in about early 2007. 

487 
Appendix E Stanislaus 

Law Enforcement National Forest
 

488 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix F 

Environmental Impact Statement Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions 

F. Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions 

This appendix provides definitions for the routine maintenance, mitigations and other requirements 

included in the alternatives. Appendix I (Route Data) lists the routes with mitigations and other 

requirements by alternative. Specific mitigations must be completed prior to designation of the route 

for public motorized use. 

Maintenance 

Drainage Features: re-shape existing waterbars or drain dips, repair and maintain drainage 

structures, remove inlet/outlet debris. 

Maintenance (annual): maintenance and repair of a route annually due to less favorable soil type, 

steeper tread gradient or higher trail use. 

Maintenance (routine): routine maintenance and repair activities repeated once every 3 to 5 years 

on a typical OHV route. The maintenance and repair cycle depends on route type, trail use, soil type, 

and tread gradient. 

Trail Corridor Clearance (brushing): removal of small trees or vegetation from trail corridor. 

Trail Corridor Clearance (logging out): removal of trees or other vegetation that has fallen across 

trail corridor. 

Trail Sign: installation, repair or replacement of signs and markers. 

Trail Tread Clearance: rock and debris removal from the traveled way. 

Tread Grading: reshaping, leveling, and smoothing of trail tread to fill ruts or rills and remove tread 

bumps, potholes, or washboard. 

Mitigation 

Mitigation activities may use one or more of the following hand tools or mechanized equipment 

depending on route location and accessibility: 

 Mechanized equipment: ATV, auger, chainsaw, compactor, pole saw, rock rake, tractor, 

trailer, etc. 

 Hand tools: hand saw, McLeod, pick, posthole digger, pruning shear, rake, shovel, etc. 

Barriers 

Brush Barrier: small trees or brush placed along side travel way to restrict vehicle traffic to desired 

location or to block restored routes. Requires no digging and deadfall adjacent to trail is usually used. 

Fence Barrier (pipe): pipe fence constructed using vertical posts with welded horizontal rails, 

installed 30 inches above ground surface. Requires digging up to 8 inch wide by 24 inch deep hole for 

installation of post. 

Fence Barrier (wood): wood fence constructed using 4 to 6 inch vertical posts with horizontal rails 

bolted through posts, 30 inches above ground surface. Requires digging up to 8 inch wide by 24 inch 

deep hole for installation of post. 

Gate: standard heavy duty road closure gate constructed from welded metal pipes. Requires digging 

up to 8 inch wide by 24 inch deep hole for installation of posts 

Log Barrier: logs placed in a shallow trench along a travel way restricting vehicle traffic to desired 

locations. 

489 
Appendix F Stanislaus 

Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions National Forest
 

Low Impact Barrier: low resource impact, vehicle barrier constructed by placing full-length 

railroad ties on top of 24 inch ties, held in place by driving rebar through ties into ground 

approximately 24 inches. Requires no digging of holes, but sometimes leveling of ground is required 

for placement. 

Rock Barrier: large rock boulders, usually 36 to 48 inch diameter, placed in shallow holes along a 

travel way to restrict vehicle traffic to desired locations. 

Drainage 

Boardwalk/Puncheon: trail tread reinforcement structure resembling a low bridge and constructed 

over wet or otherwise unstable soil. 

Bridge: structure built above and across a stream or drainage allowing vehicles to cross without 

entering watercourse and allows for natural flow and minimal impacts to streambed channel. 

Causeway/Turnpike: tread reinforcement technique, for crossing damp soils, placing parallel logs 

or timbers allowing for trail tread build up elevated 4 to 8 inches above the natural surface. 

Collector Ditch: drainage structure which intercepts water flowing toward a trail and channels it 

parallel to the trail to the next drainage or underneath through a culvert. 

Culvert (arched): bottomless culvert allowing natural flow and minimal impacts to streambed 

channel. Culvert is cut in half lengthwise and installed under trail tread. 

Culvert (standard): plastic or metal pipe placed in drainages to carrier water under trail tread. 

Drain Dip (hardened): drain dip with additional tread surface hardening (e.g., rock ballast, tread 

blocks, soil cement or geosynthetic products). 

Drain Dip (standard): Constructed erosion control technique which reverses the grade of a trail for 

a distance of 15-20 feet before returning to the prevailing grade. The change in grade forces water to 

run off the trail surface rather than gaining additional velocity and volume. 

Drain Dip (terrain): grade reversal using natural dips in trail, planned into the trail during initial 

route or re-route layout. 

Waterbar: constructed soil, rock or log berm that diverts water from the trail tread. Waterbars are 

more abrupt for motorized travel than drain dips. 

Hardening 

Concrete Blocks: pre-cast interlocking concrete blocks measuring approximately 17 inches wide, 23 

inches long, 3.5 inches high with 4 inch square holes. The blocks weigh approximately 60 pounds 

with a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi. This technique can be used for low water stream 

fords or tread hardening. 

Drainage Hardening: treating drainage or wet area crossing with concrete blocks, rock ballast, logs 

or timbers. 

Geosynthetics: synthetic material used in place of concrete tread blocks to harden trail tread. This 

includes geotextiles (construction fabrics), geonets, sheet drains, geogrids and geocells. These 

materials become a permanent part of the trail and are usually covered with soil or rock to prevent 

deterioration by ultraviolet light or damage by trail users. 

Mechanical Hardening: compaction of native soils using mechanized equipment (i.e., jackhammer, 

wacker, tractor or roller). 

Padding: fabric placed on native surface and covered with a layer of soil to protect sensitive 

resources. 

490 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix F 

Environmental Impact Statement Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions 

Rock Ballast: three to six inch crushed rock fill material used to form the trail bed. 

Soil Cement: trail tread treatment mixing a calculated amount of cement with the native soil. This is 

not recommended for use on a trail with tread gradient greater than 3% as the surface may become 

slippery with dust and vegetation litter such as needles. 

Recreation 

Cattlegaurd: motorcycle/ATV cattleguard (width 60 inches or less) installed along existing fence 

line, causing minimal ground disturbance as structure requires leveling of surface only. 

Trail Resting: closing of a specific trail for up to three years to allow natural recovery of trail tread 

and adjacent resources and then re-opened for motorized use. 

Trail Rotation: trail rotation from motorized to non-motorized use each week or other predetermined schedule (e.g., one week motorized, one week non-motorized). 

Signing 

Combined Use: prepare plan and implement signing for identified portions of high standard 

(passenger car) roads for Combined Use by street legal and non-street legal vehicles. 

Custom: install directional, regulatory and educational signing prescribed by various specialists for 

protection of sensitive resources. (e.g., route markers, vehicle restriction signs, and directional signing 

through specific areas of concern). 

Mixed Use: prepare plan and implement signing for identified portions of certain (high clearance) 

roads available for use by both highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles. 

Standard: install directional, regulatory, educational, and caution signs specific to OHV route 

management. (e.g., route markers, hazard signing, vehicle restriction signs, and stop signs). 

Traveled Way 

Climbing Turn: large turning arc with an outside berm and continuous smooth grade utilizing 

existing side slope. 

Full Bench: trail resting entirely on an excavation into a steep side slope, no fill is used to support 

the trail. 

Partial Bench: trail resting partially on an excavation into side slope and fill is used to support 

remainder of trail down slope of route. 

Switchback: sharp hillside turn, usually of about 180 degrees, intended to lessen the grade of a trail 

traversing a steep slope. 

Trail Softening: adding material to traveled way to minimize rider injury when adverse contact with 

trail surface occurs (e.g., sand, pea gravel, small wood chips/shavings). 

Tread Grading: reshaping, leveling, and smoothing of trail tread to fill ruts or rills and remove tread 

bumps, potholes, or washboard. 

Weather 

Season of Use – pre-determined dates routes are open to motorized use (e.g., April 1 – November 

30). 

Wet Weather Closure – closure determined by individual storm events. Enacted when an area/route 

receives a pre-determined amount of precipitation and reopened after a preset time of drying occurs 

(i.e., 1 inch of rain within 24 hours, closed until 72 hours of continuous drying). 

491 
Appendix F Stanislaus 

Maintenance and Mitigation Definitions National Forest
 

Other Requirements 

RLF Surveys: conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of the California red-legged frog 

using the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol. 

RLF USFWS Consultation: further Forest Service consultation with the USFWS to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

SHPO Consultation: Forest Service consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

492 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

G. References 

LITERATURE CITED 

Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: marten. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

FWS/OBS-82/ 10.11 9 p. 

Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. In: Novak, M., Baker, J.A., 

Obbard, M.E., Malloch, B., editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North 

America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers Association. 

AmphibiaWeb 2009. Information on amphibian biology and conservation. Berkeley, CA: 

AmphibiaWeb. online: http://amphibiaweb.org 

Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different 

proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-366. 

Andrew, J.M., and J.A. Mosher. 1982. Bald Eagle nest site selection and nesting habitat in Maryland. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 383-390. 

Anthony, R.G., and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 53(1): 148-159. 

Barbour, M.G. 1977. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Wiley Interscience. New York, NY 

Bard, E.C. 2004. Using Ecological Theory to Guide the Implementation of Augmentative Restoration, 

Montana State University. 

Beier, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern 

goshawks. Ecological Applications 7(2): 564-571. 

Berger, L., Speare, R., Daszak, P., Green, D.E., Cunningham, A., Goggin, C.L., Slocombe, R., Ragan, 

M.A., Hyatt, A.D., McDonald, K.R., Hines, H.B., Lips, K.R., Marantelli, G., and H. Parkes. 

1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in 

the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America 95:9031-9036. 

Blakesley, J.A. 2003. Ecology of the California spotted owl: breeding dispersal and associations with 

forest stand characteristics in northeastern California. Dissertation, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Bobzien, S. and D. DiDonato. 2007. The status of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii), and other aquatic herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, California. 

East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralt Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605. 87 p. 

Boroski, B., Mossman, B., and S. Archie. 1998. Water use patterns of mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) and the effects of human disturbance. Journal of Arid Environments 38 (4) 561­

569. 

Bossard, C. et. al. 2000. Genista monspessulana. p. 203- 208 in Invasive plants of California’s 

wildlands. Bossard, D.D., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky (Eds.) University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Bradford, D.F., Tabatabai, F., and D.M. Graber. 1993. Isolation of remaining populations of the 

native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 

Parks, CA. Conservation Biology 7: 882-888. 

493 
 

 

Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

Brody, A.J., and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 5-10. 

Browning, B., R.W. Schulenburg, and O. Brunetti. 1973. Rail Road Flat deer study. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Widlife Management Administrative Report No. 73-1. 

Sacramento, CA. 49 p. 

Buehler, D.A., Mersmann, T.J., Fraser, J.D., and J.K.D. Seegar. 1991. Effects of human activity on 

bald eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

55:282-290. 

Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott, Jr., and R.B. Seymour. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult 

California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological 

Conservation 110:85-95. 

Buskirk, S.W., and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: 

Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Edited by S.W. Buskirk, A.S. 

Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 283–296. 

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Chapter 2: American marten In: Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, 

K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Lyon, L.J., and W.J. Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for 

conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 7-37. 

Cadi, A. and P. Joly. 2003. Competition for basking places between the endangered European pond 

turtle (Emys orbicularis) and the introduced red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans). 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1392-1398. 

CalFlora 2008. Web-based Botanical Database; www.calflora.org 

Call, D.R., Gutierrez, R.J. and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home range characteristics of 

California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 94 p. 880-888. 

Carr, L.W., and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of different vagility. 

CDFG 1980. The Tuolumne Deer Herd Management Plan. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, CA. p. 1-58. 

CDFG 1981. Management Plan for the Yosemite Deer Herd. California Department of Fish and 

Game. Sacramento, CA. p. 1-44. 

CDFG 1984. Stanislaus Deer Herd Management Plan. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, CA. p. 1-59 

CDFG 2007. Invasive Species. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. online: 

http://www.natureserve.org/consIssues/invasivespecies.jsp 

CDFG 2008. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. online: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf 

CDFG 2009. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Nature Serve. online: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb 

CEQ 2005. (Council on Environmental Quality) Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in 

Cumulative Effects Analysis. June 24, 2005. 

494 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

Chandler, S.K., Fraser, J.D., Buehler D.A., and J.K.D. Seegar. 1995. Perch trees and shoreline 

development as predictors of Bald Eagle distribution on Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 59:325-332. Collins, S.L. 1981. 

Chin, A., D.M. Rohrer, D.A. Marion, and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of All-terrain Vehicles on 

Stream Dynamics. In: Ouachita and Ozark Mountains Symposium: Ecosystem Management 

Research. Guldin, J.M. tech. comp. General Technical Report: SRS-074. USDA Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. Asheville, N.C. 

Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface 

types in the southern Appalachians, S. J. Applied Forestry 27(2), p. 100–106. 

CNPS 2001. Sensitive Plant Management on the National Forests and Grasslands in California. 

Califorinia Native Plant Society. 

CNPS 2006. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, 7th Edition. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory 

Committee. online: http:/www.cnps.org/inventory 

Collins, K.M. 1980. Aspects of the biology of the Great Gray Owl, Strix nebulosa, Forster. M.S. 

Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 

Cooper, D.J. 1996. Water and Soil Chemistry, Floristic, Phytosociology of the extreme rich 

Highcreek fen in South Park Colorado. Canadian Journal of Botany 74:1111, NRC Research. 

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the Wolverine in central ldaho. Masters Thesis, University of Idaho. 

Moscow, Id. 

Cordell, H.K. 2008. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: 

A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 

107 p. 

CREP. 2008. Clavey River Watershed Assessment. Volume I (Assessment) and Volume II 

(Appendices). Clavey River Ecosystem Project. Sonora, CA. 

CVRWQCB. 1998. The Water Quality Control Plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water 

Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Fourth Edition. The Sacramento River Basin 

and the San Joaquin River Basin. Revised September 2004 (with Approved Amendments). 

Sacramento, CA. 

Daszak, P., Cunningham, A.A., and A.D. Hyatt. 2003. Infectious disease and amphibian population 

declines. Diversity and Distributions 9:141-150. 

Davidson, C. and R.A. Knapp. 2007. Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: dual impacts of 

pesticides and fish on yellow-legged frogs. Ecological Applications 17(2):587-597. 

Davidson, C., Shaffer, H.B., and G.M. Fellers. 2002. Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat 

destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines. 

Conservation Biology 16(6):1588-1601. 

Daw, S.K. and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and postfledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1): 59-65. 

Delaney, D.K., Grubb, T.G., and P. Beier. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. 

Journal of Widlife Management. 63(1): 60-76. 

Di Tomaso, J.M. 2001. Yellow starthistle information. UC Weed Research and Information Center 

Website, University of California, Davis. online: http://wric.ucdavis.edu/yst 

Di Tomaso, J. M. 2007. Yellow Starthistle Management Guidelines. Pest Notes Publication 7402, 

University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. 5 p. 

495 
Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

English, D.B.K., Kocis, S.M., Zarnoch, S.J., and J.R. Arnold. 2002. Forest Service National Visitor 

Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation. General Technical Report SRS57. Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 

EPA 2007. Environmental Protection Agency 2007. Particulate Matter. online: 

http://www.EPA.gov/air/particlepollution 

Fahrig, L., Pedlar, J.H., Shealagh, E. Pope, P.Taylor, D. and J.F. Wegner. 1995. Effect of Road 

Traffic on Amphibian Density. Biological Conservation. Vol. 73. p. 177-182. 

Fellers, G. M., and K. L. Freel. 1995. A standardized protocol for surveying aquatic amphibians. 

National Biological Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Technical Report 

NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-001, University of California, Davis, USA. 

Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman. 2007. California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Movement and 

Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Herpetology. 41(2): 276-286. 

Fellers, G.M., D.E Green, and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain yellowlegged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001:945-953. 

Fellers, G. M., L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, and S. Datta. 2004. Pesticides in mountain yellow-legged 

frogs (Rana muscosa) from the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, USA. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 23(9):2170-2177. 

Fellers, G.M., D.F. Bradford, D. Pratt, and L.L. Wood. Demise of translocated populations of 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs (Rana muscosa) in the Sierra Nevada of California. 2007. 

Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2(1):5-21 

FGDC. 2004. Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries. Federal Geographic 

Data Committee. FGDC Proposal. Version 2.0. 

Foltz, R.B. 2006. Erosion from all terrain vehicle (ATV) trails on national forest lands. American 

society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2006 Annual International Meeting, Paper 

068012, 10 p. 

Foppen, R.and R. Reijnen. 1994. The effects of traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland: II. 

Breeding dispersal of male willow warblers in relation to the proximity of a highway. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 31:95-101. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review 

of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-31. 

Franklin, A. B. 1988. Breeding biology of the great gray owl in southeastern Idaho and northwestern 

Wyoming. Condor 90:689-696. 

Fraser, J.D., LD. Frenzel and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald 

eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(3):585-592. 

Frazier, J.W., Holdeman, S.J. and S.L. Grant 2006. Streamscape Inventory Technical Guide. USDA 

Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area. Sonora, 

CA. 32 p. 

Frazier, J.W., S.L. Grant 2006. Clavey River Watershed Analysis Road Inventory-Hydrologically 

Connected Segments. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource 

Management Program Area. Sonora, CA. 8 p. 

Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on National Forests in 

California. USDA, Forest Service. Los Padres National Forest. 

496 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

Frid, A. and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11 

Gaines, W.L., Singleton, P.H., and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear 

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee national forest, general 

technical report PNW-GTR-586. Portland, Or. USDA Forest Service. 

Gerstenberg, G. 2008. Stanislaus deer herd fawn survivorship pilot study - final report. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Central Region. Fresno, CA. 24 p. 

Gill, R.B. 1999. Declining mule deer populations in Colorado: reasons and responses. A report to the 

Colorado Legislature. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver. 54 p. 

Gillespie, G. R. 2002. Impacts of sediment loads, tadpole density, and food type on the growth and 

development of tadpoles of the spotted tree frog Litoria spenceri: an in-stream experiment. 

Biological Conservation 106:141-150. 

Gobster, P. H. 1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 

18(1): 54-64. 

Green, D. E. and C. Kagarise Sherman. 2001. Diagnostic histological findings in Yosemite toads 

(Bufo canorus) from a die-off in the 1970s. Journal of Herpetology 35(1):92-103. 

Green, G.A., Campbell, L.A., and D.C. Macfarlane. Submitted. A conservation assessment for fishers 

(Martes pennanti) in the Sierra Nevada of California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 72 p. 

Grinnell, J., and T.I. Storer. 1924. Animal life in the Yosemite; an account of the mammals, birds, 

reptiles, and amphibians in a cross-section of the Sierra Nevada. Univ. California Press, 

Berkeley. 

Grubb T.G. 1995. Food habits of bald eagles breeding in the Arizona desert. Wilson Bulletin 10: 258­

274. 

Grubb, T.G., Pater, L.L., and D.K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern 

goshawks. Res. Note RMRS-RN-3. For Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 2 p. 

Grubb, T.G., and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with 

classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:500-511. 

Grubb, T.G., Bowerman, W.W., Giesy, J.P., and G.A. Dawson. 1992. Responses of breeding bald 

eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, to human activities in Northcentral Michigan. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 106:443-453. 

Haas, J. 2008. Middle Fork Fuel Reduction Biological Evaluation. Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, 

CA, 

Hagans, D. K., Weaver, W.E., and M.A. Madej. 1986. Long-term on-site and off-site effects of 

logging and erosion in the Redwood Creek Basin, northern California. p. 38–65 In: Papers 

presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting on cumulative effects. National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, Technical Bulletin 490. 

Hargis, C.D., Bissonette, J.A., and D.L Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and 

landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172. 

Hawkins, C.P, Norris, R.H., Hogue, J.N., and Feminella, J.W. 2000. Development and evaluation of 

predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Biological Applications. 

10(5), 2000, p. 1456-1477. 

497 
Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged 

frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): implications 

for management. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Amphibians, Reptiles 

and Small Mammals in North America. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-166, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO. p. 144-158. 

Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 

Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/jepman.html 

Hine, R.L., Les, B.L., and B. F. Hellmich. 1981. Leopard frog populations and mortality in 

Wisconsin, 1974-76. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 122. 39 

p. online: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/EcoNatRes.DNRBull122 

Holland, D.C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Final Report. Portland, OR. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. 

IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report; an Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007. 52 p. 

Jennings, M.R. Status of Amphibians. 1996. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to 

Congress, Vol. II. Chapter 31. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of 

California, Davis. 

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana 

aurora draytonii): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. 

Herpetologica, 41:94-103. 

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in 

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho 

Cordova. 

Johnson, B.K., Kern, J.W., and M.J. Wisdom. 2000. Resource selection and spatial separation of mule 

deer and elk during spring. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 685-697. 

Jones, J.A., Swanson, F.A., Wemple, B.C., and K.U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, 

geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14:76­

85. 

Kagarise Sherman, C. and M.L. Morton. 1993. Population declines of Yosemite toads in the eastern 

Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Herpetology 27:186-198. 

Kaplan, S. 1993. The Role of Natural Environment Aesthetics in the Restorative Experience. In: 

Managing Urban and High Use Recreation Settings, p 46-49. USDA Forest Service, GTRNC-163. 

Kattelmann, R. Hydrology and Water Resources. 1996. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final 

report to Congress, Vol. II. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of 

California, Davis. 

Keane, J.J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. 

dissertation. University of California, Davis. 

Knapp, R.A. 1996. Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: An analysis of their 

distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final 

Report to Congress, Volume III, Chapter 8, p. 363-407. Davis: University of California, 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 

498 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

Knapp, R. A., and K. Matthews. 2000. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 

14:428-438. 

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through 

Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 p. 

Knight, R.L., and S.K. Skagen. 1988. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. 

Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation. p. 355-359. 

Krohn, W. B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in 

California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pages 211-232 In: G. Proulx, H. N. 

Bryant, and P. M. Woodard (editors). Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and 

management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 474p. 

Kucera T.E, Zielinski, W.J., and H.R. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American marten, 

Martes americana, in California. California Fish and Game 81:96-103. 

Kupferberg, S. J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a river-breeding 

frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6:1332-1344. 

Kupferberg, S. J. 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval 

competition. Ecology. 78:1736-1751. 

Lannoo, M. editor. 2005. Amphibian declines: The conservation status of the United States species. 

University of California Press. 1094 p. 

LeNoir, J., McConnell, L., Fellers, G., Cahill, T., and J. Seiber. 1999. Summertime transport of 

current-use pesticides from California’s Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountain 

Range, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(12):2715-2722. 

Leopold, A., Sowls, L.K., and D.L. Spencer. 1947. A Survey of Over-Populated Deer Ranges in the 

United States. 

Lind, A.J. 2005. Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: determining an ecologically feasible 

approach for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) through analysis of decline factors, 

genetic structure, and habitat associations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, 

Davis. (March) 169 p. 

Lind, A.J., Welsh, H.H., and R.A. Wilson. 1996. The effects of a dam on breeding habitat and egg 

survival of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) in northwestern California. 

Herpetological Review 27(2):62-67. 

Lips, K.R. 1998. Decline of a tropical montane amphibian fauna. Conservation Biology 12(1):106­

117. 

Lopes, H., P. Redig, A.Glaser, A.Armien, and A.Wunschmann. 2007. Clinical findings, Lesions, and 

Viral Antigen Distribution in Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa) and Barred Owls (Strix varia) 

with Spontaneous West Nile Virus Infection. Avian Diseases 51:140-145. 

Willits, M., Botanist, Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok Ranger District. Personal communication, 

January 16, 2009. Best Management Practices; streamlining direction for Invasive Plants. 

Mack, R.N. 1989. Temperate grasslands vulnerable to plant invasions: characteristics and 

consequences. p. 155-179 in J.A. Drake, H.A. Mooney, F. Di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. 

Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. Williamson, editors. Biological invasions: a global 

perspective. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom. 

499 
Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

Marra, P., and R.L. Holberton. 1998. Corticosterone levels as indicators of habitat quality:effects of 

habitat segregation in a migratory bird during the non-breeding season. Oecologia 116:284­

292. 

Martin, D.L. 2008. Decline, movement, and habitat utilization of the Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus): 

an endangered anuran endemic to the Sierra Nevada of California. PhD dissertation. 

University of California, Santa Barbara. 393 p. 

Maurer J.R. 2000. Nesting habitat and prey relations of the northern goshawk in Yosemite National 

Park, CA. Thesis, University of California. Davis, USA. 

Maxell, B.A., and D.G. Hokit. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles. p. 2.1-2.30 In: J. Joslin and H. 

Youmans, committee chairs. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a 

compendium of the current state of understanding in Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 

McCallum, M. L. and S. E. Trauth. 2007. Physiological trade-offs between immunity and 

reproduction in the northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans). Herpetologica 63:269-274. 

McGarigal, K. 1988. Human-eagle interactions on the Lower Columbia River. M.S. Thesis, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, Or. 115 p. 

Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L., and K.C. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. 

Moen, C.A., and R.J. Gutierrez. 1997. California spotted owl habitat selection in the central Sierra 

Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1281-1287. 

Morton, M.L. 1981. Seasonal changes in total body lipid and liver weight in the Yosemite toad. 

Copeia 1981(1):234-238. 

Moyle, P. B. 1973. Effects of introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, on the native frogs of the San 

Joaquin Valley, California. Copeia 18-22 

Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for 

quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

16: 693-727. 

Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-84. 

PG&E 2002. Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project (FERC project No. 2130). Volume II, Application for 

New License. Exhibit E – Water Use and Quality. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San 

Francisco, CA. 

Pauchard, P.B. and Alaback. 2005. Edge type defines alien plant species invasions along Pinus 

contorta burned, highway and clearcut forest edges. Forest Ecology and Management. 

Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1977. Impact of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue 

Mountains of Washington, 1972 -1973. Bull. 11. Olympia, Wa: Washington Department of 

Game Applied Research Section. 39 p. 

Potter 1998. Forested communities of the upper montane in central and southern Sierra Nevada. 

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service. General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-169. 

Pope, K.L., and K.R. Matthews. 2001. Movement ecology and seasonal distribution of mountain 

yellow-legged frogs, Rana muscosa, in a high-elevation Sierra Nevada basin. Copeia 3:787­

793. 

500 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

Power, M.E. 1990. Resource Enhancement by Indirect Effects of Grazers: Armored Catfish, Algae, 

and Sediment. Ecology 71(3):897-904. 

Pringle, C.M., Naiman, R.J., Bretschko, G., Karr, J.R., Oswood, M.W., Webster, J.R., Welcomme, 

R.L., and M.J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: the stream as a mosaic. 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:502-524. 

Rachowicz L..J, Roland K. A., Jess M. A, Stice M. J., Vredenburg V. T., Parker J. M. and C. J. 

Briggs. 2006. Emerging infectious disease as a proximate cause of amphibian mass mortality. 

Ecology 87(7):1671-83. 

Rathbun, G. B., Siepel, N. and D Holland. 1992. Nesting behavior and movements of western pond 

turtles, Clemmys marmorata. Southwestern Naturalist. 37: 319-324. 

Rathbun, G. B., N. J. Scott, Jr., and T. G. Murphey. 2002. Terrestrial habitat use by Pacific pond 

turtles in a Mediterranean climate. The Southwestern Naturalist 47(2):225-235. 

Reed, R.A., Johnson-Barnard, J., and W.L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation 

in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:1098-1106. 

Reese, D. A. 1996. Comparative demography and habitat use of western pond turtles in northern 

California: The effects of damming and related alterations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

California, Berkeley. 253 p. 

Reese, D.A. and H.H. Welsh. 1997. Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys 

marmorata: Implications for Management. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and 

Management of Tortoises and Turtles. 

Reese, D.A. and H. H. Welsh. 1998. Habitat use by western pond turtles in the Trinity River, 

California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3):842-853. 

Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research 20:1753–1761. 

Richardson, E.V., Simons, B., Karaki, S., Mahmood, M., and M.A. Stevens. 1975. Highways in the 

river environment: hydraulic and environmental design considerations training and design 

manual. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

Robitaille, J.F. and K. Aubry . 2000. Occurrence and activity of American martens, Martes 

americana, in relation to roads and other routes Acta Theriologica 45 (1): p 137. 

Rocchio. 2006. Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow Ecological System 

Rodríguez-Prieto, I., and E.Fernández-Juricic. 2005. Effects of direct human disturbance on the 

endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels. Biol Conserv 123:1–9 

Rooney, P. 2003. Distribution of Ecologically-Invasive Plants along off-Road Vehicle Trails. 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department Publication 

Rost, G.R., and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43(3):634-641 

Ruggiero, L.F.., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Lyon, J.L, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis 

for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. 

Salwasser, H., S.A. Holl, and G.A. Ashcraft. 1978. Fawn production and survival in the North Kings 

River deer herd. Calif. Fish Game 64(1):38-52. 

501 
Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

Scott, M.J. and Pratini, N. 1995. Habitat fragmentation: The sum of the pieces is less than the whole. 

California Agriculture volume 49 (6): 56. Accessed on line www.nal.USDA.gov 

Seamans, M.E. 2005. Population Biology of the California Spotted Owl in the Central Sierra Nevada. 

Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 152 p. 

Sheley, R.L. and Larson. 1995. Interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle at three soils 

depths. Journal of Range Management, Volume 48, p. 392- 397 Oregon State University 

Press. Corvallis, OR 

Sherburne, S.S., and J.A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: response to subnivean 

prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 400-405. 

Skagen, R.L., Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbance of an avian scavenging guild. 

Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Sparling, D., Fellers, G., and L. McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population declines in 

California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20(7):1591-1595. 

Spencer W.D., Barrett, R.H., and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47:1181-1186. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 

MA. 336 p. 

Stynes, D.J., and E.M. White. 2005. Spending profiles of National Forest visitors. NVUM Four Year 

Report. Report to USDA Forest Service. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University. 

Stynes, D.J., and E.M. White. 2006. Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by 

Activity. 

Swarthout, E.C.H. and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 65(2): 312-317. 

Switalski, T.A. 2004 et al; Bissonette, J.A.; DeLuca, T.H.; Luce, C.H.; Madej, M.A. 2004. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment, Benefits and Impacts of Road Removal, Vol. 2, No. 1 p. 21­

28, Ecological Society of America Publisher 

Thomas, J.W. tech. ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook553. 512 p. 

Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30 

USDA 1986. ROS User’s Guide. 1986. USDA Forest Service. 38 p. 

USDA 1988. Cumulative Off-Site Watershed Effects Analysis. Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook. Chapter 20. Region 5 Forest Service Handbook Amendment 1 7/88. San 

Francisco, CA. 

USDA 1991a. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook. Forest Service, No. 

2509.18-91-1. 10 p 

USDA 1991b. Final Environmental Impact Statement; Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan; Record of Decision. October 1991. Forest Service, Stanislaus National 

Forest, Sonora, CA. 

502 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

USDA 1991c. Final Environmental Impact Statement; Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan; Appendix E Wild and Scenic River Study. October 1991. Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA. 

USDA 1991d. Final Environmental Impact Statement; Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. October 1991. Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA. 

USDA 1995a. Soil Survey Stanislaus National Forest Area California. Supervisor’s Office, 19777 

Greenley Rd., Sonora, CA. 

USDA 1995b. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook. Forest Service, 

Region 5, Supplement No. 2509.18-95-1. 10 p. 

USDA 1996. Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

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

Regarding the Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Historic Properties Managed by 

the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 1997. Ecological Subregions of California, Section and Subsection Descriptions. Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5-EM-TP-005. online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/ecoregions 

USDA 1998. Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan Amendment, Environmental 

Assessment and Decision Notice. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. February, 1998. 

USDA 1999. Soil Interpretations. Forest Service. San Francisco, CA. 

USDA 2000a. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California. Best Management 

Practices. Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA 2000b. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and Sensitive 

Species. Written by Seona Brown and Ron Archuleta and signed on 11/13/2000. 

Unpublished. 90 p. 

USDA 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 

3. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 2003a. Cumulative Watershed Effects Excel Based Analysis Model. Stanislaus National 

Forest. Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2003b. Stanislaus National Forest Roads Analysis. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2004a. Off- Highway Vehicle Use on National Forests: Volume and Characteristics of 

Visitors. 25 p. 

USDA 2004b. Pacific Southwest Region. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for Stanislaus 

National Forest. 25 p. 

USDA 2004c. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision. online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis 

USDA 2005a. Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. July 2005. 178 p. 

USDA 2005b. Forest Service Manual 4060; Research Facilities and Areas; Amendment 4000-2005-3. 

November 4, 2005. Forest Service, Washington, DC. 29 p. 

503 
Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

USDA 2005c. Pacific Southwest Region. Business Plan for the Stanislaus National Forest – A 

Window of Opportunity. R5-MB-092. 40 p. 

USDA 2005d. Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated 

Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 2006a. Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

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

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

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

Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on the 

National Forests in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 2006b. Stanislaus National Forest OHV Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan. 

USDA 2007a. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Land Management Planning Handbook; Chapter 70, 

Wilderness Evaluation Amendment 1909.12-2007-1. January 31, 2007. Forest Service, 

Washington, DC. 25 p. 

USDA 2007b. Stanislaus National Forest. Recreation Facility Analysis- 5 year Program of Work. 30 

p. 

USDA 2007c. Update to Regional Foresters Sensitive Animal Species List. Dated October 15, 2007. 

online: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/tes 

USDA 2007d. Condition Check List for Fens in Montane and Subalpine Zones of the Sierra Nevada. 

USDA 2007e. Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

USDA 2008a. Cultural Resource Management Report (05-16-1305) Forest-wide OHV Survey 

Project. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2008b. Pacific Southwest Region. 2008 National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for 

Stanislaus National Forest. Updated January 2009. 81 p. 

USDI 1995. Recovery plan for the Lahontan cutthroat trout. Portland, Oregon. 108 p. 

USDI 1999. August 25. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule 

To Remove the American Peregrine Falcon From the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, and To Remove the Similarity of Appearance Provision for Free-Flying 

Peregrines in the Conterminous United States; Final Rule. 64 (164):46542-46558 

USDI 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Region 1, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 173 p. 

USDI 2004. April 8. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month 

Finding for a Petition To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher 

(Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. 69(68):18770 

USDI 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged 

Frog. August, 1995. 26 p. 

USDI 2006. May 24. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month 

Finding for a Petition To List the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis); 

71(100):29886-29908. 

USDI 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

25 p. 

504 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement References 

Van Dyke, F.G., Brooke, R.H., Shaw, H.G., Ackerman, B.B., Hemker, T.P., and F.G. Lindzey. 1986. 

Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. J. of Wildlife Management 50: 

95-102. 

van Riper III, C., and J.V. Wagtendonk. 2006. Home range characteristics of great gray owls in 

Yosemite National Park, CA. Journal of Raptor Research 40 (2): 000-000. 

Verner, J. 1994. Current Management Situation: Great Gray Owls. In: Flammulated, Boreal, and 

Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RM-253, p. 155-213. 

Vredenburg, V.T., Bingham, R., Knapp, R., Morgan, J.A.T., Moritz, C., and D. Wake. 2006. 

Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation 

priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. p. 361-374 

Wasser, S.K., Bevis, K., King, G., and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of 

disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 4:1019-1022. 

Welsh, H.H. Jr. 1994. Bioregions: an ecological and evolutionary perspective and a proposal for 

California. California Fish and Game 80:97-124. 

Welsh, M.J. 2008. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads and off-highway vehicle trails 

in the Upper South Platte River watershed, Colorado. Masters Thesis, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Welsh, H.H., Jr., and L.M. Ollivier. 1998. Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case 

study from California’s redwoods. Ecological Applications 8:1118-1132. 

Winter, J. 1981. Some aspects of the ecology of the Great Gray Owl in the central Sierra Nevada. 

USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest. Final Report, Contract 43-2276. 

Winter, J. 1982. Further investigations on the ecology of the Great Gray Owl in the central Sierra 

Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Stanislaus National Forest. Final Report. Contract 43-2348. 

Wisdom, M.J.; Holthausen, R.S.; Wales, B.C.; Hargis, C.D.; Saab, V.A.; Lee, D.C.; Hann, W.J.; 

Rich, T.D.; Rowland, M.M.; Murphy, W. J.; Eames, M.R. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial 

vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broadscale trends and management 

implications. Volume 1 - Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). 

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off-road 

Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Trans. 69th North Am. Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conf. 

Wildlife Management Institute. p. 531-550. 

Wood, P.J. and P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. 

Environmental Management 21(2):207-213. 

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of mule deer, 

Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all-terrain vehicle. 

The Canadian Field Naturalist 102:425-429. 

Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr. and K.E. Mayer. 1988. California’s wildlife. Volume 1. 

Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, 

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., Mayer, K.E., and M. White, editors. 1990a. California’s 

wildlife. Volume 2: birds. California statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. The 

Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

505 
Appendix G Stanislaus 

References National Forest
 

Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., Mayer, K.E., and M. White, editors. 1990b. California’s 

wildlife. Volume 3: mammals. California statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. The 

Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Zielinski W. J., Spencer W. D., and R. H. Barrett. 1983. Relationship between food habits and 

activity patterns of pine martens. J Mammal 64:387-396 

Zielinski, W.J., Kucera, T.E., and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the fisher, Martes 

pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-112. 

Zielinski, W.J., Truex, R.L., Schmidt, G., Schlexer, R., Schmidt, K.N., and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Home 

range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85:649–657. 

Zielinski W.J., Slauson K.M., and Bowles A.E. The Effect of Off-Highway Vehicle Use on the 

American Marten in California, USA. March 14, 2007. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 30 p. 

Zouhar, K. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis 

Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. 

University of California Publications in Zoology 54: 207-292. 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Holdeman, S., Forest Aquatic Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest. Personal communication, August 

11, 2009. Western pond turtle populations and habitat. 

Meyers, C., Botany Crew Lead, Stanislaus National Forest, Calaveras Ranger District. Personal 

communication, August 13, 2008. OHV disturbance, Hay Gulch; LEKEK occurrence; 

summer survey data summaries for 2007 and 2008; range allotments and sensitive plants. 

Shindelar, B., Assistant Fire Management Officer, Stanislaus National Forest. Personal 

communication, November 14, 2008. Fire history and burned acres. 

Willits, M., Botanist, Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok Ranger District. Personal communication, 

January 16, 2009. Best Management Practices; streamlining direction for Invasive Plants. 

506 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Resource Analysis Summary 

H. Resource Analysis Summary 

Each resource specialist assessed every unauthorized route proposed as an addition to the NFTS in 

any alternative at a level sufficient to support their effects analysis and identify any necessary sitespecific mitigation. Table H.01-1 presents a summary of this resource analysis with each specialist 

indicating one of the four options listed below for every route. The project record contains additional 

details. 

1.	 The route was considered; a field visit was not necessary; the effects of adding the route to the 

NFTS are acceptable (meet law, regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is assumed). 

2.	 The route was considered, a field visit was made and the effects are acceptable (meet law, 

regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is assumed). 

3.	 The route was considered, a field visit was made and site-specific mitigation is prescribed to 

reduce the effects to acceptable (meet law, regulation, and policy; routine maintenance is 

assumed). 

4.	 The route was considered, a field visit was made and a determination was made that the effects 

could not be mitigated. The route is not recommended by the specialist for inclusion. 

Table H.01-1 Resource Analysis Summary 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

22 MW 0.08 UNT ATV ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

11715A MW 0.52 UNR ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

11808B GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 

11908M GR 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 

15EV38 MW 0.60 UNT ALL ALL ALL 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 

15EV43C MW 0.69 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 

15EV43G MW 0.51 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 

15EV46 MW 0.28 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

15EV47 MW 0.63 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 

15EV47A MW 0.12 UNT ATV ATV 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 

15EV48 MW 0.64 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

15EV54 MW 0.18 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 

16E182 MW 0.27 UNT ALL ALL 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 

16E182A MW 0.19 UNT ALL ALL 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 

16E183 MW 1.26 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV01 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV101 MW 1.90 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 

16EV106 MW 1.50 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 

16EV108 MW 0.74 UNT MC MC 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 

16EV109 MW 0.61 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV109 MW 1.14 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 

16EV110 MW 1.15 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV111 MW 0.44 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 

16EV112 MW 0.17 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV115 MW 2.40 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV117 MW 0.21 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV123 MW 0.33 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV124 MW 0.15 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV133 MW 0.43 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

16EV136 MW 1.19 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV137 MW 0.45 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 

507 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H Stanislaus 

Resource Analysis Summary National Forest
 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

16EV141 MW 0.87 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 

16EV152 MW 0.33 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 

16EV152 MW 0.56 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV154 MW 1.13 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV155 MW 0.06 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 

16EV160 MW 1.31 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 

16EV176 MW 0.04 UNT MC MC MC 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV176 MW 0.50 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV177 MW 0.27 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

16EV178 MW 0.66 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV191 CAL 0.13 UNT ATV ATV ATV 2 2 1 2 4 4 1 

16EV207 MW 0.03 UNT MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV209 MW 0.14 UNT ATV 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV210 MW 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV211 MW 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV213 MW 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV222 MW 0.31 UNT MC 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 

16EV223 MW 1.35 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV229 MW 0.37 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 

16EV230 MW 0.78 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 

16EV236 MW 0.96 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV237 MW 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV240 MW 0.11 UNT MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV243 MW 0.31 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 

16EV244 MW 0.49 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV247 MW 0.68 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV248 MW 0.93 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 

16EV249 MW 0.28 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 

16EV251 MW 0.32 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 

16EV253 MW 0.89 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 

16EV254 MW 0.51 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 3 2 

16EV255 MW 0.43 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 

16EV256 MW 0.24 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV257 MW 1.46 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 

16EV257A MW 0.03 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 

16EV258 MW 0.09 UNT MC 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 

16EV258 MW 0.47 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 

16EV259 MW 0.09 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 

16EV259 MW 0.45 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 

16EV259A MW 0.17 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 

16EV262 MW 0.09 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV263 MW 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

16EV265 MW 0.12 UNT MC MC 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 

16EV266 MW 0.21 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 

16EV266A MW 0.03 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 

16EV267 MW 0.27 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV268 MW 0.38 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV269 MW 0.22 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 

16EV272 MW 0.53 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV273 MW 0.19 UNT ATV 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV292 MW 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV296 MW 0.36 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV299 MW 0.40 UNT ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV299B MW 0.26 UNT ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV302 MW 0.31 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

16EV303 MW 0.20 UNT MC MC MC 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 

508 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Resource Analysis Summary 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

16EV304 MW 0.09 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV306 MW 0.16 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

16EV318 MW 0.45 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

16EV54 MW 2.36 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 

16EV78 MW 0.19 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV79 MW 0.61 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

16EV79 MW 0.85 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 

16EV81 MW 0.54 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV101 MW 1.06 UNT MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV104 MW 0.87 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV11 MW 0.40 UNT ALL ALL 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV11 MW 0.91 UNT ALL ALL 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV117 MW 0.55 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV117 MW 0.57 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV118 MW 1.37 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 

17EV12 MW 0.83 UNT ALL 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 

17EV120 MW 0.11 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

17EV130 CAL 0.81 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV14 MW 0.74 UNT ALL ALL 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 

17EV15 MW 0.35 UNT ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV153 MW 0.25 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV153 MW 0.31 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV157 MW 0.11 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV15B MW 0.79 UNT ATV ATV 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV160 MW 0.15 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV162 MW 0.19 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV182 GR 0.02 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV183 GR 0.64 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

17EV184 GR 0.60 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

17EV192 GR 0.63 UNT ALL ALL 2 3 1 2 2 4 3 

17EV192A GR 0.06 UNT ALL ALL 2 4 1 2 2 2 3 

17EV192B GR 0.15 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 

17EV194 GR 0.39 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 

17EV195 GR 0.50 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 

17EV196 GR 0.19 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 

17EV197 GR 0.35 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 

17EV197 GR 0.46 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 

17EV197A GR 0.05 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV202 MW 0.38 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV205 MW 0.25 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV210 MW 1.09 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

17EV210A MW 0.32 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV212 MW 1.19 UNT 4WD 2 2 1 2 4 1 1 

17EV23 MW 0.47 UNT 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV231 MW 0.32 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV233 MW 0.13 UNT ATV 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 

17EV233 MW 0.25 UNT ATV 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 

17EV235 MW 0.59 UNT MC MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV236 MW 0.26 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 

17EV237 MW 0.16 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV238 MW 0.68 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV238A MW 0.29 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 

17EV239 MW 0.24 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV240 MW 0.19 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV241 MW 0.27 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV245 MW 0.07 UNT 4WD ALL 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H Stanislaus 

Resource Analysis Summary National Forest
 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

17EV249 MW 0.12 UNT 4WD ALL 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV249A MW 0.10 UNT 4WD ALL 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV254 MW 0.12 UNT ALL 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV255 MW 0.48 UNT ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV261A MW 0.07 UNT 4WD ALL 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV263 MW 0.18 UNT ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV264 MW 0.14 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV266 MW 0.26 UNT ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV267 MW 0.22 UNT 4WD ALL 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 

17EV268 MW 0.39 UNT 4WD ALL 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 

17EV275 CAL 0.01 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV275 CAL 0.02 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV278 CAL 1.06 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV279 CAL 1.08 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV28 MW 1.38 UNT ATV 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 

17EV280 CAL 0.48 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV281 MW 0.27 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV282 MW 0.10 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

17EV283 MW 0.20 UNT MC MC MC 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV289 MW 0.66 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 

17EV28A MW 0.08 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV290 MW 0.40 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV293 MW 0.79 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV297 MW 0.49 UNT ATV 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 

17EV299 MW 0.59 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 

17EV300 MW 0.23 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV303 MW 0.83 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV306 MW 0.14 UNT 4WD 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 

17EV307 CAL 0.09 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV317 GR 0.06 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 

17EV318 GR 0.13 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV319 GR 0.21 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV320 GR 0.13 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV321 GR 0.05 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 

17EV322 GR 0.04 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV323 GR 0.03 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV324 GR 0.03 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV325 GR 0.03 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV326 GR 0.02 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV327 GR 0.17 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 

17EV328 GR 0.06 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV329 GR 0.05 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 

17EV330 GR 0.10 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV331 GR 0.11 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV332 GR 0.05 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 

17EV34 MW 0.27 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV37 MW 0.93 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV45 MW 1.68 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV50 MW 2.27 UNT ATV 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV51 MW 0.84 UNT ATV 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 

17EV51 MW 3.06 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 

17EV53 MW 2.97 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV54 MW 0.50 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV58 MW 1.19 UNT ALL ALL 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV60 MW 0.51 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV60 MW 0.55 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

510 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Resource Analysis Summary 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

17EV67 MW 0.28 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 

17EV67A MW 0.36 UNT ATV ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 

17EV71 MW 1.14 UNT ATV ATV 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 

17EV75 MW 0.46 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 

17EV78 MW 0.30 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV79 MW 1.29 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV80 MW 0.23 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 

17EV85 MW 2.01 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

17EV88 MW 1.53 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

17EV901 GR 0.37 UNT ALL ALL 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 

17EV91 MW 1.03 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV100 MW 0.08 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 

18EV100 MW 0.31 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 

18EV101A MW 0.17 UNT ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV101B MW 0.53 UNT ATV 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 

18EV105 MW 0.69 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 

18EV106 MW 0.41 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 

18EV110 MW 1.33 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV133 MW 0.35 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

18EV134 MW 3.19 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

18EV170 MW 1.13 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV170 MW 1.69 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV257 MW 0.18 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV258 MW 0.57 UNT ATV ATV 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV259 MW 0.48 UNT ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

18EV260 MW 0.28 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV268 GR 0.51 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

18EV269 GR 0.16 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV270 MW 0.36 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV271 MW 0.67 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV275 MW 0.31 UNT ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV276 MW 0.10 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 

18EV277 MW 0.09 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV278 MW 0.60 UNT MC 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 

18EV281 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV282 MW 0.15 UNT MC MC MC 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 

18EV283 MW 0.28 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 

18EV284 MW 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

18EV286 CAL 0.39 UNT ATV ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV287 CAL 1.34 UNT ALL ALL 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV288 CAL 1.96 UNT MC MC 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 

18EV289 CAL 0.53 UNT 4WD 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV292 CAL 0.08 UNT 4WD ALL 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV293 CAL 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV295 CAL 0.30 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV295A CAL 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV297 CAL 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV298 CAL 0.18 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV299 CAL 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV300 CAL 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV301 CAL 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV303 CAL 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV304 MW 0.13 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV304 MW 0.19 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV308 MW 0.12 UNT ALL ALL 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 

18EV309 MW 0.04 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 

511 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H Stanislaus 

Resource Analysis Summary National Forest
 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

18EV310 MW 0.56 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 

18EV34 MW 0.65 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV34 GR 1.27 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV51 MW 0.54 UNT ATV 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 

18EV56 MW 1.38 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

18EV57 MW 0.86 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

18EV63 MW 0.26 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

18EV67 MW 1.68 UNT MC MC 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 

18EV70 MW 0.68 UNT MC MC 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

18EV77 MW 1.54 UNT MC MC 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 

18EV88 MW 0.03 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 

18EV88 MW 0.70 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 

18EV90 MW 0.81 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

18EV91 MW 0.33 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 

18EV94 MW 0.17 UNT ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

18EV95 MW 0.33 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 

19EV100 MW 1.08 UNT ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 

19EV101 MW 0.57 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

19EV110 CAL 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

19EV111 CAL 0.32 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

19EV111A CAL 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

19EV112 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

19EV113 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

19EV29 MW 0.47 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 

1N1829 GR 0.08 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1727 GR 0.87 UNT ATV ATV 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 

1S1728 GR 0.47 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 4 2 4 4 1 

1S1734A GR 0.86 UNT 4WD 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 

1S1736 GR 0.46 UNT ATV ATV 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 

1S17E35B GR 0.34 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 

1S17M GR 1.13 UNT ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 

1S1811 GR 0.56 UNT 4WD 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 

1S1822B GR 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

1S1822C GR 0.31 UNT 4WD 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 

1S1824 GR 0.36 UNT ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1902 GR 0.24 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

1S1907A GR 0.39 UNT 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1909 GR 0.25 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1913 GR 0.72 UNT ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1920 GR 0.81 UNT ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1929 GR 0.15 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1929C GR 0.19 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

1S1930 GR 1.69 UNT ATV ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

1S1933 GR 0.37 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 

20EV100 CAL 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 

20EV101A CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 

21703A MW 0.08 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

21703C MW 0.52 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

21704A MW 0.39 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

21704B MW 0.21 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

21711G MW 0.70 UNR ATV 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 

21711J MW 0.28 UNR ATV 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

2N1820 GR 0.34 UNT ALL ALL 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 

2N1905 GR 0.25 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

2S1804 GR 0.94 UNT ATV ATV 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 

2S1906 GR 0.42 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 

512 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Resource Analysis Summary 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

31614C MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 

31623G MW 0.41 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

31734B MW 0.09 UNT ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

31736A MW 0.17 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

31818G MW 0.15 UNR ATV ATV 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 

31821C MW 0.20 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 

31821H MW 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 4 4 1 1 

41735B MW 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

61602E CAL 0.23 UNR 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

EV14835 MW 0.19 UNT MC 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 

EV681 MW 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 

FR10176 CAL 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR10178 GR 0.64 UNR 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 

FR10200 GR 0.37 UNT ALL 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 

FR12319 MW 0.51 UNR ATV 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 

FR12319 MW 0.55 UNR ATV 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 

FR13563 MW 0.05 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR14617 CAL 0.04 UNT ALL ALL ALL 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR14721 GR 0.12 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 

FR15091 MW 0.34 UNR ATV 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 

FR15091 MW 0.47 UNR ATV 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 

FR4688 GR 0.73 UNR ALL ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

FR5540 GR 0.47 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR6468 GR 0.02 UNR ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR6468 GR 0.04 UNR ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR6468 GR 0.18 UNR ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR6550 GR 2.27 UNR ALL ALL 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

FR8165 GR 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR83630 GR 0.21 UNR ALL 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

FR8437 CAL 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR8472 GR 0.18 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR8516 GR 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 

FR8601 GR 0.47 UNR 4WD 4WD 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 

FR8762 GR 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR8784 CAL 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR8843 GR 0.86 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 

FR8986 GR 0.32 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR9084 CAL 0.17 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR9090 CAL 0.11 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR9140 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR9359 GR 0.13 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR9438 CAL 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 

FR9439 CAL 0.16 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR9440 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR9441 CAL 0.18 UNT 4WD 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 

FR9501 CAL 0.09 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98472 GR 0.67 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 

FR98476 GR 0.50 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 

FR98477 GR 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98479 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

FR98481 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 4 1 2 1 1 3 

FR98482 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98483 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98484 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98485 GR 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98486 GR 0.21 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 

513 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H Stanislaus 

Resource Analysis Summary National Forest
 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

FR98491 GR 0.19 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 

FR98492 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98493 GR 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98494 GR 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98496 GR 0.28 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98501 GR 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98502 GR 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98503 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98504 GR 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98506 GR 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98507 GR 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98508 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 

FR98509 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 

FR98510 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 

FR98511 GR 0.15 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 

FR98513 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 

FR98514 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 

FR98515 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98520 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98522 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98523 GR 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98524 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98529 GR 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98530 GR 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98531 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98533 GR 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98535 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 

FR98537 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98538 GR 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98539 GR 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98540 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98541 GR 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98544 GR 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98545 GR 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98546 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98547 GR 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98548 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98549 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98550 GR 0.17 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 

FR98551 GR 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98552 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98553 GR 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98554 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98555 GR 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98560 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98563 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98566 GR 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 

FR98575 GR 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 

FR98577 GR 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98580 GR 0.13 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 

FR98581 GR 0.11 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98582 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98583 GR 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98584 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98585 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98586 GR 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

514 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Resource Analysis Summary 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

FR98587 GR 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 

FR98590 MW 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98592 GR 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 

FR98593 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98596 MW 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98597 MW 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98598 MW 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98599 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR98601 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98602 MW 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98603 MW 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98604 MW 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR98607 CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98608 MW 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98609 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98612 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98616 MW 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98617 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98618 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98619 MW 0.11 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 

FR98620 MW 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98622 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98623 CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98624 CAL 0.20 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98625 CAL 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98627 CAL 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98630 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98631 CAL 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98633 CAL 0.10 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98634 CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98636 CAL 0.11 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98637 CAL 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98638 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98639 CAL 0.14 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98643 CAL 0.08 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98644 CAL 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98646 CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98647 CAL 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98660 CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98661 CAL 0.12 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98662 CAL 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98663 CAL 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98670 GR 0.20 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98671 GR 0.09 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98672 GR 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR98674 GR 0.06 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98675 GR 0.06 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98676 GR 0.06 UNR 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98679 MW 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 

FR98680 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 

FR98682 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR98683 MW 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR98685 MW 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98686 MW 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98688 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98689 MW 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 

515 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H Stanislaus 

Resource Analysis Summary National Forest
 

Route RD MI SYS Alternative Site Specific Review 

1 2 3 4 5 BOT CR GEO REC SOIL WAT WLF 

FR98690 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 

FR98691 MW 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 

FR98692 MW 0.07 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 

FR98693 MW 0.01 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 

FR98694 MW 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98695 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98696 MW 0.03 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98697 MW 0.12 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98699 MW 0.05 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 

FR98700 MW 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

FR98701 MW 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 

FR98702 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98703 MW 0.06 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98704 MW 0.15 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 4 1 3 4 4 1 

FR98705 MW 0.04 UNT 4WD 4WD 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98707 MW 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

FR98708 MW 0.02 UNT 4WD 4WD 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

Legend 

4WD 4 Wheel Drive 

ADM Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use) 

ALL All Vehicles 

ATV ATV (open to ATV and Motorcycle) 

BOT Botany 

CAL Calaveras 

CR Cultural Resources 

GEO Geology 

GR Groveland 

MC Motorcycle 

MI Miles 

MW Mi-Wok 

RD Ranger District 

REC Recreation 

SYS System (National Forest System) 

UNT Unauthorized Trail 

UNR Unauthorized Road 

WLF Wildlife and Fish 

516 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

I. Route Data 

The action alternatives consider a number of additions to the NFTS and changes to the existing 

NFTS. This appendix shows the route data listing of all additions and changes considered in an 

alternative. The route data identifies: 

- the alternative(s) under which the additions or change to the existing NFTS is proposed; 

- the type of vehicles allowed; 

- season when the route would be open; and, 

- mitigation measures and other requirements that would be implemented on the route prior to 

publication on a MVUM and allowing public use (see Appendix F, Maintenance and 

Mitigation Definitions). 

I.01 ADDITIONS TO THE NFTS 

Table I.01-1 lists the vehicle class, season of use (SEA) and mitigations/requirements for the 

additions to the NFTS proposed in one or more of the action alternatives. 

Table I.01-1 Additions to the NFTS: Vehicle Class, Season of Use and Mitigations 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

22 MW 0.08 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 

11715A MW 0.52 MAP UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

11808B GR 0.03 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 SHPO consultation; tread harden 

wet area 100' MP 0.01-0.03 

11908M GR 0.13 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 

15EV38 MW 0.60 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4754 Columbia SE 2 rock barriers 50' at base of 

incline; waterbars 3200' 

15EV43C MW 0.69 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 1 annual maintenance 

15EV43G MW 0.51 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4753 Columbia 1 hardened drain dips > 15% grade 

1800' and drain dips remainder. 

15EV46 MW 0.28 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4754 Columbia SE 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25%% grade 500' and 

drain dips remainder 

15EV47 MW 0.63 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4754 Columbia SE 2 annual maintenance 

15EV47A MW 0.12 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4754 Columbia SE 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 200' and 

drain dips remainder 

15EV48 MW 0.64 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4754 Columbia SE 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 1000' and 

drain dips remainder 

15EV54 MW 0.18 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4754 Columbia SE 2 hardened drain dips > 15% grade 

200' and drain dips remainder 

16E182 MW 0.27 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 drain dips 925' MP 0.0-0.175; 

drain dips 700' from 16E182A to 

end 

16E182A MW 0.19 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 drain dips 400' MP 0.025-0.1; 

rock barriers 40' to block access 

beyond the corral 

16E183 MW 1.26 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4743 Twain Harte 3 

16EV01 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 drain dips 245' 

16EV101 MW 1.90 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden 300' MP 0.4 to 0.45; 

hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 300' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV106 MW 1.50 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden 3 sections 230' MP 

0.8-0.85, 1.0-1.05, and 1.4-1.45 

517 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

16EV108 MW 0.74 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 rock barriers 50' at base of hill 

climb; tread harden 260' MP 

0.525-0.575; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden >20% grade 

700' and drain dips remainder 

16EV109 MW 0.61 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 900' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV109 MW 1.14 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV110 MW 1.15 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV111 MW 0.44 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden 150' MP 0.05-0.1; 

hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 150' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV112 MW 0.17 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 drain dips 900' 

16EV115 MW 2.40 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden 260' MP 0.75-0.8 

16EV117 MW 0.21 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV123 MW 0.33 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV124 MW 0.15 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV133 MW 0.43 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 drain dips 2200' 

16EV136 MW 1.19 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 600' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV137 MW 0.45 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden 2 sections 240' MP 

0.19-0.23 and 0.25-0.26; 

hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV141 MW 0.87 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

20' MP 0.55; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden >20% grade 

200' and drain dips on remainder; 

tread harden crossing 15' each 

side of channel 

16EV152 MW 0.33 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV152 MW 0.56 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV154 MW 1.13 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV155 MW 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV160 MW 1.31 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden 70' MP 0.25; tread 

harden ephemeral drainage 5 

sections 195' total; boardwalk 10' 

16EV176 MW 0.04 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 drain dips 2600' 

16EV176 MW 0.50 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV177 MW 0.27 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 drain dips 1400' 

16EV178 MW 0.66 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV191 CAL 0.13 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

16EV207 MW 0.03 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4754 Columbia SE 2 

16EV209 MW 0.14 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 rock barriers 740' along creek at 

occurrence 

16EV210 MW 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV211 MW 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV213 MW 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV222 MW 0.31 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

40' MP 0.06; tread harden 425' 

MP 0.12-0.23; drain dips 880' MP 

0.06-0.23; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden 425' and drain 

dips remainder 

16EV223 MW 1.35 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 700' and 

drain dips remainder 

518 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

16EV229 MW 0.37 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

60' MP 0.37; tread harden 2 

sections 500' MP 0.075-0.125 

and 0.225-0.275; hardened drain 

dips and tread harden >20% 

grade 700' and drain dips 

remainder 

16EV230 MW 0.78 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

3 sections 165' MP 0.0, 0.4, and 

0.525; tread harden 2 sections 

300' MP 0.01-0.05 and 0.35-0.4; 

hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 800' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV236 MW 0.96 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV237 MW 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV240 MW 0.11 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV243 MW 0.31 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 padding 60' x 3' 

16EV244 MW 0.49 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV247 MW 0.68 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV248 MW 0.93 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden 2 sections 1850' 

MP 0.2-0.25 and 0.4-0.7 

16EV249 MW 0.28 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden 160' MP 0.21-0.24 

16EV251 MW 0.32 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden 240' MP 0.21-0.27 

16EV253 MW 0.89 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden 2 sections 320' MP 

0.32-0.34 and 0.5-0.54 

16EV254 MW 0.51 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral 

drainage; 2 sections 120' MP 0.3 

and 0.38.; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden >20% grade 

800' and drain dips remainder; 

drain dips 50' MP 0.375 on left 

approach looking upstream 

16EV255 MW 0.43 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

40' MP 0.18; tread harden 135' 

MP 0.35-0.375.; hardened drain 

dips and tread harden >20% 

grade 400' and drain dips 

remainder 

16EV256 MW 0.24 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV257 MW 1.46 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV257A MW 0.03 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV258 MW 0.09 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV258 MW 0.47 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral 

drainage; 2 sections 110' total. 

MP 0.01 and 0.2. 

16EV259 MW 0.09 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV259 MW 0.45 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV259A MW 0.17 MAP UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 padding 300' x 4' 

16EV262 MW 0.09 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV263 MW 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV265 MW 0.12 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 rock barriers 182' along 

occurrence; tread harden Deer 

Creek 75' MP 0.025 

16EV266 MW 0.21 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 padding 300' x 4'; barriers (rock, 

log or fence) 30' 

16EV266A MW 0.03 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 OHV cattleguard on existing 

fence line MP 0.02 

16EV267 MW 0.27 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 300' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV268 MW 0.38 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV269 MW 0.22 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

50' 

16EV272 MW 0.53 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

519 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

16EV273 MW 0.19 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 low impact barriers 100' each 

side 

16EV292 MW 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV296 MW 0.36 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV299 MW 0.40 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4743 Twain Harte 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 800' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV299B MW 0.26 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4743 Twain Harte 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 200' and 

drain dips remainder 

16EV302 MW 0.31 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV303 MW 0.20 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV304 MW 0.09 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV306 MW 0.16 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV318 MW 0.45 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

600' and drain dips remainder 

16EV54 MW 2.36 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

9 sections 500' MP 0.3, 0.55, 

0.78, 1.1, 1.28, 1.5, 1.88, 2.0, 

2.1, 2.23, and 2.43. tread harden 

260' MP 0.275-0.325; drain dip at 

MP 2.1; tread harden 10' above 

drain dip 

16EV78 MW 0.19 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV79 MW 0.61 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

16EV79 MW 0.85 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

16EV81 MW 0.54 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 low impact barriers 2850' each 

side 

17EV101 MW 1.06 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 barriers (rock, log or fence) 40' 

MP 0.12; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden >20% grade 

700' and drain dips remainder 

17EV104 MW 0.87 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV11 MW 0.40 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 drain dips 2500' 

17EV11 MW 0.91 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV117 MW 0.55 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV117 MW 0.57 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV118 MW 1.37 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

15' MP 0.52; tread harden 100' 

MP 0.52-0.54; hardened drain 

dips and tread harden >20% 

grade 1000' and drain dips 

remainder 

17EV12 MW 0.83 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV120 MW 0.11 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV130 CAL 0.81 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4911 Tamarack 3 low impact barriers 300' north 

side; hardened drain dips and 

tread harden >20% grade 700' 

and drain dips remainder 

17EV14 MW 0.74 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 250' each 

side; tread harden ephemeral 

drainage 3 sections 600' MP 

1.19, 1.2, and 1.28; tread harden 

segment 1 spring crossing with 

rock ballast; tread harden 

segment 2 stream crossing and 

approaches 20' either side 

17EV15 MW 0.35 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV153 MW 0.25 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV153 MW 0.31 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV157 MW 0.11 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV15B MW 0.79 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 50' each side 

17EV160 MW 0.15 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV162 MW 0.19 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

520 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

17EV182 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

17EV183 GR 0.64 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

1000' and drain dips remainder 

17EV184 GR 0.60 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 drain dips 3000' 

17EV192 GR 0.63 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 low impact barriers 100' each 

side; RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys; tread harden stream 

crossings 

17EV192A GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 SHPO consultation; RLF: 

USFWS consultation; surveys 

17EV192B GR 0.15 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys; tread harden stream 

crossings 

17EV194 GR 0.39 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys; tread harden stream 

crossings 

17EV195 GR 0.50 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF surveys 

17EV196 GR 0.19 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF surveys 

17EV197 GR 0.35 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

20' MP 0.28; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden >25% grade 

100' and drain dips remainder; 

RLF surveys 

17EV197 GR 0.46 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

30' MP 0.01; hardened drain dips 

and tread harden >25% grade 

100' and drain dips remainder; 

drain dips 135' on left (looking 

upstream) approach to channel; 

RLF surveys 

17EV197A GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV202 MW 0.38 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV205 MW 0.25 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte 3 annual maintenance 

17EV210 MW 1.09 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 700' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV210A MW 0.32 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV212 MW 1.19 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV23 MW 0.47 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV231 MW 0.32 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

17EV233 MW 0.13 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden stream approaches 

100' each side of drainage 

17EV233 MW 0.25 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV235 MW 0.59 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

30' MP 0.2 

17EV236 MW 0.26 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV237 MW 0.16 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

17EV238 MW 0.68 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV238A MW 0.29 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV239 MW 0.24 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV240 MW 0.19 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV241 MW 0.27 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV245 MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV249 MW 0.12 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 SHPO consultation; hardened 

drain dips >15% grade 500' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV249A MW 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 SHPO consultation 

17EV254 MW 0.12 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV255 MW 0.48 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4741 Strawberry 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 500' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV261A MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

521 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

17EV263 MW 0.18 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV264 MW 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV266 MW 0.26 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV267 MW 0.22 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 SHPO consultation 

17EV268 MW 0.39 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 SHPO consultation; barriers 

(rock, log or fence) 1200' MP 

0.16-0.39; rock barriers 20' at 

lower route 

17EV275 CAL 0.01 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 

17EV275 CAL 0.02 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4911 Tamarack 3 

17EV278 CAL 1.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4911 Tamarack 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV279 CAL 1.08 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4911 Tamarack 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 500' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV28 MW 1.38 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

3 sections 200' MP 0.13, 0.64, 

and 1.3; hardened drain dips and 

tread harden >20% grade 800' 

and drain dips remainder; tread 

harden crossing and approaches 

for 15' on either side Camp 25 

Mile Creek; tread harden 

approaches for 15' on either side 

of Two Mile Creek; drain dips 

100' on steep slopes leading to 

Two Mile Creek 

17EV280 CAL 0.48 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4911 Tamarack 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV281 MW 0.27 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV282 MW 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV283 MW 0.20 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4741 Strawberry 2 

17EV289 MW 0.66 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte 3 

17EV28A MW 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV290 MW 0.40 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV293 MW 0.79 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV297 MW 0.49 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

2 sections 330' MP 0.75 and 0.23 

17EV299 MW 0.59 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV300 MW 0.23 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV303 MW 0.83 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV306 MW 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 3 

17EV307 CAL 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

17EV317 GR 0.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV318 GR 0.13 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV319 GR 0.21 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV320 GR 0.13 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV321 GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV322 GR 0.04 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV323 GR 0.03 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV324 GR 0.03 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV325 GR 0.03 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV326 GR 0.02 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV327 GR 0.17 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 700' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV328 GR 0.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV329 GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 tread harden wet seep/spring 

150' MP 0.025 

17EV330 GR 0.10 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

17EV331 GR 0.11 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

522 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

17EV332 GR 0.05 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 tread harden 265' MP 0.0-0.05 

17EV34 MW 0.27 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV37 MW 0.93 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV45 MW 1.68 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV50 MW 2.27 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 700' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV51 MW 0.84 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

30' MP 0.627 

17EV51 MW 3.06 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV53 MW 2.97 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV54 MW 0.50 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV58 MW 1.19 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV60 MW 0.51 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV60 MW 0.55 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV67 MW 0.28 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

40' MP 0.17 (Wrights Creek) 

17EV67A MW 0.36 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV71 MW 1.14 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4743 Twain Harte 3 tread harden 20' (seep/spring 

area) MP 0.7 

17EV75 MW 0.46 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder 

17EV78 MW 0.30 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV79 MW 1.29 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV80 MW 0.23 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

40' MP 0.19 (Wrights Cr) 

17EV85 MW 2.01 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV88 MW 1.53 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

17EV901 GR 0.37 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 low impact barriers 100' each 

side; drain dips 480' MP 0.16­

0.25; hardened drain dips >15% 

grade 1000' and drain dips 

remainder 

17EV91 MW 1.03 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV100 MW 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 barriers (rock, log or fence) 100' 

prior to Trout Creek; drain dips 

200' to west of 31820G 

18EV100 MW 0.31 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV101A MW 0.17 GPS UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV101B MW 0.53 GPS UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

30' MP 0.13 

18EV105 MW 0.69 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 No Vehicles signs 100' each 

side; tread harden ephemeral 

drainage 60' MP 0.1; tread 

harden crossing and approaches 

20' each side of intermittent 

tributary to Trout Creek 

18EV106 MW 0.41 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV110 MW 1.33 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV133 MW 0.35 INV UNT ALL NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

200' and drain dips remainder 

18EV134 MW 3.19 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

500' and drain dips remainder 

18EV170 MW 1.13 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV170 MW 1.69 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV257 MW 0.18 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV258 MW 0.57 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 360' each 

side MP 0.0-0.05 (3N56Y to 

3N56YA) 

18EV259 MW 0.48 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

18EV260 MW 0.28 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

523 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

18EV268 GR 0.51 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 200' and 

drain dips remainder 

18EV269 GR 0.16 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

18EV270 MW 0.36 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4732 Pinecrest 3 

18EV271 MW 0.67 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4732 Pinecrest 3 

18EV275 MW 0.31 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL 4741 Strawberry 3 

18EV276 MW 0.10 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 barriers (rock, log or fence) 20' 

MP 0.1 

18EV277 MW 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV278 MW 0.60 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4732 Pinecrest 3 

18EV281 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 SHPO consultation 

18EV282 MW 0.15 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC MC 4732 Pinecrest 3 drain dips 800' 

18EV283 MW 0.28 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 

18EV284 MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 

18EV286 CAL 0.39 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV ATV 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV287 CAL 1.34 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV288 CAL 1.96 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4911 Tamarack 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 300' and 

drain dips remainder; tread 

harden approaches to 15' each 

side crossing 2; replace fill over 

culverts at crossing 6 

18EV289 CAL 0.53 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV292 CAL 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD ALL 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV293 CAL 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV295 CAL 0.30 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV295A CAL 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

18EV297 CAL 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

18EV298 CAL 0.18 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

18EV299 CAL 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

18EV300 CAL 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

18EV301 CAL 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

18EV303 CAL 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

18EV304 MW 0.13 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV304 MW 0.19 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV308 MW 0.12 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 30' south side 

MP 0.04, block just before creek; 

tread harden ephemeral drainage 

2 sections 155' MP 0.003 and 

0.125 

18EV309 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden drainage (Hull Cr) 

60' MP 0.028. 

18EV310 MW 0.56 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

350' MP 0.06 and 0.12; rock 

barriers 30' MP 0.30 to block 

access 

18EV34 MW 0.65 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV34 GR 1.27 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV51 MW 0.54 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 100' north 

side; drain dips 3500' 

18EV56 MW 1.38 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 500' and 

drain dips remainder 

18EV57 MW 0.86 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 500' and 

drain dips remainder 

18EV63 MW 0.26 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

524 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

18EV67 MW 1.68 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers and No 

Vehicle signs 50' each side; tread 

harden ephemeral drainage 2 

sections 60' MP 0.35 and 0.8; 

barriers (rock, log or fence) 700' 

MP 1.26-1.39 

18EV70 MW 0.68 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV77 MW 1.54 INV UNT MC NAT MC MC 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 300' and 

drain dips remainder 

18EV88 MW 0.03 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV88 MW 0.70 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

(Rush Cr) 60' MP 0.25.; drain 

dips 130' on left (looking 

upstream) approach to channel 

18EV90 MW 0.81 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV91 MW 0.33 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

50' MP 0.07; hardened drain dips 

>15% grade 900' and drain dips 

remainder 

18EV94 MW 0.17 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

18EV95 MW 0.33 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden ephemeral drainage 

75' MP 0.01; tread harden Trout 

Creek crossing 80' MP 0.28; 

drain dips 1750' 

19EV100 MW 1.08 INV UNT ALL NAT ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

19EV101 MW 0.57 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

600' and drain dips remainder 

19EV110 CAL 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

19EV111 CAL 0.32 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

19EV111A CAL 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

19EV112 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

19EV113 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

19EV29 MW 0.47 INV UNT ATV NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 

1N1829 GR 0.08 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 

1S1727 GR 0.87 UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 low impact barriers 100' north 

side; hardened drain dips and 

tread harden >25% grade 600' 

and drain dips remainder 

1S1728 GR 0.47 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

1S1734A GR 0.86 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

1300' and drain dips remainder; 

RLF surveys 

1S1736 GR 0.46 MAP UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 low impact barriers 1300' each 

side; hardened drain dips and 

tread harden >25% grade 400' 

and drain dips remainder 

1S17E35B GR 0.34 INV UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >25% grade 400' and 

drain dips remainder; RLF 

surveys 

1S17M GR 1.13 MAP UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys; tread harden stream 

crossings 

1S1811 GR 0.56 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 3 

1S1822B GR 0.05 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

1S1822C GR 0.31 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

500' and drain dips remainder 

1S1824 GR 0.36 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

1S1902 GR 0.24 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4561 Lake Eleanor 2 

1S1907A GR 0.39 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 SHPO consultation 

1S1909 GR 0.25 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

1S1913 GR 0.72 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

1S1920 GR 0.81 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

525 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

1S1929 GR 0.15 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

1S1929C GR 0.19 GIS UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

1S1930 GR 1.69 MAP UNT ALL NAT ATV ATV ATV 4563 Ascension Mt 2 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

600' and drain dips remainder 

1S1933 GR 0.37 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 low impact barriers and No 

Vehicles signs 500' each side 

20EV100 CAL 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 rock barriers 30' MP 0.08 to block 

access 

20EV101A CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

21703A MW 0.08 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

21703C MW 0.52 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

21704A MW 0.39 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

21704B MW 0.21 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

21711G MW 0.70 GIS UNR ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden MP 0.45-0.6; tread 

harden crossing and approaches 

20' each side Milk Ranch Spring 

drainage 

21711J MW 0.28 GIS UNR ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

2N1820 GR 0.34 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 tread harden Reed Creek 

crossing 125' MP 0.25-0.27 

2N1905 GR 0.25 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

600' and drain dips remainder 

2S1804 GR 0.94 MAP UNT ATV NAT ATV ATV 4563 Ascension Mt 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden 1 sect 1375' MP 0.68­

0.94 

2S1906 GR 0.42 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

500' and drain dips remainder 

31614C MW 0.05 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 barriers (rock, log or fence) 150' 

MP 0.05 

31623G MW 0.41 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

31734B MW 0.09 GIS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

31736A MW 0.17 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

31818G MW 0.15 GIS UNR ATV NAT ATV ATV 4741 Strawberry 3 drain dips 800' 

31821C MW 0.20 GIS UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 barriers (rock, log or fence) 20' 

MP 0.12; hardened drain dips 

>15% grade 400' and drain dips 

remainder 

31821H MW 0.10 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

41735B MW 0.06 GIS UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 3 

61602E CAL 0.23 GIS UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

EV14835 MW 0.19 INV UNT MC NAT MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

EV681 MW 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4732 Pinecrest 3 

FR10176 CAL 0.09 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR10178 GR 0.64 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 RLF surveys 

FR10200 GR 0.37 MAP UNT ALL NAT ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 waterbars 2000' 

FR12319 MW 0.51 MAP UNR MC NAT ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 300' and 

drain dips remainder 

FR12319 MW 0.55 MAP UNR MC NAT ATV 4743 Twain Harte 2 hardened drain dips and tread 

harden >20% grade 300' and 

drain dips remainder 

FR13563 MW 0.05 GPS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR14617 CAL 0.04 GPS UNT ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR14721 GR 0.12 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR15091 MW 0.34 GPS UNR ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 50' each side 

FR15091 MW 0.47 GPS UNR ATV NAT ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 low impact barriers 50' each side; 

tread harden drainage 4 sections 

190' MP .002, 0.325, 0.35, and 

0.8; improve trail tread bench at 

Brushy and Camp 25 creeks to 

improve safety 600' for ATV use 

MP 0.35 and 0.8 

FR4688 GR 0.73 MAP UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

526 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR5540 GR 0.47 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR6468 GR 0.02 MAP UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR6468 GR 0.04 MAP UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR6468 GR 0.18 MAP UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR6550 GR 2.27 MAP UNR ALL NAT ALL ALL 4573 Groveland 1 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

1400' and drain dips remainder 

FR8165 GR 0.05 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR83630 GR 0.21 INV UNR ALL NAT ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR8437 CAL 0.13 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

FR8472 GR 0.18 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

FR8516 GR 0.05 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 RLF surveys 

FR8601 GR 0.47 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 low impact barriers 200' each 

side 

FR8762 GR 0.13 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR8784 CAL 0.07 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

FR8843 GR 0.86 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

FR8986 GR 0.32 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR9084 CAL 0.17 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

FR9090 CAL 0.11 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR9140 GR 0.04 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR9359 GR 0.13 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR9438 CAL 0.10 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 drain dips 75' at pull-out parking 

FR9439 CAL 0.16 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

FR9440 CAL 0.04 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

FR9441 CAL 0.18 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 segment 2: rock barriers 300' 

between trail and Silver Creek; 

rock barriers 20' at high water 

line of North Fork Diversion 

FR9501 CAL 0.09 MAP UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR98472 GR 0.67 MAP UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR98476 GR 0.50 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4381 El Portal 2 hardened drain dips >15% grade 

500' and drain dips remainder 

FR98477 GR 0.13 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4381 El Portal 2 

FR98479 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4381 El Portal 2 

FR98481 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 SHPO consultation; RLF surveys 

FR98482 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98483 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 

FR98484 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 2 

FR98485 GR 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

FR98486 GR 0.21 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 2 

FR98491 GR 0.19 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR98492 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR98493 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98494 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98496 GR 0.28 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98501 GR 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98502 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98503 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98504 GR 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98506 GR 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98507 GR 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98508 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys 

FR98509 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys 

FR98510 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys 

FR98511 GR 0.15 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys 

FR98513 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys 

527 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR98514 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys; tread harden stream 

crossings 

FR98515 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 

FR98520 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 

FR98522 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98523 GR 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98524 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98529 GR 0.13 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98530 GR 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98531 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98533 GR 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98535 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 drain dips 180' MP 0.0-0.03 

FR98537 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98538 GR 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98539 GR 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98540 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4561 Lake Eleanor 2 

FR98541 GR 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98544 GR 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 3 

FR98545 GR 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

FR98546 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98547 GR 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98548 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

FR98549 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR98550 GR 0.17 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR98551 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4381 El Portal 2 

FR98552 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98553 GR 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 2 

FR98554 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4382 Kinsley 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98555 GR 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR98560 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

FR98563 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 1 

FR98566 GR 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 RLF: USFWS consultation; 

surveys 

FR98575 GR 0.13 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4573 Groveland 1 drain dips 680'; RLF: USFWS 

consultation; surveys 

FR98577 GR 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4561 Lake Eleanor 2 

FR98580 GR 0.13 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98581 GR 0.11 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98582 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98583 GR 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98584 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98585 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98586 GR 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98587 GR 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98590 MW 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

FR98592 GR 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 drain dips last 1000' 

FR98593 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98596 MW 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98597 MW 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98598 MW 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98599 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98601 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98602 MW 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98603 MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 No Vehicles signs 100' each side 

FR98604 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98607 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4924 Dorrington 3 

FR98608 MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

FR98609 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 3 

528 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR98612 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98616 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

FR98617 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 2 

FR98618 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 2 

FR98619 MW 0.11 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 2 

FR98620 MW 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 2 

FR98622 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

FR98623 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

FR98624 CAL 0.20 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

FR98625 CAL 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

FR98627 CAL 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

FR98630 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

FR98631 CAL 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

FR98633 CAL 0.10 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4921 Garnet Hill 3 

FR98634 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4921 Garnet Hill 3 

FR98636 CAL 0.11 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR98637 CAL 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR98638 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR98639 CAL 0.14 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR98643 CAL 0.08 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR98644 CAL 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR98646 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR98647 CAL 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR98660 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR98661 CAL 0.12 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR98662 CAL 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

FR98663 CAL 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

FR98670 GR 0.20 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR98671 GR 0.09 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98672 GR 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98674 GR 0.06 INV UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98675 GR 0.06 INV UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

FR98676 GR 0.06 INV UNR ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

FR98679 MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 1 barriers (rock, log or fence) 200' 

MP 0.07 

FR98680 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4754 Columbia SE 1 barriers (rock, log or fence) 100' 

MP 0.04 

FR98682 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

FR98683 MW 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

FR98685 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

FR98686 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

FR98688 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

FR98689 MW 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

FR98690 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 SHPO consultation 

FR98691 MW 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 SHPO consultation; barriers 

(rock, log or fence) 320' MP 0.0­

0.06; rock barrier 20' at end of 

route before intermittent tributary 

to South Fork Stanislaus River 

FR98692 MW 0.07 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 barriers (rock, log or fence) 350' 

MP 0.0-0.07 

FR98693 MW 0.01 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 barriers (rock, log or fence) 200' 

MP 0.01 

FR98694 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 1 

FR98695 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

FR98696 MW 0.03 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

FR98697 MW 0.12 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak 2 barriers (rock, log or fence) 50' 

MP 0.12 

FR98699 MW 0.05 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 barriers (rock, log or fence) 75' 

MP 0.05 

FR98700 MW 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

529 
 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR98701 MW 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

FR98702 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

FR98703 MW 0.06 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

FR98704 MW 0.15 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 SHPO consultation; barriers 

(rock, log or fence) 160' MP 0.0­

0.03 

FR98705 MW 0.04 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4743 Twain Harte 2 

FR98707 MW 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4744 Hull Creek 2 

FR98708 MW 0.02 INV UNT ALL NAT 4WD 4WD 4741 Strawberry 2 

 Legend 

4WD 4 Wheel Drive 

ADM Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use) 

ALL All Vehicles 

ATV ATV (open to ATV and Motorcycle) 

CAL Calaveras 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GR Groveland 

INV Inventory 

MC Motorcycle 

MI Miles 

MW Mi-Wok 

NAT Native Material 

RD Ranger District 

SEA Season of Use 

Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

1 year-round year-round year-round 

2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

SRC Source 

SUR Surface 

SYS System (National Forest System) 

UNR Unauthorized Road 

UNT Unauthorized Trail 

530 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

I.02 CHANGES TO THE EXISTING NFTS: VEHICLE CLASS
 

Table I.01-2 lists the vehicle class, season of use (SEA) and mitigations/requirements for the existing 

NFTS with vehicle class changes proposed in one or more of the action alternatives. 

Table I.02-1 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Vehicle Class, Season of Use and Mitigations 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

01N01 MW 0.02 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4572 Tuolumne 1 mixed use signing 

01N01 GR 0.03 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 mixed use signing 

01N01 GR 0.36 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 mixed use signing 

01N01 GR 0.43 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 mixed use signing 

01N01 MW 5.77 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 1 

01N01 GR 7.77 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01N01 MW 8.47 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4572 Tuolumne 1 

01N01C GR 0.19 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01N01D GR 0.50 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N01J MW 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 1 

01N04 GR 1.81 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 

01N04 GR 3.33 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N04A GR 0.44 GIS ML1 AGG t-4WD t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N04C GR 0.91 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

01N07A GR 0.80 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01N07Y GR 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01N07Y GR 1.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01N09 GR 6.62 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N10 GR 5.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N10 GR 6.62 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01N10A GR 0.53 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N10B GR 0.16 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N14 GR 1.04 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N14 GR 2.72 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N14A GR 0.82 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N14B GR 0.96 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N14E GR 0.54 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N14F GR 0.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N15 GR 1.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N23 GR 1.98 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01N32Y GR 0.91 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 rock barriers 30' MP 0.91 

to block access 

01N33 MW 0.73 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

01N33Y GR 0.29 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N34 GR 1.24 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N34A GR 0.93 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N37 GR 1.43 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01N40Y GR 0.62 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N40Y GR 1.91 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N45 GR 1.73 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01N45Y GR 0.48 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N58A MW 0.40 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N60 GR 0.76 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N60A GR 0.35 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N69 GR 1.14 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N76 GR 0.67 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N76 GR 0.74 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N76 GR 0.97 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

531 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

01N81 GR 0.72 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01N88 GR 0.63 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N91 GR 0.58 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01N97 GR 5.01 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO ML1 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01N97E GR 0.64 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

01S01 GR 2.95 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S01Y GR 0.07 GIS ALL NAT HLO HLO ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S01Y GR 0.59 GIS ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S01YA GR 0.17 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S01YB GR 0.66 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S01YC GR 0.13 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S03 GR 0.01 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01S03 GR 0.68 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01S03 GR 0.91 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01S03 GR 2.33 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01S03A GR 0.63 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S04 GR 0.51 GIS ML1 ALL AGG ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01S04 GR 1.28 GIS ML1 ALL AGG ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 mixed use signing 

01S05A GR 0.65 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S05Y GR 1.96 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S06 GR 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S06 GR 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S06 GR 0.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S06B GR 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S11C GR 0.07 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 1 

01S11C GR 0.07 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

01S11C GR 0.08 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

01S11C GR 0.22 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

01S11C GR 0.68 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 1 

01S11D GR 0.98 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S11Y GR 1.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S12 GR 2.25 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4381 El Portal 2 

01S13 GR 0.70 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S13Y GR 1.22 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S14K GR 0.17 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S14L GR 0.58 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S15C GR 0.57 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S15Y GR 0.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S15Y GR 3.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S15YA GR 1.36 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S15YB GR 0.18 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S16A GR 0.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S16B GR 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S16Y GR 1.87 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S17 GR 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S17 GR 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S17 GR 2.68 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S17A GR 0.56 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S17D GR 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S19Y GR 0.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S20 GR 0.30 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S20Y GR 0.65 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4561 Lake Eleanor 2 

01S23C GR 0.27 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S23Y GR 0.67 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

01S26 GR 2.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S26 GR 2.69 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

532 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

01S26A GR 0.10 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 gate at MP 0.10 

01S26B GR 0.41 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S26C GR 0.69 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S26E GR 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S27 GR 0.80 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S27Y GR 0.84 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S29A GR 0.24 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S30 GR 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S30 GR 0.63 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S30 GR 1.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S30A GR 0.24 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S30B GR 0.55 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S32A GR 0.50 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4561 Lake Eleanor 2 

01S33 GR 1.72 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 HLO ML1 4573 Groveland 1 

01S35Y GR 1.00 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD 4573 Groveland 1 

01S35Y GR 1.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S35YA GR 0.39 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S36Y GR 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S39 GR 0.80 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4573 Groveland 1 

01S39Y GR 0.89 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S39YA GR 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S39YB GR 0.38 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S40Y GR 0.51 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S42 GR 1.03 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4573 Groveland 1 

01S43 GR 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S45Y GR 0.04 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 mixed use signing 

01S45Y GR 0.35 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S46 GR 0.25 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S50 GR 0.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S51 GR 2.24 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S51A GR 0.77 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S51B GR 0.71 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S52 GR 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S52Y GR 0.49 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

01S53 GR 1.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S54Y GR 0.50 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S55Y GR 0.17 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S55Y GR 1.34 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

01S56Y GR 0.60 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S57 GR 1.96 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S57B GR 1.45 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S57Y GR 0.66 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

01S58 GR 3.00 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S59 GR 0.87 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S60Y GR 0.51 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S61Y GR 0.26 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S61YA GR 0.55 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S62 GR 1.42 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S63 GR 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S63Y GR 2.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01S63YA GR 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

01S65Y GR 0.45 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S66Y GR 0.49 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S70 GR 1.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S70 GR 1.64 GIS ALL AGG ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S70A GR 0.34 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

533 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

01S73Y GR 2.12 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 mixed use signing 

01S79 GR 0.12 GIS ML1 ATV NAT t-ATV t-ATV 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S79 GR 0.19 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S79 GR 2.51 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

01S81 GR 1.90 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S81A GR 0.59 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S81Y GR 1.00 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

01S82 GR 1.39 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S86 GR 2.77 GIS ML1 HLO NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S86B GR 0.57 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S96 GR 1.52 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

01S96A GR 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

01S97 GR 0.90 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02N03Y MW 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.04 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.16 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.29 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.58 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03Y MW 0.79 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03YA MW 0.31 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03YB MW 0.18 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N03YB MW 0.43 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N04 GR 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 

02N04 GR 1.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

02N05 GR 0.83 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 mixed use signing 

02N07 MW 0.92 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N07D MW 0.05 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N08 MW 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N08 MW 0.42 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N08 MW 0.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N08A MW 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N09 MW 0.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4572 Tuolumne 1 

02N09 MW 1.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4572 Tuolumne 1 

02N09A MW 0.36 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N09D MW 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N09D MW 0.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N10 MW 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 0.86 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N10 MW 1.17 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 1 

02N10 MW 1.77 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N13Y MW 0.26 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

02N13Y MW 0.85 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

02N14 GR 1.81 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 mixed use signing 

02N14 GR 2.57 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 mixed use signing 

02N14 MW 3.50 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 mixed use signing 

02N26 MW 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N26 MW 0.47 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N26 MW 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

534 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

02N32Y MW 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N34 MW 2.63 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N34A MW 0.84 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N34B MW 0.56 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N34C MW 0.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N39 MW 0.86 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N39A MW 0.71 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N44 MW 0.17 GIS ALL ALL IMP HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N44 MW 0.32 GIS ALL ALL IMP HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N44 MW 0.50 GIS ALL ALL IMP HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N44 MW 0.65 GIS ALL ALL IMP HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N44 MW 1.60 GIS ALL ALL IMP HLO HLO 4572 Tuolumne 2 

02N44A MW 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4571 Duckwall Mt 2 

02N58 MW 0.80 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4744 Hull Creek 3 

02N63A MW 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N63B MW 0.15 MAO ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02N64 GR 0.71 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

02N75 MW 0.82 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 1 

02N75A MW 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 1 

02N81 MW 2.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

02N81A MW 0.18 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

02N82 GR 1.33 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

02N87 GR 0.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

02N88 MW 1.35 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 1 

02N88A MW 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 1 

02N93 MW 1.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4743 Twain Harte 2 

02S01 GR 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01 GR 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01 GR 0.67 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01 GR 0.79 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01 GR 1.26 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01 GR 7.71 GIS ALL NAT HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S01A GR 0.92 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S01C GR 0.39 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S01G GR 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01G GR 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S01G GR 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S02 GR 0.10 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4382 Kinsley 2 mixed use signing 

02S02 GR 2.37 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4382 Kinsley 2 mixed use signing 

02S02 GR 5.35 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 mixed use signing 

02S04 GR 1.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S04Y GR 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S04YA GR 0.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

02S05C GR 0.98 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4382 Kinsley 1 

02S07 GR 2.88 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 mixed use signing 

02S07A GR 0.66 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S07Y GR 1.45 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S08 GR 3.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

02S09A GR 1.64 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S09Y GR 1.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

02S10Y GR 0.88 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S11C GR 1.04 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S11Y GR 0.76 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S12Y GR 0.45 GIS ML1 NAT HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S12YA GR 0.28 GIS ML1 NAT HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S13 GR 0.91 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

535 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

02S13 GR 2.75 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4382 Kinsley 2 

02S17Y GR 1.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S18A GR 0.55 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S18Y GR 1.51 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 2 

02S20 GR 1.73 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4381 El Portal 2 

02S20Y GR 2.33 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S21 GR 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S21 GR 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S21 GR 1.54 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S21 GR 3.51 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S21Y GR 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S21Y GR 1.53 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S22 GR 0.73 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4382 Kinsley 2 

02S22Y GR 1.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

02S23 GR 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4392 Coulterville 1 

02S23 GR 1.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4392 Coulterville 1 

02S23 GR 1.64 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4392 Coulterville 1 

02S23YA GR 0.73 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4564 Ackerson Mt 2 

02S24 GR 0.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S24Y GR 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 2 

02S26 GR 1.48 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4382 Kinsley 2 

02S30 GR 1.11 GIS HLO HLO BIT ALL ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 combined use signing 

02S30A GR 0.18 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S30B GR 0.34 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S34 GR 0.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

02S35 GR 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

02S37 GR 1.60 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4573 Groveland 1 

02S37YB GR 0.74 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4381 El Portal 2 

02S39B GR 0.85 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S41 GR 1.60 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 mixed use signing 

02S43 GR 1.40 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S44 GR 1.49 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S45 GR 1.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

02S47 GR 0.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S50Y GR 0.73 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S52 GR 0.35 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S53 GR 0.11 GIS ML1 HLO NAT HLO ALL HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S53 GR 0.97 GIS ML1 HLO NAT HLO ALL HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S53A GR 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S56 GR 1.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S56A GR 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S57 GR 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S57 GR 0.67 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S58 GR 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S59A GR 0.50 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S59B GR 1.35 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

02S64C GR 0.73 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S65D GR 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S68 GR 1.81 GIS ML1 NAT ALL ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 mixed use signing 

02S74 GR 1.37 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4381 El Portal 2 

02S74A GR 1.73 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4381 El Portal 2 

02S82 GR 0.34 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4381 El Portal 2 

02S83 GR 1.83 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S83B GR 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

02S84 GR 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4381 El Portal 2 

02S86 GR 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 1 

536 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

02S93C GR 0.36 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S97 GR 0.40 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

02S97 GR 0.63 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4382 Kinsley 2 

03N01 GR 0.30 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 combined use signing 

03N01 GR 0.31 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4571 Duckwall Mt 3 combined use signing 

03N01 GR 0.57 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 2 combined use signing 

03N01 GR 0.60 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL ALL 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 combined use signing 

03N01 GR 0.86 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 combined use signing 

03N01 MW 1.58 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 mixed use signing 

03N01 MW 1.69 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 mixed use signing 

03N01 MW 1.80 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 combined use signing 

03N01 GR 2.24 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 mixed use signing 

03N01 MW 5.77 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 mixed use signing 

03N01C GR 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

03N01D MW 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N01H MW 0.95 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N01J MW 0.81 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N01L MW 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N01M MW 0.63 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N01P GR 0.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

03N01P GR 0.61 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

03N01Q GR 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 2 

03N01U MW 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N01W MW 0.22 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N01Y MW 1.69 GIS ALL MC NAT t-MC t-MC t-MC 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N02 MW 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N03 MW 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N03 MW 3.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N03B MW 0.77 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N03C MW 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N04 MW 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

03N06Y MW 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N06Y MW 0.89 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N07 MW 1.80 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 2 

03N08Y MW 0.49 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ATV t-ATV t-ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N10Y MW 0.57 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N10YA MW 0.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N11 MW 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N11 MW 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N11 MW 0.53 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N11 MW 0.61 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N11 MW 5.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N11A MW 1.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N11B MW 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N11C MW 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N12 MW 3.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N12A MW 1.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N12B MW 1.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N14 MW 0.13 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N14 MW 0.16 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N14 MW 0.34 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N14 MW 0.89 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N15 MW 3.56 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N16 MW 1.32 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N16 MW 3.32 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N17Y MW 1.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

537 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

03N18 MW 2.57 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N20Y MW 2.85 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N20YB MW 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N20YC MW 0.81 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N20YD MW 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N20YD MW 0.84 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N22 MW 1.85 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N22A MW 1.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N22Y MW 0.60 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N24 MW 4.87 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N24A MW 0.09 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N24D MW 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N25 MW 1.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N26YA MW 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N26YB MW 0.14 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 mixed use signing 

03N26YB MW 0.15 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL t-ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 mixed use signing 

03N27 MW 1.60 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27 MW 2.85 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27A MW 1.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27B MW 0.34 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27C MW 0.65 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27C MW 2.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27Y MW 1.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N27YA MW 0.40 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N28 MW 2.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N29A MW 0.70 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

03N29C MW 1.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

03N30 MW 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 0.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 0.62 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 1.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N30 MW 1.75 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N32Y MW 2.18 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N32YA MW 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N34 MW 1.63 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 2 

03N34A MW 0.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N34Y MW 0.75 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N34Y MW 3.21 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N38 MW 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N39 MW 3.16 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

03N40 MW 0.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N41 MW 1.68 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 2 

03N43A MW 0.55 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N44 MW 1.62 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4753 Columbia 1 

03N45 MW 0.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N45YA MW 0.54 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N46 MW 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N46 MW 0.42 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N46Y MW 0.80 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N48 MW 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N48 MW 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N48 MW 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

538 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

03N48 MW 2.30 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N48A MW 0.53 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N48B MW 0.80 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N48Y MW 0.75 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL t-ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N50 MW 0.91 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N50 MW 2.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 2 

03N53 MW 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N58 MW 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-MC t-MC ML1 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N59 MW 0.52 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N60 MW 1.33 GIS ML1 ATV NAT t-ATV t-ATV t-ATV 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N68 MW 1.71 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N68Y MW 0.88 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4754 Columbia SE 1 

03N69 MW 0.56 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N69 MW 0.82 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N69 MW 3.83 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N69A MW 0.61 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N69Y MW 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

03N69Y MW 0.42 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

03N70A MW 0.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N71 MW 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N71 MW 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N71 MW 0.64 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N71Y MW 0.28 GIS ML1 MC NAT t-MC t-MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

03N71Y MW 1.30 GIS ML1 MC NAT t-MC t-MC 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

03N72 MW 1.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N73 MW 2.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 2 

03N73B MW 0.31 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 2 

03N75Y MW 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4733 Cherry Lake N 3 

03N77 MW 0.56 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N84 MW 0.47 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N87 MW 0.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N87 MW 2.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

03N89 MW 0.72 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N90 MW 3.77 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N91 MW 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N91 MW 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N91 MW 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N91 MW 0.17 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03N92 MW 0.30 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N92 MW 0.88 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N95 MW 1.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N95A MW 0.56 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4744 Hull Creek 3 

03N99 MW 0.15 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N99 MW 0.87 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 3 

03N99 MW 1.50 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

03S06 GR 0.66 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4391 Buckhorn Peak 1 

04N01 MW 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N01 MW 0.41 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 2 

04N01 MW 0.52 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 2 

04N01 MW 2.26 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 1 

04N01 MW 2.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N01A MW 0.31 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N01B MW 0.58 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 2 

04N01C MW 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N01Y MW 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N02 MW 0.16 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

539 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

04N02 MW 0.17 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

04N02 MW 0.54 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

04N02 MW 1.07 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4743 Twain Harte 2 

04N02Y SU 1.86 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N04 MW 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N04 MW 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N04 MW 2.29 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N04A MW 0.77 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N04C MW 1.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N04Y CAL 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N05 MW 0.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N05 MW 1.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N06 CAL 0.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N06YA SU 0.07 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N09 MW 0.04 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N09 MW 0.27 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N09 MW 0.30 GIS HLO HLO BIT ALL ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 combined use signing 

04N09 MW 0.62 GIS ML1 ALL NAT ALL ALL 4732 Pinecrest 1 

04N09 MW 0.76 GIS ML1 NAT t-MC 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N10 SU 2.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N10A SU 0.82 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N10B SU 0.66 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N11 SU 2.38 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N11 MW 4.94 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N12Q SU 0.17 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N13 SU 0.34 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N13 MW 1.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N13 SU 2.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N15Y MW 0.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N16Y MW 0.62 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N16YA MW 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N17 MW 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N17 MW 0.28 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N17D MW 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 t-ALL ML1 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N17E MW 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N17F MW 0.63 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N18 MW 0.69 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N18 MW 0.92 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 2 

04N20Y MW 1.17 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N20YA MW 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 ML1 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N24 SU 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N25 MW 0.44 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4732 Pinecrest 3 combined use signing 

04N25A SU 0.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N26B SU 0.78 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N26C SU 0.35 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N27Y SU 0.84 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N31 SU 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N31 SU 0.79 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N31A SU 0.36 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N32 SU 0.60 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N32 MW 2.00 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N32A MW 0.88 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N32C MW 0.42 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N33 MW 0.42 GIS HLO ALL NAT ALL 4744 Hull Creek 3 

04N33 SU 1.75 GIS ALL ALL BIT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N34 SU 1.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

540 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

04N34 SU 2.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N34 SU 2.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N35Y MW 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N35Y SU 2.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N38 CAL 2.64 GIS ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N47 SU 4.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N47D SU 0.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N47Y SU 1.76 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N49Y MW 0.16 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N49Y MW 1.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N49YA MW 0.13 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N50Y MW 1.57 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N50Y MW 2.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N50YC MW 1.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N51Y SU 0.51 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N54 SU 1.17 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N55 SU 0.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N55 SU 0.71 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N57 SU 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N57A SU 0.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N61A MW 0.69 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N65 SU 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 3 

04N65 SU 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 3 

04N65 SU 0.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 3 

04N65 SU 0.76 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 3 

04N67 SU 0.32 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N67A SU 0.31 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N68Y SU 1.52 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N69 MW 1.63 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N70 SU 1.51 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N71 SU 1.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N71A SU 0.58 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

04N72Y MW 0.93 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N72YA MW 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N73 SU 0.78 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N74 MW 0.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 1 

04N75 MW 1.80 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 2 

04N76Y SU 0.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4742 Crandall Peak 3 

04N76Y SU 0.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N77Y SU 0.38 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N78 MW 2.86 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N78Y SU 0.50 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N78YA SU 0.34 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N78YB SU 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N80Y CAL 0.16 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO ML1 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N80Y CAL 0.59 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO ML1 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N80Y CAL 1.14 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO ML1 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N80Y CAL 1.17 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO ML1 4751 Stanislaus 3 

04N90 MW 4.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

04N91 SU 0.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N91 SU 0.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N91 SU 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N95 MW 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N95 MW 0.36 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N95 MW 0.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

04N98 MW 1.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

541 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

05N01 SU 0.47 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4904 Dardanelle 3 mixed use signing 

05N01 SU 0.55 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4904 Dardanelle 3 mixed use signing 

05N01 SU 0.71 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4904 Dardanelle 3 mixed use signing 

05N01 SU 2.30 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4904 Dardanelle 3 mixed use signing 

05N01 SU 2.61 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4904 Dardanelle 3 mixed use signing 

05N02B CAL 0.89 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

05N02C SU 0.16 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N02C SU 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N02D SU 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 2 

05N02F SU 0.24 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

05N02H SU 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

05N02L SU 0.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

05N02L SU 0.19 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

05N02R CAL 0.40 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

05N02R CAL 1.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO ML1 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

05N04 SU 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

05N14 CAL 0.02 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 0.34 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 0.53 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 0.55 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 0.60 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 0.71 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 1.12 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 3.25 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

05N14 CAL 4.62 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 mixed use signing 

05N14D SU 0.66 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N14L CAL 1.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

05N14M CAL 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

05N17Y SU 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

05N26Y SU 1.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N29Y SU 0.18 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

05N29Y SU 0.76 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

05N35 CAL 1.65 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

05N35B CAL 0.46 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

05N40 CAL 0.15 GIS HLO HLO NAT ADM ADM ADM 4924 Dorrington 3 

05N44 SU 0.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N44 SU 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N44 SU 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N44 SU 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N44 SU 0.27 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N51Y CAL 1.58 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

05N51YA CAL 0.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4751 Stanislaus 3 

05N53Y CAL 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

05N56 CAL 0.01 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4924 Dorrington 2 

05N59 SU 1.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N73Y SU 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

05N85Y SU 0.92 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N85YA SU 0.90 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

05N93 SU 1.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N06A SU 0.31 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N06B SU 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N06B SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N06B1 SU 0.27 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N06C SU 0.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N06F SU 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N07Y SU 0.08 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass 3 

542 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

06N08Y SU 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass 3 

06N09Y SU 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass 3 

06N11Y CAL 0.81 GIS ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N12 SU 0.34 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N13X CAL 0.30 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N14 SU 0.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N16A SU 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

06N17A CAL 0.09 MAP ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N17A CAL 0.46 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N17B CAL 0.65 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N17D CAL 0.35 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N17J CAL 0.52 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 

06N17P CAL 0.41 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 

06N19 SU 0.48 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N19A SU 0.15 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N24 SU 0.13 GIS ALL ALL AGG ADM ADM 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N24 SU 0.32 GIS ALL ALL AGG ML1 ML1 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N24 SU 0.49 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N24A SU 0.19 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N27 CAL 1.53 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N27 CAL 3.23 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N29Y CAL 0.98 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

06N30 SU 0.72 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N30A SU 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N33Y SU 0.92 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N34Y SU 2.91 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N34YD SU 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N36Y SU 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N36Y SU 0.21 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N36Y SU 1.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N37Y SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass 3 

06N39Y SU 0.10 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass 3 

06N40 CAL 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4923 Fort Mt 2 

06N44Y SU 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N45Y SU 0.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

06N47Y SU 0.25 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N58 CAL 0.03 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.08 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.12 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.18 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4924 Dorrington 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.25 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.36 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.46 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.70 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4924 Dorrington 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.79 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 0.90 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4913 Boards Crossing 3 mixed use signing 

06N58 CAL 1.74 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4924 Dorrington 3 mixed use signing 

06N60Y CAL 0.02 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4922 Devils Nose 2 

06N62 CAL 1.35 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

06N64 CAL 0.93 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 ML1 4924 Dorrington 3 

06N66YB CAL 0.82 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N71Y CAL 1.35 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4924 Dorrington 3 

06N76YA CAL 0.25 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N80 CAL 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N80Y CAL 0.78 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N80YA CAL 0.11 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

543 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

06N81Y CAL 0.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

06N81Y CAL 0.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

06N81Y CAL 0.42 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

06N81Y CAL 0.46 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

06N81YA CAL 0.51 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

06N82 CAL 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4913 Boards Crossing 3 

06N82Y SU 0.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

06N85 CAL 0.72 GIS ML1 ALL NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N85A CAL 0.39 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

06N94 CAL 1.68 GIS ALL ALL NAT ML1 ML1 ML1 4914 Liberty Hill 3 

07N01 CAL 0.09 GIS HLO HLO AC ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 combined use signing 

07N01C CAL 0.18 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N01E CAL 0.36 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N01G CAL 0.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N02 CAL 2.39 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N05 CAL 0.53 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N08 CAL 0.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4924 Dorrington 2 

07N08 CAL 0.45 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4924 Dorrington 3 

07N08 CAL 1.94 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4921 Garnet Hill 3 

07N08 CAL 2.52 GIS HLO HLO NAT ADM ADM ADM 4924 Dorrington 3 

07N08 CAL 2.57 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4921 Garnet Hill 2 

07N09 CAL 0.01 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N09 CAL 0.44 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N09 CAL 0.48 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 combined use signing 

07N09 CAL 0.59 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N09 CAL 0.84 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 combined use signing 

07N09 CAL 1.09 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 combined use signing 

07N09 CAL 1.13 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 combined use signing 

07N09 CAL 2.23 GIS HLO HLO NAT ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 combined use signing 

07N09 CAL 2.94 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N09A CAL 0.86 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09B CAL 0.45 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09C CAL 0.62 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09D CAL 0.16 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09E CAL 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09F CAL 0.13 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09G CAL 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09H CAL 0.54 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09J CAL 0.26 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N09W CAL 0.24 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N13 SU 0.60 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

07N13A SU 0.15 GIS ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

07N14C CAL 0.47 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N16A CAL 0.20 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N16X CAL 1.37 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N17 CAL 2.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N17 CAL 2.79 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N17A CAL 0.08 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N17B CAL 0.57 GIS ALL ALL AGG ADM ADM 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N18Y CAL 0.90 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N18YC CAL 0.32 GIS ML1 NAT t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N19X CAL 0.11 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N22 CAL 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N22 CAL 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N22 CAL 0.43 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N22 CAL 1.03 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

544 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

07N28 CAL 0.91 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N28 CAL 0.96 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N28 CAL 1.35 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 mixed use signing 

07N29Y CAL 3.96 GIS ALL ALL AGG HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N30Y SU 0.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

07N30YA SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

07N30YB SU 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

07N38 CAL 0.75 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N40Y CAL 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N48A CAL 0.22 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N49Y CAL 0.36 GIS ML1 HLO NAT HLO ALL HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N55 CAL 1.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N55A CAL 0.59 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N55Y CAL 0.40 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

07N56YA CAL 0.71 GIS ML1 NAT t-ALL t-ALL 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N57 CAL 0.29 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N58 CAL 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4921 Garnet Hill 3 

07N58 CAL 1.77 GIS ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4921 Garnet Hill 3 

07N60 CAL 0.40 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N70 CAL 0.77 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N75 CAL 1.84 GIS HLO HLO AGG ALL 4911 Tamarack 3 combined use signing 

07N75C CAL 0.49 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N77 CAL 0.96 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N82 CAL 0.95 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N82A CAL 0.24 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N87 CAL 1.70 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N87A CAL 0.14 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N87A CAL 0.20 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N87B CAL 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT t-4WD t-4WD t-4WD 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N93 CAL 2.68 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

07N94 CAL 0.44 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N94A CAL 0.73 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N95 CAL 0.08 GIS ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

07N95A CAL 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM ADM 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

08N01A CAL 0.12 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

08N04 CAL 0.01 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

08N04 CAL 0.23 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

08N13 CAL 0.54 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

08N14 CAL 0.11 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

21904B GR 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4563 Ascension Mt 2 

41899Z21 SU 0.08 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4732 Pinecrest 3 

51913A1 SU 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4904 Dardanelle 3 

61919A SU 0.16 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

61931B04 SU 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

61932B SU 0.05 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4903 Donnell Lake 3 

62127C SU 0.06 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4893 Sonora Pass 3 rock barriers 30' MP 0.06 

to block access 

72032C SU 0.05 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

FR10831 CAL 0.03 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

FR11116 CAL 0.04 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

FR12088 CAL 0.11 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR12476 CAL 0.05 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR12477 CAL 0.37 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR12607 SU 0.19 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4741 Strawberry 3 

FR14823 SU 0.25 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

FR14833 SU 0.09 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

545 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SRC Existing Alternative Quad SEA Mitigations/Requirements SYS USE SUR 1 2 3 4 5 # Name 

FR4898 GR 0.09 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR4898 GR 0.22 GIS ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR5219 CAL 0.03 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

FR7181 CAL 0.16 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR7856 GR 0.14 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR8080 CAL 0.04 GIS ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4921 Garnet Hill 3 

FR8319 CAL 0.05 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR8319 CAL 0.33 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR8319 CAL 0.48 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4912 Calaveras Dome 3 

FR8322 CAL 0.08 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

FR8323 CAL 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5063 Pacific Valley 3 

FR8445 GR 0.05 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4562 Cherry Lake S 3 

FR8602 GR 0.23 MAP ALL ALL NAT ADM ADM 4574 Jawbone Ridge 2 

FR8925 CAL 0.04 MAP ALL ALL AC HLO HLO HLO 4911 Tamarack 3 

FR9330 CAL 0.11 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4902 Spicer Mdw Res 3 

FR9331 CAL 0.33 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 4901 Dardanelles Cone 3 

FS83231 CAL 0.06 MAP ALL ALL NAT HLO HLO HLO 5064 Ebbetts Pass 3 

 Legend 

AC Asphalt 

ADM Administrative Use Only (closed to public motorized use) 

AGG Aggregate or Gravel 

ALL All Vehicles 

ATV ATV (open to ATV and Motorcycle) 

CAL Calaveras 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GR Groveland 

HLO Highway Legal Only 

INV Inventory 

MC Motorcycle 

MI Miles 

MW Mi-Wok 

NAT Native Material 

RD Ranger District 

SEA Season of Use 

Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

1 year-round year-round year-round 

2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

SRC Source 

SUR Surface 

SYS System (National Forest System) 

t-ALL convert road to All Vehicle trail 

t-ATV convert road to ATV trail 

t-MC convert road to MC trail 

t-4WD convert road to 4WD trail 

546 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

I.03 CHANGES TO THE EXISTING NFTS: SEASON OF USE
 

Table I.03-1 lists the existing NFTS routes with season of use changes proposed in one or more of the 

action alternatives. By the nature of the alternatives, this table lists all existing NFTS routes open to 

public motorized use in at least one alternative. 

Table I.03-1 Changes to the Existing NFTS: Season of Use 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01N01 GR 1.58 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N01 GR 4.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N01 MW 5.79 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N01 GR 7.77 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N01 MW 8.47 AC 1 year round year round year round 

01N01A GR 0.61 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N01C GR 0.19 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N01D GR 0.49 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N01H MW 0.66 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N01J MW 0.28 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N01K MW 0.57 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N01L GR 0.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N02 MW 1.38 IMP 1 year round year round year round 

01N02Y MW 1.53 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N02YA MW 0.23 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N04 GR 0.18 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N04 GR 0.44 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N04 MW 0.49 AC 1 year round year round year round 

01N04 GR 0.56 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N04 GR 1.81 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

01N04 GR 3.33 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

01N04 MW 12.89 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N04 GR 12.93 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N04A GR 0.44 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round no public 

01N04B MW 0.66 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

01N04C GR 0.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N04Y MW 0.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N05 GR 2.65 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N07 GR 17.68 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N07A GR 0.80 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N07C GR 0.60 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N07Y GR 1.57 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N08 GR 1.51 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N09 GR 6.62 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N09Y MW 0.36 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N10 GR 11.76 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N10A GR 0.53 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N10B GR 0.16 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N11 MW 2.27 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N11B MW 0.45 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N11Y GR 2.43 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N12 MW 1.03 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N13 MW 2.03 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N13A MW 0.48 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N13B MW 0.96 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N14 GR 3.76 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N14A GR 0.82 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N14B GR 0.96 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N14E GR 0.54 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N14F GR 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

01N14Y GR 0.95 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N15 GR 1.09 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01N16 MW 0.42 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N17 MW 2.38 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N17A MW 0.16 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N17Y MW 0.59 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N17YA MW 0.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N18 MW 1.37 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N18A MW 0.17 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N18Y GR 0.35 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N19 MW 1.32 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N20 MW 1.69 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

01N20A MW 0.66 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N20B MW 0.46 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N22 MW 2.72 IMP 1 year round year round year round 

01N22A MW 0.54 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N23 GR 1.98 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N24 MW 3.90 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N24A MW 0.09 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N24B MW 0.34 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N24C MW 1.16 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N24D MW 0.30 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N25 MW 0.34 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N25A MW 0.09 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N25B MW 0.29 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N25Y GR 0.73 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N26 GR 3.78 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N26A GR 0.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N26B GR 0.44 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N26C GR 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N26D GR 0.28 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N27 MW 0.97 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

01N27A MW 0.64 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N27B MW 0.42 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

01N28 GR 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N28A GR 0.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N30 GR 2.88 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N31Y GR 0.93 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N31YA GR 0.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N32 GR 0.92 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N32A GR 0.13 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N32Y GR 0.91 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N33 MW 0.73 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N33Y GR 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N34 GR 1.24 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N34A GR 0.93 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N34Y MW 1.07 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N35 MW 0.92 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N36 MW 0.76 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N36A MW 0.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N37 GR 1.42 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N38 MW 0.26 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N39 MW 0.87 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N40 MW 0.22 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

547 
Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01N40Y GR 0.62 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N40Y GR 1.91 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N41 MW 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N42Y GR 1.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N42YC GR 0.39 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N43 MW 6.00 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

01N43A MW 0.86 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N43B MW 0.61 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N43C MW 0.52 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N43D MW 0.21 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N44 MW 0.52 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N45 GR 1.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N45Y GR 0.48 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

01N46 MW 0.92 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N48 MW 0.84 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N48A MW 0.60 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N48B MW 0.18 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N49 MW 1.42 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N49 MW 2.78 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N49A MW 0.22 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N49B MW 0.37 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N50 MW 2.70 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N50A MW 0.44 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N50C MW 1.13 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N51 MW 0.65 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N53 MW 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N54A MW 0.10 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01N56 MW 3.21 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N56A MW 1.16 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N57 MW 2.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N58 MW 1.95 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N58A MW 0.40 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N58B MW 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N59 GR 0.19 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N60 GR 0.76 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N60A GR 0.35 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N61 MW 1.69 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N67 MW 1.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N69 GR 1.14 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N70Y MW 0.74 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N70YB MW 0.19 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N74 GR 4.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N74C GR 0.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N76 GR 2.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N77 MW 1.10 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N77A MW 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N78 MW 0.23 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N78 MW 0.28 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N78A MW 0.17 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N79 GR 3.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N79A GR 0.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N79B GR 0.74 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N80 GR 1.44 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N81 GR 0.72 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N82 GR 0.30 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N83 GR 1.95 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N88 GR 0.63 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N89 GR 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N91 GR 0.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N94 GR 0.55 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N94A GR 0.40 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01N96 GR 4.94 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01N96E GR 0.52 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01N97 GR 5.01 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round no public 

01N97E GR 0.64 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01N98 GR 0.64 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S01 GR 2.95 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S01Y GR 0.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S01Y GR 0.59 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S01YA GR 0.17 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S01YB GR 0.65 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S01YC GR 0.13 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S02 GR 7.27 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S03 GR 1.53 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S03 GR 9.75 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S03A GR 0.63 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S04 GR 1.17 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S04 GR 1.79 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round no public 

01S04A GR 0.85 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S05 GR 4.00 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S05A GR 0.65 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S05Y GR 1.96 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S06 GR 0.70 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S06B GR 0.11 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S07 GR 0.28 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

01S07 GR 0.47 IMP 1 year round year round year round 

01S07 GR 2.01 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S07D GR 0.53 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S08 GR 1.46 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S08Y GR 1.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S09 GR 2.03 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S10 MW 0.66 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S10A MW 0.31 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S11 GR 3.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S11A GR 0.86 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S11C GR 1.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S11D GR 0.98 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S11F GR 0.57 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S11Y GR 1.44 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S12 GR 18.47 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S12D GR 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S12E GR 1.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S12G GR 0.77 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S12H GR 0.77 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S13 GR 0.70 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S13 GR 15.93 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S13C GR 2.00 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S13Y GR 1.22 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S14 GR 12.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S14K GR 0.17 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S14L GR 0.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S14M GR 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S15 GR 1.66 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S15 GR 2.51 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S15C GR 0.57 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S15Y GR 0.13 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S15Y GR 3.14 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S15YA GR 1.36 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S15YB GR 0.18 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S16 GR 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S16 GR 1.85 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S16A GR 0.27 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S16B GR 0.25 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S16Y GR 1.87 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

548 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01S17 GR 3.02 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S17A GR 0.56 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S17D GR 0.20 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S19 GR 2.65 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S19A GR 0.99 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S19C GR 0.24 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S19Y GR 0.47 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S20 GR 0.30 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S20Y GR 0.65 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S21 GR 0.37 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S21Y GR 1.61 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S22 GR 2.42 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S23 GR 3.03 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S23C GR 0.27 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S23D GR 0.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S23Y GR 0.67 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S24 GR 3.36 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S24A GR 1.07 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S25 GR 2.88 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S25A GR 2.37 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S25C GR 0.62 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S25D GR 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S25E GR 0.24 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S25F GR 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S25Y GR 0.74 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S26 GR 4.94 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S26A GR 0.10 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S26B GR 0.41 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S26C GR 0.68 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S26E GR 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S27 GR 0.80 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S27Y GR 0.84 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S28 GR 0.81 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S28Y GR 0.32 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S29 GR 5.22 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S29A GR 0.24 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S29C GR 0.74 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S30 GR 2.03 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S30A GR 0.24 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S30B GR 0.55 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S30Y GR 0.12 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S31Y GR 0.16 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S32 GR 2.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S32A GR 0.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S33 GR 1.72 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

01S35Y GR 1.00 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

01S35Y GR 1.32 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S35YA GR 0.39 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S36 GR 1.37 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S36B GR 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S36Y GR 0.50 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S37 GR 0.91 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S38 GR 0.36 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S38Y GR 1.15 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S39 GR 0.18 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S39 GR 0.62 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

01S39Y GR 0.89 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S39YA GR 0.10 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S39YB GR 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S40Y GR 0.51 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S41 GR 1.43 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S41A GR 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01S42 GR 1.03 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

01S42Y GR 0.36 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S43 GR 0.25 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S45Y GR 0.39 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S46 GR 0.25 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S46Y GR 1.78 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S46YB GR 0.30 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S46YC GR 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S47 GR 0.97 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S47A GR 0.65 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S47B GR 0.06 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S48 MW 0.76 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S48Y GR 0.71 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S49 MW 2.35 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S50 GR 0.42 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S50Y GR 0.41 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S51 GR 2.23 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S51A GR 0.77 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S51B GR 0.71 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S52 GR 0.15 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S52Y GR 0.49 NAT 1 year round year round no public 

01S53 GR 1.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S54Y GR 0.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S55Y GR 0.17 AC 1 year round year round year round 

01S55Y GR 1.34 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S56Y GR 0.60 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S57 GR 1.96 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S57B GR 1.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S57Y GR 0.66 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S58 GR 2.99 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S59 GR 0.87 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S60 GR 1.92 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S60Y GR 0.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S61Y GR 0.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S61YA GR 0.55 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S62 GR 1.42 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S62A GR 0.39 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S63 GR 0.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S63Y GR 2.26 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S63YA GR 0.10 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S64 GR 1.59 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S65Y GR 0.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S66 GR 0.00 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S66 GR 1.79 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S66A GR 0.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S66Y GR 0.49 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S67 GR 3.15 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S67Y GR 0.51 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S69 GR 1.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S70 GR 1.10 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S70 GR 1.63 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round no public 

01S70A GR 0.34 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S70B GR 0.42 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S71 GR 1.65 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S72Y GR 1.16 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S73Y GR 2.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S75 GR 1.10 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S75A GR 0.30 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S75Y GR 1.56 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S75YA GR 0.69 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S75YB GR 0.32 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S76 GR 1.65 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

549 
 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

01S78 GR 4.04 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S78A GR 0.80 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S79 GR 0.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S79 GR 2.70 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S80 GR 2.48 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S80A GR 0.55 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S80B GR 0.82 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S81 GR 1.90 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S81A GR 0.59 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S81Y GR 1.00 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

01S82 GR 1.39 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S83 GR 0.67 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S85 GR 1.68 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S86 GR 2.76 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S86B GR 0.57 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

01S87 GR 0.66 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S87A GR 0.19 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S89 GR 2.13 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S90 GR 0.06 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S94 GR 0.76 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

01S96 GR 1.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S96A GR 0.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

01S97 GR 0.90 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N01 MW 0.68 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N01B MW 0.43 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N03 MW 1.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N03Y MW 0.89 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N03Y MW 1.12 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N03YA MW 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N03YB MW 0.60 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N04 GR 1.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N04Y MW 0.54 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N05 GR 4.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N05A GR 2.79 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N05Y MW 0.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N05YA MW 0.48 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N06 MW 5.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N06A MW 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N06B MW 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N06Y MW 0.86 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N07 MW 1.54 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N07 MW 6.64 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N07C MW 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N07D MW 0.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N08 MW 1.15 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N08A MW 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N08Y GR 1.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N08Y GR 6.78 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N08YA GR 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N08YB GR 0.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N08YD GR 1.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N09 MW 0.16 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N09 MW 1.27 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

02N09 MW 4.05 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

02N09A MW 0.36 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

02N09D MW 0.29 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N10 MW 1.17 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N10 MW 4.61 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N10Y GR 5.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N11 MW 2.60 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N11 MW 3.32 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N11 MW 4.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

02N11 MW 4.76 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

02N11A MW 0.28 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N11C MW 0.41 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N11D MW 0.33 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N11F MW 1.00 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N12 GR 0.84 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N13 MW 2.27 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N13A MW 0.54 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N13Y MW 1.11 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

02N14 MW 3.49 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N14 GR 5.54 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N14Y MW 1.92 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N14YA MW 0.53 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N15 GR 1.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N16 GR 1.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N16A GR 0.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N17 MW 1.81 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N18 GR 1.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N20 MW 1.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N20A MW 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N22 GR 2.27 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N22A GR 0.76 IMP 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N23 GR 0.96 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N24 GR 3.28 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N26 MW 0.47 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N26 MW 0.80 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N28 MW 0.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N28 MW 2.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N29 MW 6.68 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N29A MW 0.57 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N29Y MW 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N31 MW 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N31Y MW 0.72 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N31YA MW 0.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N32 MW 2.80 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N32Y MW 0.03 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N33 MW 1.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N34 MW 2.63 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N34A MW 0.84 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N34B MW 0.56 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N34C MW 0.47 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N39 MW 0.86 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N39A MW 0.71 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N40 GR 3.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N41 GR 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N42 MW 0.98 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N43 MW 2.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N44 MW 3.25 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02N44A MW 0.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N45 MW 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N47 MW 1.72 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N47A MW 0.32 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N48 MW 1.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N48A MW 0.53 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N49 MW 0.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N49 MW 1.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N49A MW 0.50 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N49A MW 0.79 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N50 MW 0.99 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N52 MW 1.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N53 MW 1.70 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N53A MW 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

550 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

02N54 MW 6.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N55 MW 2.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N56 GR 3.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N57 GR 0.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N57A GR 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N58 MW 0.80 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N58 MW 0.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N58 GR 1.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N58B MW 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N58C MW 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N59 GR 1.79 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N60 GR 1.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N62 MW 2.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N63A MW 0.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N63B MW 0.15 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N64 GR 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N65 GR 0.45 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N66 GR 2.94 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N69 GR 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N71 MW 0.53 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N75 MW 0.82 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N75A MW 0.30 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N76 GR 1.49 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N77Y GR 0.54 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N78 GR 0.60 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N78 GR 1.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N80 GR 2.16 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N81 MW 2.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N81A MW 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N82 GR 1.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N84 GR 0.62 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N85 MW 1.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02N87 GR 0.00 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N87 GR 0.13 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N88 MW 1.35 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

02N88A MW 0.28 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02N89 GR 2.01 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N91 MW 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N93 MW 0.65 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N93 MW 1.02 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02N93A MW 0.53 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02N94 GR 2.03 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N95 GR 1.28 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

02N98Y MW 1.45 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

02S01 GR 1.26 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S01 GR 13.61 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S01A GR 0.92 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S01C GR 0.39 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S01G GR 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S02 GR 0.00 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

02S02 GR 13.65 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S02C GR 0.30 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S03 GR 0.00 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S03 GR 10.60 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S03Y GR 1.37 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S04 GR 1.47 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S04Y GR 0.37 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S04YA GR 0.44 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S05 GR 1.26 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S05C GR 0.98 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

02S06 GR 1.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S07 GR 2.88 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

02S07A GR 0.66 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S07Y GR 1.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S08 GR 3.58 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S09 GR 3.75 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S09A GR 1.64 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S09Y GR 1.12 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S10Y GR 0.88 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S11 GR 3.78 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S11C GR 1.03 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

02S11Y GR 0.76 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S12 GR 1.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S12Y GR 0.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S12YA GR 0.28 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S13 GR 0.91 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S13 GR 2.75 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S13C GR 0.25 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S13F GR 0.72 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S14 GR 1.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S15Y GR 1.01 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S16 GR 2.54 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S16Y GR 0.18 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S17 GR 0.02 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S17Y GR 1.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S18 GR 0.21 AC 1 year round year round year round 

02S18 GR 2.68 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S18A GR 0.55 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S18Y GR 1.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S19 GR 0.01 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S19Y GR 1.70 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S19YA GR 0.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S19YB GR 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S20 GR 9.87 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S20D GR 0.79 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S20Y GR 2.33 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S21 GR 5.14 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S21Y GR 1.83 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S22 GR 0.72 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S22Y GR 1.15 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S23 GR 3.09 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S23Y GR 2.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S23YA GR 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S24 GR 0.47 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S24Y GR 0.32 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S25 GR 3.43 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S26 GR 1.48 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S27 GR 0.40 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S27 GR 7.56 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S27A GR 0.64 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S27B GR 0.90 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S27C GR 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S28 GR 2.75 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S28A GR 0.44 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S28B GR 0.36 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S30 GR 8.61 BST 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S30A GR 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S30B GR 0.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S30C GR 0.57 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S30E GR 0.46 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S31Y GR 1.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S31YA GR 0.39 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S31YB GR 0.25 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S32 GR 2.10 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

551 
Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

02S33 GR 3.30 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S33B GR 0.24 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S34 GR 0.21 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S35 GR 0.29 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S37 GR 1.60 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S37Y GR 2.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S37YB GR 0.74 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S38Y GR 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S39 GR 1.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S39A GR 0.43 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S39B GR 0.85 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S40 GR 1.36 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S41 GR 1.60 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S43 GR 1.40 NAT 1 year round year round no public 

02S44 GR 1.49 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S45 GR 1.19 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S47 GR 0.27 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S50 GR 0.21 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S50Y GR 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S51Y GR 1.90 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S51YA GR 0.55 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S52 GR 0.34 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S53 GR 1.08 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S53A GR 0.09 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S56 GR 1.13 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S56A GR 0.21 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S57 GR 0.96 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

02S58 GR 0.20 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S59 GR 0.80 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S59A GR 0.50 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

02S59B GR 1.35 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

02S60 GR 1.93 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S60B GR 0.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S60C GR 0.21 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S62 GR 5.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S62B GR 0.66 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S64 GR 1.61 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S64C GR 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S65 GR 3.37 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S65D GR 0.22 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S66 GR 3.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S66Y GR 1.82 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S66YA GR 0.09 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S67 GR 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S68 GR 1.81 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S70 GR 1.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S70A GR 0.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S71 GR 2.27 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S72 GR 0.46 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S74 GR 1.37 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S74A GR 1.73 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S79 GR 2.68 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S82 GR 0.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S83 GR 1.82 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S83B GR 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S84 GR 0.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S86 GR 0.08 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

02S88 GR 2.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S89 GR 4.95 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S90 GR 0.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S91 GR 2.09 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S91A GR 0.73 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

02S92 GR 1.30 IMP 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S93 GR 2.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S93C GR 0.36 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

02S96 GR 0.30 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

02S97 GR 0.40 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

02S97 GR 0.62 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N01 GR 2.24 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N01 GR 7.92 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N01 MW 8.45 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N01 GR 10.44 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N01 MW 16.51 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N01B MW 1.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01C GR 0.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N01D MW 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01G GR 1.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01H MW 0.95 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N01J MW 0.81 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N01L MW 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01M MW 0.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01N GR 0.37 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N01P GR 1.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N01Q GR 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N01S GR 0.31 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01T GR 0.45 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01U MW 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N01W MW 0.22 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N01Y MW 1.69 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N02 MW 1.93 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N03 MW 3.51 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N03B MW 0.77 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N03C MW 0.21 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N03Y MW 1.37 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N04 MW 0.09 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N05 MW 2.86 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N06Y MW 0.91 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N07 MW 0.56 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N07 MW 3.96 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N07 MW 4.89 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N07C MW 0.73 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N07E MW 0.69 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N08 MW 6.79 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N08Y MW 0.48 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N09 MW 4.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N09A MW 1.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N09Y MW 0.89 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N09YA MW 0.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N10 MW 6.76 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N10A MW 1.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N10B MW 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N10Y MW 0.57 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N10YA MW 0.19 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N11 MW 6.61 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N11A MW 1.10 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N11B MW 0.00 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N11B MW 0.31 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N11C MW 0.21 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N11Y MW 0.41 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N12 MW 3.28 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N12A MW 1.11 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N12B MW 1.04 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N12Y MW 1.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N12YA MW 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

552 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

03N12YB MW 0.88 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N12YC MW 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N14 MW 1.52 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N14Y MW 0.81 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N15 MW 3.56 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N15Y MW 1.13 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N16 MW 6.19 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N16Y MW 1.50 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N17 MW 4.89 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N17B MW 0.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N17Y MW 1.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N18 MW 2.57 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N18Y MW 0.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N19 MW 0.09 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N20 MW 7.49 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N20A MW 1.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N20Y MW 2.85 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N20YB MW 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N20YC MW 0.81 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N20YD MW 1.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N21 MW 7.97 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N21B MW 0.67 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N21Y MW 2.57 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N21YA MW 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N22 MW 1.85 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N22A MW 1.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N22Y MW 0.60 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N23 MW 0.78 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N23Y MW 1.61 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N24 MW 4.87 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N24A MW 0.09 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N24D MW 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N25 MW 1.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26 MW 3.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26A MW 0.45 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26C MW 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26Y MW 1.37 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26YA MW 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N26YA MW 1.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26YB MW 0.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N26YB MW 0.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N27 MW 4.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N27A MW 1.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N27B MW 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N27C MW 2.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N27Y MW 1.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N27YA MW 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N28 MW 2.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N28Y MW 1.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N28YA MW 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N29 MW 9.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N29A MW 0.70 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N29B MW 0.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N29C MW 1.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N29D MW 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N29F MW 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N30 MW 4.41 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N32 MW 1.68 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N32Y MW 2.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N32YA MW 0.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N33 MW 0.59 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N33A MW 0.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

03N33Y MW 0.70 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N34 MW 1.63 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N34A MW 0.27 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N34Y MW 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N34Y MW 3.21 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N35 MW 1.90 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N36 MW 1.00 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N37Y MW 1.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N38 MW 0.04 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N38Y MW 0.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N38YA MW 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N39 MW 3.15 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N39Y MW 2.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N40 MW 0.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N41 MW 1.68 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N41Y MW 0.47 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N42 MW 0.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N42A MW 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N42Y MW 1.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N42YA MW 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N42YB MW 0.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N43 MW 0.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N43A MW 0.55 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N43Y MW 0.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N44 MW 1.62 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N44Y MW 1.94 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N45 MW 0.19 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N45Y MW 1.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N45YA MW 0.54 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N46 MW 0.70 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N46Y MW 0.80 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N47Y MW 1.78 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N48 MW 0.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N48 MW 2.30 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N48A MW 0.53 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N48B MW 0.80 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N48Y MW 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N49 MW 1.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N49A MW 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N49B MW 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N50 MW 2.96 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N50Y MW 1.31 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N50YA MW 0.76 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N51Y MW 0.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N51YA MW 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N51YB MW 0.66 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N52 MW 0.22 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N52Y MW 0.99 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N53 MW 0.50 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N53Y MW 0.57 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N55Y MW 0.58 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N56Y MW 1.42 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N56YA MW 0.62 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N57 MW 0.84 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N57A MW 0.54 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N58 MW 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N58 MW 3.75 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N59 MW 0.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N59Y MW 1.18 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N59YA MW 0.55 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N60 MW 1.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N60 MW 1.89 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

553 
 

 

 

 

Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

03N60A MW 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N60B MW 0.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N60C MW 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N60D MW 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N61 MW 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N61A MW 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N62 MW 1.16 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N63 MW 1.26 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N64 MW 0.72 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N64A MW 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N67 MW 0.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N68 MW 1.70 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N68Y MW 0.88 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N69 MW 1.38 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N69 MW 3.83 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N69A MW 0.61 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N69Y MW 0.47 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03N70 MW 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N70A MW 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N71 MW 0.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N71 MW 0.71 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N71Y MW 1.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

03N72 MW 1.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N72Y MW 0.81 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N72YA MW 0.35 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03N73 MW 2.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N73B MW 0.30 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N75Y MW 0.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N76Y MW 0.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N77 MW 0.56 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N78 MW 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N79 MW 1.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N80 MW 0.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N80Y MW 0.13 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N83 MW 5.40 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N83A MW 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N83B MW 0.59 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N83C MW 1.99 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N84 MW 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N86 MW 0.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N86 MW 3.79 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N87 MW 2.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N89 MW 0.72 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N90 MW 3.77 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N91 MW 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N91 MW 0.28 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03N92 MW 1.18 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N93 MW 0.91 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N94 MW 2.89 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N95 MW 1.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N95A MW 0.56 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

03N96 MW 5.18 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

03N99 MW 2.52 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

03S01 GR 2.74 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03S02 GR 6.39 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03S03 GR 1.21 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03S04 GR 0.97 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

03S06 GR 0.66 NAT 1 no public year round no public 

03S10 GR 2.52 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03S10A GR 1.12 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03S15 GR 1.85 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

03S24 GR 0.08 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

04N01 MW 0.91 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

04N01 MW 2.32 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N01 MW 3.05 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N01 MW 5.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N01 MW 6.88 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N01A MW 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N01B MW 0.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N01C MW 0.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N01E MW 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N01Y MW 0.59 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N02 MW 1.40 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N02 MW 4.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N02A MW 0.49 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N02Y SU 1.85 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N03 CAL 0.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N03Y MW 1.95 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N03YA MW 0.97 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N04 MW 0.64 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N04 MW 2.29 AGG 1 year round year round year round 

04N04A MW 0.77 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N04C MW 1.10 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N04Y CAL 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N05 MW 1.73 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N05Y MW 1.14 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N06 CAL 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N06Y SU 0.48 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N06YA SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N07 CAL 0.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N07Y MW 1.35 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N08Y MW 1.54 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N09 MW 0.27 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N09 MW 0.66 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N09 MW 1.54 BST 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N09 MW 4.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N09B MW 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N09Y MW 0.42 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N10 SU 2.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N10A SU 0.82 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N10B SU 0.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N10Y MW 0.44 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N11 SU 2.38 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N11 MW 4.94 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N11X CAL 0.12 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N11X CAL 0.14 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N12 SU 5.42 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N12 SU 13.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N12C SU 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N12F SU 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N12H SU 1.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N12Q SU 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N13 MW 0.26 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N13 SU 0.34 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N13 MW 1.02 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N13 SU 2.08 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N14 SU 2.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N14 MW 2.46 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N15 MW 0.21 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N15 MW 2.15 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N15Y MW 0.48 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N16 MW 9.66 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N16Y MW 0.62 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N16YA MW 0.28 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

554 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

04N17 MW 0.37 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N17 MW 6.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N17A MW 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N17D MW 0.58 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N17E MW 0.32 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N17F MW 0.62 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N17G MW 0.62 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N17Y MW 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N18 MW 3.42 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N18C MW 0.40 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N18Y SU 2.98 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N18YD SU 0.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N20 SU 0.10 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N203B SU 0.04 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N20A SU 0.15 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N20Y MW 1.17 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N22 SU 2.39 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N23 SU 1.25 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N24 SU 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N25 SU 1.51 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N25 MW 3.74 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N25A SU 0.27 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N26 SU 0.78 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N26 SU 2.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N26 SU 6.57 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N26B SU 0.78 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N26C SU 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N27 SU 1.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N27Y SU 0.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N27Y SU 0.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N28Y SU 1.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N28YB SU 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N29 SU 1.84 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N31 SU 0.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N31A SU 0.36 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N32 SU 0.60 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N32 MW 1.99 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N32A MW 0.88 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N32C MW 0.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N33 SU 1.75 BST 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N33 MW 7.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N33A MW 1.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N33B MW 1.74 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N33C MW 1.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N33Y SU 1.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N34 SU 5.91 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N34B SU 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N34Y SU 0.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N34Y SU 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N35A SU 0.38 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N35Y MW 0.49 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N35Y SU 2.04 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N38 CAL 2.64 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N38 CAL 3.10 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N38Y SU 1.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N39 SU 0.93 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N40 CAL 0.82 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N41Y CAL 0.12 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N42 MW 1.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N44 CAL 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N47 SU 4.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N47D SU 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

04N47Y SU 1.76 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N48Y SU 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N49Y MW 0.16 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N49Y MW 1.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N49YA MW 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

04N50 CAL 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N50Y MW 3.58 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N50YC MW 1.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N51Y SU 0.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N53Y SU 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N54 SU 1.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N55 SU 1.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N57 SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N57A SU 0.37 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N59 SU 1.22 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N61 MW 2.02 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N61A MW 0.69 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N62 CAL 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N62Y MW 0.64 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N63 CAL 3.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N63Y SU 1.55 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N65 SU 1.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N67 SU 0.32 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N67A SU 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N68Y SU 1.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N69 MW 1.63 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N70 SU 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N70 SU 1.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N71 SU 1.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N71A SU 0.58 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N72Y MW 1.67 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N72YA MW 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N73 SU 0.77 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N73Y CAL 0.67 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N74 MW 0.26 NAT 1 year round year round year round 

04N74Y MW 1.63 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N75 MW 1.80 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N76 SU 1.72 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N76Y SU 0.59 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N77 MW 0.79 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N77Y SU 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N78 MW 2.85 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N78Y SU 0.50 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N78YA SU 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N78YB SU 0.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N79 MW 0.88 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N79 MW 1.10 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N80 MW 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N80Y CAL 3.06 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round no public 

04N81 MW 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N81 MW 2.20 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N82 MW 0.63 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N82Y MW 0.84 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N83 MW 1.62 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N83B MW 0.52 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N85 MW 0.00 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N85 MW 2.94 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N86 MW 1.04 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N86Y MW 0.49 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

04N88 MW 5.79 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N88A MW 0.38 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N89 MW 1.35 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

555 
Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

04N89A MW 0.67 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N90 MW 4.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N91 SU 1.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N95 MW 1.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N95 MW 1.16 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

04N97 MW 0.82 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

04N98 MW 1.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

04N99 MW 1.83 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N01 SU 0.82 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N01 SU 1.13 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N01 SU 2.30 BST 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N01 SU 3.46 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N01 SU 4.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N01A SU 0.56 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N01J SU 1.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N01M SU 0.86 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02 SU 5.32 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N02 SU 5.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02 CAL 5.79 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N02 SU 7.11 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N02 SU 8.16 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

05N02 CAL 17.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02B CAL 0.89 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02C SU 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02D SU 0.21 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N02F SU 0.24 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N02H SU 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02L SU 0.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N02R CAL 1.87 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N04 SU 3.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N05Y SU 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N05YA SU 0.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N06 SU 1.73 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N06Y SU 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N07X CAL 2.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N08Y SU 1.48 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N08YA SU 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N08YC SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N09 SU 4.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N09A SU 0.66 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N09C SU 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N09D SU 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N09X SU 8.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N09XA SU 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N10 CAL 7.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N10C CAL 1.50 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N11 SU 3.48 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N11Y SU 0.88 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N12 SU 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N12 SU 2.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N12Y SU 0.80 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N12YA SU 0.45 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N13X SU 0.52 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N13Y SU 0.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N14 CAL 1.08 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N14 CAL 4.25 BST 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N14 CAL 10.68 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N14 SU 12.10 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N14D SU 0.66 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N14G CAL 0.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N14L CAL 1.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N14M CAL 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

05N14Y SU 2.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N15X SU 0.54 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N15XA SU 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N15Y SU 2.04 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N16 CAL 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N16A CAL 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N17 SU 1.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N17Y SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N18 SU 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N18Y SU 2.85 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N18YB SU 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N18YC SU 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N18YD SU 0.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N21 SU 4.93 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N22 SU 3.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N22Y SU 1.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N24 CAL 0.16 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N25 SU 2.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N25A SU 0.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N25B SU 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N26 SU 0.47 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N26Y SU 1.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N28 SU 4.21 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N28C SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N28D SU 0.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N29 SU 3.00 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N29Y SU 0.94 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N30 SU 3.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N30A SU 2.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N31 SU 2.67 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N32 SU 2.76 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N32A SU 2.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N34Y CAL 0.60 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N35 CAL 1.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N35B CAL 0.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N39 SU 5.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N39A SU 1.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N39Y SU 1.62 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N40Y SU 3.87 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N41Y CAL 1.47 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N42 CAL 5.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N43Y CAL 1.82 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N44 SU 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N47 CAL 0.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N47A CAL 0.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N47B CAL 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N47Y CAL 2.09 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N48Y SU 1.57 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N50 CAL 0.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N50Y SU 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N51Y CAL 1.58 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N51YA CAL 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N52 CAL 2.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N53Y CAL 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N55 CAL 1.60 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

05N55Y SU 1.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N55YA SU 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N55YB SU 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N56 CAL 0.94 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

05N56 CAL 1.32 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

05N59 SU 1.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N59Y SU 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

556 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

05N63 CAL 0.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N65Y SU 1.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N66 CAL 0.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N67 SU 1.39 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N67Y CAL 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N71 CAL 2.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N71A CAL 0.61 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N71Y SU 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N72 CAL 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N73Y SU 0.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N76Y CAL 1.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N77Y CAL 4.53 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N79Y CAL 1.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N80Y SU 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N82Y SU 0.62 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N83Y SU 0.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N83YB SU 0.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N85Y SU 0.92 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N85YA SU 0.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N87 SU 2.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N87D SU 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N88 CAL 2.14 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N88 CAL 2.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N88B CAL 4.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N88Y CAL 1.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N88YA CAL 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N89 CAL 3.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N89Y CAL 0.13 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N90 SU 1.58 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N92 SU 2.50 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N92B SU 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N92Y CAL 0.05 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N93 SU 1.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N93Y SU 0.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N95 SU 3.60 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N95 SU 6.51 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N95B SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N95J SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

05N95Y CAL 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N95YA CAL 0.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

05N97 SU 0.83 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

05N99Y CAL 0.64 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

06N01 SU 0.83 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N01A SU 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N01B SU 0.11 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N03 CAL 2.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N03C CAL 0.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N03E CAL 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N03F CAL 0.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N05 SU 8.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N05B SU 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N05Y SU 0.80 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N06 SU 6.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N06A SU 0.31 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N06B SU 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N06B1 SU 0.27 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N06C SU 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N06F SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N07 CAL 2.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N07Y SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N08 CAL 4.27 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N08Y SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

06N09 CAL 5.37 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N09Y SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N10 CAL 3.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N10X SU 0.29 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N11 CAL 5.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N11A CAL 0.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N11X SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N11Y CAL 0.67 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N11YA CAL 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N12 SU 0.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N12X SU 0.36 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N13 SU 0.08 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N13X CAL 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N13Y SU 1.91 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N14 SU 0.37 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N15 SU 1.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N15A SU 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N16 SU 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N16A SU 0.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N17 CAL 9.55 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N17A CAL 0.56 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N17B CAL 0.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N17D CAL 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N17J CAL 0.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N17P CAL 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N17Q CAL 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N17Y CAL 0.98 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N17YA CAL 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N18 CAL 5.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N18A CAL 0.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N18C CAL 0.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N18F CAL 0.62 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N19 SU 0.48 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N19A SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N19Y SU 1.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N20Y CAL 1.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N21Y CAL 2.49 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N21YA CAL 0.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N22Y CAL 0.36 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N23 SU 0.27 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N23Y CAL 1.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N24 SU 0.12 AGG 3 no public year round no public 

06N24 SU 0.32 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N24 SU 0.49 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N24A SU 0.19 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N24Y CAL 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N26 CAL 0.02 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

06N27 CAL 4.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N28Y CAL 1.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N28YA CAL 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N29 CAL 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N29Y CAL 0.98 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N30 SU 0.72 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N30A SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N31Y SU 0.74 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N32 CAL 1.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N33 SU 0.10 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N33Y SU 0.92 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N34Y SU 2.91 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N34YD SU 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N36Y SU 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N36Y SU 0.27 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

557 
Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

06N36Y SU 1.12 NAT 3 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N37Y SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N38Y SU 1.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N39Y SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N40 CAL 0.09 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

06N41Y SU 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N42Y CAL 1.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N43Y SU 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N44Y SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N45 CAL 10.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N45Y SU 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N47Y SU 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N53Y CAL 0.85 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N54Y CAL 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N58 CAL 5.97 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N58Y CAL 0.80 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N59Y CAL 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N60 CAL 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N60Y CAL 0.02 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

06N62 CAL 1.34 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N63 SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N64 CAL 0.99 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N64Y SU 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N65Y CAL 0.39 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N65YA CAL 0.62 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N66Y CAL 4.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N66YA CAL 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N66YB CAL 0.82 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N70Y CAL 1.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N71Y CAL 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N73Y CAL 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N74Y CAL 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N75 CAL 0.37 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N76Y CAL 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N76YA CAL 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N76YB CAL 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N77 CAL 1.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N77A CAL 0.82 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N77B CAL 0.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N77Y CAL 1.56 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N78 CAL 1.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N78A CAL 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N78Y CAL 1.57 IMP 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

06N79 CAL 1.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N79Y CAL 0.31 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N80 CAL 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N80Y CAL 0.78 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N80YA CAL 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N81 CAL 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N81Y CAL 1.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N81YA CAL 0.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N82 CAL 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N82Y SU 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N84Y CAL 0.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N85 CAL 0.72 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N85A CAL 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

06N85Y CAL 0.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N88Y CAL 0.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N89 CAL 1.97 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N89Y CAL 1.57 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N90 CAL 3.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N90A CAL 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

06N90Y CAL 1.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N90YA CAL 0.83 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N91 CAL 6.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N91A CAL 0.36 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N91B CAL 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N91C CAL 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N91D CAL 0.79 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N91E CAL 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N92 CAL 1.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N94 CAL 1.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N95 CAL 5.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N95A CAL 0.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N95G CAL 0.68 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N96 CAL 2.99 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N97Y CAL 2.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N98 CAL 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

06N98Y CAL 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N01 CAL 10.25 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N01C CAL 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N01E CAL 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N01G CAL 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N01H CAL 0.12 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N02 CAL 2.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N03Y CAL 0.13 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N05 CAL 1.83 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N05 CAL 2.80 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N05Y CAL 0.36 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N07Y CAL 1.68 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N08 CAL 0.24 AGG 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

07N08 CAL 2.89 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N08 CAL 3.39 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

07N09 CAL 4.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09 CAL 4.97 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N09 CAL 14.53 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N09A CAL 0.86 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09B CAL 0.45 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N09C CAL 0.62 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09D CAL 0.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09E CAL 0.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09F CAL 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09G CAL 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09H CAL 0.54 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09J CAL 0.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09W CAL 0.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N09W CAL 0.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N11 CAL 6.28 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N11D CAL 0.68 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N12A CAL 1.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N13 SU 0.60 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N13A SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N14 CAL 2.48 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N14A CAL 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N14C CAL 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N14D CAL 0.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N14F CAL 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N15 CAL 0.49 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N16 CAL 4.83 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N16A CAL 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N16X CAL 1.36 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N17 CAL 2.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N17 CAL 2.79 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N17A CAL 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

558 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

07N17B CAL 0.57 AGG 3 no public year round no public 

07N18A CAL 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N18Y CAL 0.90 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N18YC CAL 0.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N19 CAL 3.53 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N19X CAL 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N19Y CAL 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N20 CAL 0.40 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N20Y CAL 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N20YA CAL 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N21 CAL 1.03 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N21Y CAL 1.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N21YA CAL 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N22 CAL 1.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N23 CAL 1.53 BST 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N23 CAL 4.45 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N24 CAL 3.85 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N25Y CAL 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N26 CAL 1.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N28 CAL 3.22 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N28 CAL 3.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N28E CAL 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N28J CAL 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N29Y CAL 3.96 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N30Y SU 0.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N30YA SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N30YB SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N31 CAL 1.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N31A CAL 0.64 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N31B CAL 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N31C CAL 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N35 CAL 5.83 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N37Y CAL 1.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N38 CAL 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N40Y CAL 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N41Y SU 0.11 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N46 CAL 1.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N46A CAL 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N47 CAL 2.50 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N47 CAL 4.62 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N47C CAL 0.57 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N48 CAL 0.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N48A CAL 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N48B CAL 0.31 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N49Y CAL 0.36 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N50 CAL 2.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N50Y CAL 0.04 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N51 CAL 0.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N51A CAL 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N51Y CAL 0.43 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N52 CAL 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N52Y CAL 0.27 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N53 CAL 3.52 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N53Y CAL 1.42 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N54Y CAL 1.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N55 CAL 1.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N55A CAL 0.59 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N55Y CAL 0.40 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N56Y CAL 1.73 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N56YA CAL 0.71 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 no public 

07N57 CAL 0.29 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N57 CAL 2.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

07N57Y CAL 1.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N58 CAL 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N59 CAL 1.65 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N59A CAL 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N59Y CAL 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N61Y CAL 0.24 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N62 CAL 0.29 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N62Y CAL 0.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N64Y CAL 1.76 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N65 CAL 1.60 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N65B CAL 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N65C CAL 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N66 CAL 0.66 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N66B CAL 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N67 CAL 0.63 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N68 CAL 1.32 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N68A CAL 0.67 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N69 CAL 2.69 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N69A CAL 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N69B CAL 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N70 CAL 0.77 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N71Y CAL 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N71YA CAL 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N72 CAL 2.74 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N72A CAL 0.30 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N72B CAL 0.46 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N73 CAL 1.35 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N75 CAL 1.84 AGG 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N75C CAL 0.49 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N76 SU 1.55 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

07N76Y CAL 3.26 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N77 CAL 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N80A CAL 0.01 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

07N82 CAL 0.95 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N82A CAL 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N83B SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N84Y CAL 0.97 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N84YB CAL 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N87 CAL 1.70 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N87A CAL 0.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N87B CAL 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N88Y CAL 1.88 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N91 CAL 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N92 CAL 1.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N92A CAL 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N92B CAL 0.55 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N93 CAL 2.68 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N94 CAL 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

07N94A CAL 0.73 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

08N01A CAL 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

08N02 CAL 1.82 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

08N04 CAL 0.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

08N06 CAL 0.44 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

08N12 CAL 0.56 IMP 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

08N13 CAL 0.54 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

08N14 CAL 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

15EV26 CAL 0.29 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV55 CAL 1.43 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV55A CAL 0.09 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV56 CAL 0.51 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV57 CAL 1.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV58 CAL 0.66 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

559 
Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

15EV59 CAL 0.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV60 CAL 1.77 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV61 CAL 0.41 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV62 CAL 0.55 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV63 CAL 1.06 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV64 CAL 0.95 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV65 CAL 0.46 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV66 CAL 0.45 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV67 CAL 0.46 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV68 CAL 0.73 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV69 CAL 0.58 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV70 CAL 0.24 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV71 CAL 0.62 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV72 CAL 1.02 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

15EV73 CAL 0.88 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

16EV186 CAL 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

16EV187 CAL 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

16EV188 CAL 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

16EV190 CAL 1.55 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

16EV192 CAL 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

17EV151 CAL 2.55 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

17EV152 CAL 0.75 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

17EV16 CAL 2.54 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

17EV17 CAL 1.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

17EV220 MW 0.33 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

17EV220B MW 0.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

17EV261 MW 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

18EV254 SU 0.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

18EV256 SU 0.81 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

18EV272 GR 1.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

18EV273 GR 1.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

18EV274 GR 1.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

18EV306 SU 0.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV104 GR 1.41 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV105 GR 1.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV106 GR 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV114 SU 4.89 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV115 SU 1.87 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV43 CAL 1.51 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV93 SU 1.78 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

19EV97 SU 0.84 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

21502A MW 0.13 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

21502B MW 0.31 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

21825H GR 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

21930K1 GR 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

31622R MW 0.16 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41704X SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41723A SU 0.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41723C SU 0.11 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41723D SU 0.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41723E SU 0.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41724D SU 0.12 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41725A SU 0.34 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41802C SU 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41802D SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41803B SU 0.22 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41807D SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41808H SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41809A SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41809E SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41809X04 SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41810K SU 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

41810M SU 0.38 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41810P SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41811D1 SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41811P SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41816D SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41818J SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41818M SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41819A SU 0.07 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41820B SU 0.02 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41820C SU 0.04 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41825B SU 0.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41825H SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41826D SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41827F SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41827G SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41828E SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41829B SU 0.04 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41830C SU 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

41836A SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41899Z21 SU 0.08 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

4191601 SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

4191602 SU 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

4191603 SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41918B SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

41929A SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

4N34Y1 SU 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

4N34Y3 SU 0.70 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

4N39X2 SU 0.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

4N54Y041 SU 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

51701A SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51713A SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51723C SU 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51725D SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51735E SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51801B SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51801G SU 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51806B SU 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51806C SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51810A SU 0.15 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51810B SU 0.13 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51811A SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51811B SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51812D SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51812F SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51814D SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51814F SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51814J SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51815B SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51815C SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51816A SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51817 SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51825A1 SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51825B SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51827B SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51827C SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51828A SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51829B SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51830E SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51830F SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51831E SU 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51832D SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51832E SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

560 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix I
 

Environmental Impact Statement Route Data 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

51832X SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51835B SU 0.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51835D1 SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51836B SU 0.47 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51836D SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51836E SU 0.17 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51902A SU 1.67 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51902A051 SU 0.21 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51902A052 SU 0.18 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51902AB SU 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51904E SU 0.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51906A SU 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51910B SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51910B1 SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51910B2 SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51910C SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51911A SU 0.58 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51911B SU 0.24 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51911C SU 1.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51911F SU 0.39 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51913A1 SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51913C SU 0.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51913D SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51913E SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51913F SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51920C SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51920D SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51922A SU 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51927D SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51927E SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51930C2 SU 0.23 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51933A SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51936052 SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

51936053 SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52005A SU 0.27 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52005C SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52005F SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52005G SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52006C SU 0.31 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52006D SU 0.19 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52006F SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52007A SU 0.34 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52007H SU 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52008A SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52017A SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52017B SU 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52017C SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52017G SU 2.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52018A SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52018C SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52018D SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52018E SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

52018F SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

5N34X SU 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61724A SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61725A SU 0.07 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

6182504A SU 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61915A SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61916A SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61919A SU 0.16 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61920A SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61920D SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

Route RD MI SUR SEA Season of Use 

ALT 1 ALT 4 ALT 5 

61920F SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61930A SU 0.20 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61930B SU 0.53 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61931A SU 0.02 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61931A04 SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61931B04 SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61931E SU 0.12 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61931G SU 0.10 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61932B SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61932C SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61932E SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61933E SU 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

61933F SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

62028A SU 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

62034A SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

62035A1 SU 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

62035B SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

62127C SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

62134A1 SU 0.01 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

72032C SU 0.05 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

72032D SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

C20 CAL 0.81 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

FR10831 CAL 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR11116 CAL 0.04 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR12088 CAL 0.11 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR12476 CAL 0.05 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR12477 CAL 0.36 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR12607 SU 0.19 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR12848 SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR12849 SU 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR13169 MW 0.05 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

FR14528 MW 0.02 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR14823 SU 0.25 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR14833 SU 0.09 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR4767 CAL 0.14 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR4898 GR 0.09 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

FR4898 GR 0.22 IMP 2 no public year round no public 

FR5219 CAL 0.03 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR58051 SU 0.03 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

FR7181 CAL 0.16 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR7368 GR 0.40 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

FR7856 GR 0.14 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

FR8080 CAL 0.04 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR8319 CAL 0.86 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR8322 CAL 0.08 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR8323 CAL 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR8445 GR 0.04 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR8602 GR 0.22 NAT 2 no public 4/1-12/31 no public 

FR8797 GR 0.47 AC 2 4/1-11/30 year round 4/15-11/15 

FR8925 CAL 0.04 AC 3 5/15-11/30 year round 5/15-11/15 

FR8991 GR 0.18 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

FR9330 CAL 0.11 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR9331 CAL 0.33 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

FR9843 GR 0.14 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

FS83231 CAL 0.06 NAT 3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/31 5/15-11/15 

R10 CAL 0.20 NAT 2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/31 4/15-11/15 

561 
Appendix I Stanislaus 

Route Data National Forest
 

Legend 

BST Bituminous Surface Treatment 

AC Asphalt 

AGG Aggregate or Gravel 

CAL Calaveras 

GR Groveland 

IMP Improved Native Material 

MI Miles 

MW Mi-Wok 

NAT Native Material 

RD Ranger District 

SEA Season of Use 

Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

1 year-round year-round year-round 

2 4/1-11/30 4/1-12/311

 4/15-11/15 

3 5/15-11/30 4/1-12/311

 5/15-11/15 

SU Summit 

SUR Surface 1 Native surface routes only 

562 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

J. Response to Comments 

The Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 2009. The 75-day comment period ended on May 20, 2009. In response 

to the Forest’s request for comments, 927 interested parties submitted 841 letters. For tracking 

purposes, the interdisciplinary team assigned a letter number28 to each letter; and, an ID29 number for 

each specific comment. 

Forest Service direction requires that final Environmental Impact Statements respond to substantive 

comments on the draft EIS (FSH 1909.15, 24.1). Substantive comments are within the scope of the 

proposed action; are specific to the proposed action; have a direct relationship to the proposed action; 

and, include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider (36 CFR 215.2). The team 

reviewed all 3,123 specific comments and identified 1,233 that do not meet this substantive test and 

screened them as non-substantive comments. 

Then, they reviewed the remaining 1,890 specific substantive comments; combined similar comments 

into 489 summary statements grouped by 9 general topic areas; and, provided a response to each. The 

content analysis spreadsheet titled “Public Comments Summary Report” (see project record) contains 

all 3,123 specific comments and identifies the reasons for those screened as non-substantive. That 

spreadsheet also includes respondents sorted by letter number and respondents sorted by ID number. 

This Appendix contains the 489 summary comment statements, organized by the 9 general topics 

shown below, along with the appropriate ID numbers, followed by the Forest Service response to 

each. 

1. NEPA Process 

2. Transportation System 

3. Recreation (excluding Motorized) 

4. Motorized Recreation 

5. Roadless and Special Areas 

6. Society, Culture and Economy 

7. Cultural Resources 

8. Natural Resources 

9. Enforcement 

28 For example, letter number 042509-02 is the second letter received on April 25, 2009. 

29 A four digit number (i.e., 1953) automatically generated for each specific comment. 

563 
Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

564 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

1.00 NEPA PROCESS
 

1.	 Comment: NEPA should not be required to evaluate an addition to the system of any route currently 

existing (authorized or unauthorized) since resources are already impacted. Additionally cross country 

travel was already prohibited in the forest, and yet over and over again the DEIS refers to crosscountry travel by off-road vehicles as if it was allowed. 

2311 3868 3870 4482 3343 

Response: NEPA is required prior to adding routes to the transportation system. The routes 

proposed and the prohibition on cross country travel never received site specific analysis. Some 

routes have negative environmental effects (See Chapter 3). The Travel Management Rule 

never exempted any Forest from having to do an environmental review to implement it. Both 

negative and positive effects must be analyzed, publicly disclosed and considered when making 

a final decision. The EIS reviews and analyzes all routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

2.	 Comment: Unauthorized user-created routes may not have undergone site specific environmental 

analysis or public involvement for addition to the system. The EIS should state how the Forest will 

ensure specific user-created routes are adequately evaluated pursuant to NEPA requirements. 

2191 2561 2590 2616 2756 3517 4328 

Response: The ID Team evaluated all known unauthorized routes and deemed some 

unacceptable and dropped from further consideration due to resource concerns. Appendix H 

lists all unauthorized routes that are designated for addition to the system in any alternative. The 

ID Team evaluated each of these routes and either determined that the route was known to be 

acceptable or made a field visit and evaluated the effects on site. 

3.	 Comment: The Forest misled the public and improperly referenced a document with the use of the 

language “other higher level decisions” as criteria for determining non-significant issues as found in 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations when in fact it was not. There is no 

regulation that allows for the use of some “higher level decision" permitted by CEQ. 

3362 3364 

Response: The statement in Chapter 1.08 refers to Forest Plan or other higher level NEPA 

decisions and does not use language directly contained in the CEQ NEPA regulations. This is 

consistent with the following paragraph that references the regulation which states: identify and 

eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered 

by prior environmental review. 

4.	 Comment: What was the rational and criteria used to develop the proposed changes to the existing 

NFTS, as changes appear to have been arbitrary without substantiation of resource damage or other 

negative environmental effects. Also the Sierra Nevada Framework guidelines were intended to guide 

"project" work, that is vegetation treatment, fire management, and so forth. Existing routes are not 

"projects" and do not represent ground disturbing actions. 

2192 2858 3057 3073 3077 3401 3403 

3877 3416 3068 4218 3054 3396 3397 

3399 3402 

Response: Chapter 2 describes how alternatives were developed and Table 2.05-1 shows how 

routes were included in each alternative. Unauthorized routes that were proposed for additions 

to the system were evaluated to see if they met Forest Land Management Plan standards and 

guides. Where they did not and they were deemed potentially needed for the recreation system, 

a plan amendment was developed which would exempt them from the Standards and 

565 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Guidelines. In addition to the DEIS the 2006 inventory is available on the Stanislaus website 

and by request on CD. 

5.	 Comment: Characterizing the Proposed Action as an improvement ignores the decision and lack 

responsibility by the Forest Service to not designate trails for thirty years. Using the present condition 

as the baseline anywhere in the DEIS is justifying decisions already made and is biased and illegal. 

Except for trails already under NEPA, which are not addressed in this DEIS, there are no trails 

"consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2))". The DEIS 

needs to be rewritten with the proper baseline and compliance to the ideals of the NEPA. 

3404 4305 4306 4307 4308 4309 4349 

4350 2589 3871 2588 3414 3415 3657 

3660 3878 

Response: Establishing the baseline as current condition does not predetermine any decision. 

The present condition represents past and current decisions. The no-action alternative provides a 

baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. No decisions were made previously on 

routes being considered for additions to the NFTS. No decision has been made on what routes 

will be added to the system, what changes will be made to the existing NFTS, and what seasons 

of use will be allowed. The choice of one of the action alternatives will reduce the level 

currently used and being created. Because cross country travel will be prohibited, no areas will 

be allowed to travel on, resulting in a major reduction from forest-wide open riding to no open 

riding. The only trails that are consistent with FSM 2353.03(2) are trails that have already 

undergone the NEPA process and have been added to the NFTS. 

6.	 Comment: We allege that this document does not support the objectives of a legally sustainable 

system nor does it effectively manage recreation. A Supplementary DEIS is necessary due to the 

omissions, lack of quality data and manufactured uncertainty. 

4305 

Response: Chapters 3.04 and 3.06 disclose the effects on the human environment. 

7.	 Comment: The Forest Service developed its proposed action in 2005. It used the Stanislaus 

Recreation Stakeholders (SRS) and the Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP) to help in selections, 

deletions, and changes to the baseline inventory and developing the proposed action. We doubt that 

the baseline was ever seen by the public. The Forest had no intentions of developing a collaborative 

proposed action. 

3406 3376 3368 3410 

Response: The SRS never determined or advised on selections, deletions, and changes to the 

baseline inventory or developing the proposed action. The CCP served as a facilitator, teacher, 

and mentor to group members in learning about how to participate effectively in a stakeholders’ 

group such as this. CCP never advised on selections, deletions, and changes to the baseline 

inventory or developing the proposed action. CCP has always advised on the importance of a 

public process and actively confined all conversations with the SRS to just matters related to 

pubic outreach. CCP has continued to serve as a facilitator and educator for the public 

involvement process for the Stanislaus National Forest. 

The Forest Service is an ad hoc member of the SRS. The work of the small group resulted in a 

meeting with over 150 stakeholder representatives, which allowed participants to share issues 

and determine next steps. This group affirmed the value of a stakeholder process and suggested 

group composition. 

SRS has served as a sounding board for the Forest Service during the travel management 

process (pre-NEPA) in a number of areas: public rollout plan of the Forest’s Inventory in 2005; 

566 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

identification of potential issues of representative members’ constituency in 2006; design of 

public meeting format in the pre NEPA Discussion Proposal stage in 2007; the Scoping Stage of 

the Notice of Intent in 2008; the rollout of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement phase in 

2009; and will be instrumental in the public involvement strategy in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Record of Decision phase. The SRS also provided advice and concerns on the 

issue of dispersed camping access. 

8.	 Comment: The DEIS fails to accurately describe the existing legal policy situation, or to describe the 

consequences that have resulted from the lack of will by a string of Forest Supervisors to implement 

and enforce the 1998 policies, in particular, and to publish a MVUM map designating appropriate 

roads and OHV routes. 

4483 4467 

Response: Only routes added to the transportation system can be designated and shown on 

MVUM. In order to add routes, they first must undergo environmental analysis. This EIS will 

complete the final step needed to implement the Forest Land Management Plan. 

9.	 Comment: The Travel Management EIS fails to meet the standards of analyzing cumulative effects. 

In particular, the EIS must include discussion of the connection between individual projects, or past 

recommendations given to the public about where to ride OHVs and the prior environmental harms 

from those activities. The effects of specific past activities on private lands must also be disclosed. 

3575 3576 3577 2885 2877 

Response: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive memorandum 

on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an 

adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (CEQ 2005). See Chapter 

3.01, Analysis Process and Cumulative Effects for additional rationale. 

10.	 Comment: Defined and approved guidelines for motorized travel and recreation should be 

established before any such land use is approved. We suggest that you consider the following in 

addition to already established guidelines: a. An outdoor ethics code is adopted similar to the Leave 

No Trace code adopted by various agencies for river corridors; b. A "Good Neighbor Policy" be 

adopted that Mixed-use policies preclude simultaneous use of incompatible uses such as OHVs and 

equestrian, or hiking vs. OHV. 

2392 

Response: Chapter 1.05 and Appendix C show the established guidelines that apply to travel 

management on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

11.	 Comment: Neither the No-Action Alternative or the Cross-Country Prohibited alternatives include 

the complete inventory of trails as part of the Existing Management Situation. It is curious that the 

DEIS fails to clearly indicate where cross-country travel is allowed; we must refer to the LRMP and 

the numerous amendments, and figure this out for ourselves. 

3391 

Response: Cross country travel is prohibited forestwide in four alternatives and is one of the 

four components considered for a decision. It is described in Chapter 2 and in each resource 

section in Chapter 3 with the environmental consequences. 

12.	 Comment: Our review indicates a complete disregard for the uses and impacts associated with the 

Hetch Hetchy (a.k.a. Raker Act) properties adjacent to and within the Stanislaus National Forest. We 

have witnessed frequent motorized uses on areas of the forest facilitated and/or encouraged by the 

567 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

easy access to and the far reaching inter-connectivity with forest roads, trails, and clearings afforded 

by Hetch Hetchy property. 

2376 2377 

Response: The Forest is working with Hetch Hetchy project managers to assure that public 

access to their permit roads will not be shown on MVUMs. 

13.	 Comment: The NOI does not represent a true NOI as defined by the Council of Environmental 

Quality (CEQ). According to Section 1508.21, a “Notice of Intent.........shall briefly: (a) Describe the 

proposed action and possible alternatives.” We find no listing or description of the possible 

alternatives to the proposed action in the NOI. 

3865 3867 

Response: Lack of inclusion of possible alternatives in the NOI did not preclude the 

development of alternatives for the draft EIS. The alternatives in the draft were developed from 

public comment and further consideration by the ID Team. Other than Alternative 2, the No 

Action Alternative, there was no preconceived idea of the range of alternatives. In addition, the 

Forest Service presented conceptual alternatives to the public and used their input to craft the 

alternatives included in the DEIS. 

14.	 Comment: The Stanislaus National Forest has: failed to incorporate public input gathered in the preNOI scoping period; failed to consider significant issues gathered in the post-NOI scoping process, 

including the input contributed; failed to utilize proven scientific principle; failed to provide the most 

accurate and up-to-date unbiased information regarding forest conditions; failed to develop a viable 

recreation alternative; failed to consider numerous elements inherent in the enjoyment of off-road 

recreation. 

3863 

Response: The Scoping Report (project record) and Chapters 1.07 and 2.01 describe the 

process used to analyze and incorporate public input. The Forest conducted an extensive public 

involvement process with public meetings held in numerous locations at all key steps (see 

response to comment 7 above). 

15.	 Comment: The Forest should not undergo any Travel Management decisions with additions to the 

system until it has completed Subpart A-the minimum system analysis. 

2167 2196 4820 2163 4480 2096 2346 

2563 2593 3656 3676 4486 

Response: Completing subpart A is not a requirement before completing subpart B. 

16.	 Comment: Set a minimum distance standard between any such uses and private land where the 

private land owner/lessee is assured that there shall be no abusive intrusion, noise, or particulate 

matter from such use. 

2393 

Response: A quarter mile distance was used to evaluate effects of motorized use on private 

property in Chapter 3.06. 

17.	 Comment: The Forest needs to analyze, in the context of this proposal, the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects of these previous decisions on social, cultural and natural resources. 

2598 

Response: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive memorandum 

on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an 

568 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (CEQ 2005). See Chapter 

3.01, Analysis Process and Cumulative Effects, for additional rationale. 

18.	 Comment: It has also been frustrating for non-motorized and conservation interests to hear Forest 

leaders appear to endorse the general theme that increasing riding opportunities for off-road riders is a 

higher Forest priority than ensuring a high level of protection for at-risk plants, at-risk wildlife 

species, and soil and water resources. 

4466 

Response: Chapter 1.03 explains the purpose and need to evaluate additions and changes to the 

motorized system in order to comply with the intent of subpart B of the Travel Management 

Rule. As part of the analysis, the Forest evaluated the effects of the proposals on the natural and 

human resources (see Chapter 3.0). 

19.	 Comment: A preferred alternative must have supporting evidence for being selected. 

1891 

Response: Chapter 3 includes a comparison rating of alternatives and how they meet the 

indicators. The Record of Decision will identify the decision and rationale for making it. 

20.	 Comment: The DEIS must include an appropriate range of alternatives, and follow NEPA and 

create a baseline as instructed. Moreover, your identifying Alternative 3 as representing the baseline is 

simply not accurate. Alternative 3 shows the current condition and includes roads and trails that have 

not undergone the NEPA process. 

2094 2424 3681 

Response: Alternative 2 is the No Action alternative and as such serves as the baseline. 

Alternative 2 is the alternative by which all the other alternatives are compared against. The 

proposed action, Alternative 1 is the Alternative that the other 2 alternatives (4 and 5) are either 

increased or decreased in potential changes and additions. Alternative 3 is only different from 

Alternative 2 in that it prohibits cross country travel. No trails are being added to the system. 

NF roads are already in the transportation system and as such, are designated for potential 

motorized use by the public. 

21.	 Comment: When comparing the various DEISs published in the Federal Register by Region 5 

forests, it is difficult not to notice a similarity between said documents. But this region-wide similarity 

defies the intent of the Department, and serves to illegally deny the forests in Region 5 the local 

determination as described by the Final Rule. This clearly states that the decision making power in the 

Route Designation process is best made on a local level, not on a regional level, by regional 

authorities. 

2834 

Response: CEQ and the Forest Service Manual give clear direction on the preparation 

requirements of an EIS. In order to provide regional consistency in analysis techniques and 

assumptions, the Regional Office prepared templates for forest use in the analysis. These 

templates were then tailored to include local information and local information. It is the 

responsibility of the Regional Forester to provide oversight to the Forests. However, local 

Forest staff prepared the EIS and the Forest Supervisor will make the final decision. 

22.	 Comment: In preparation of the Master Plan complete a comprehensive public lands use study 

covering the history, use, its impacts and benefits by types, successful best management practices, and 

other foundational material necessary for a good public understanding of the issues, challenges, state 

569 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

management art, and the risk management scenarios that show the most successful failure avoidance 

measures. 

2397 

Response: The EIS presents all the known information and disclosed where known information 

is lacking. 

23.	 Comment: Stating the exact mileage available for addition to the National Forest System of roads 

and trails in the NOI points the Stanislaus National Forest towards developing alternatives determined 

before public scoping, as required by NEPA. We ask the Stanislaus National Forest to consider a true 

variety of alternatives in the DEIS, and to explore the possibility of adding more mileage than stated 

in the NOI as designated OHV roads and trails. 

3344 3358 3866 

Response: The Forest is required to develop a proposed action for the public to comment on. 

Known information regarding location and mileage of proposed additions was presented to 

solicit public comment 

24.	 Comment: The DEIS failed to display a range of environmental affects relating to the number of 

miles of routes, volume of traffic, traffic type and use rates. The statement that all alternatives would 

result in some unavoidable adverse environmental effect is purely conjecture and not founded by 

science or analysis results. 

2880 3078 

Response: Chapters 3.04, 3.06, and 3.08 disclose the effects on recreation users, society and 

the transportation system. 

1.10 Background 

25.	 Comment: The DEIS indicates this proposal is only one project among many in the long term goal 

of managing the transportation system both sustainable and cost effective. The term long term goal 

needs to be defined and it’s relevance to the project needs to be discussed. 

1883 1902 

Response: This statement stands on its own in Chapter 1.02 as part of the background 

discussion of Travel Management on the Stanislaus National Forest that occurred prior to and 

leading up to this project. The Forest has many goals, managing the transportation system in a 

sustainable and cost effective manner is just one that applies to all National Forests. 

26.	 Comment: The DEIS states, “From 1989 to 2002, four-wheel drive vehicle sales in California also 

increased by 1500% to 3,046,866 vehicles (Kordell 2005)”. The reader is unable to investigate this 

source further because Kordell is not listed in the reference section. 

1879 

Response: The reference cited in the DEIS was incorrect; the EIS will include the correct 

citation and reference. 

27.	 Comment: National and California figures reflect the increase in sales and usage of OHVs and sport 

utility vehicles. We ask for information regarding local sales figures, vehicle type and motor vehicle 

usage for the Stanislaus National Forest region. 

2841 2845 2851 3044 

Response: This information stands on its own in Chapter 1.02 as part of the background 

discussion of Travel Management on the Stanislaus National Forest that occurred prior to and 

570 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

leading up to this project. Most Forest visitors originate from the San Joaquin Valley and San 

Francisco Bay Area. Local usage data, as requested, is not available at this time. The analysis 

within the EIS considers all known use on the Forest, trends that influence demand and the 

factors that influence capacity. 

28.	 Comment: The DEIS presents a statement made by a former Forest Service Chief, with no 

supporting documentation: “unmanaged recreation, including impacts from OHVs, is one of four key 

threats facing the nation’s forests and grasslands”. This EIS has the burden of showing whether or not 

this unsupported claim is true for the Stanislaus National Forest. 

3346 3347 

Response: This statement stands on its own in Chapter 1.02 as part of the background 

discussion of Travel Management on the Stanislaus National Forest that occurred prior to and 

leading up to this project (see http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/). 

29.	 Comment: The DEIS presents unproven beliefs as foregone assumptions: “unmanaged motor 

vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and 

habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites; compaction and erosion are the primary 

effects of motor vehicle use on soils; riparian areas and aquatic dependent species are particularly 

vulnerable to damage from motor vehicle use; and, on some National Forest System lands, long 

managed as open to cross country motor vehicle travel, repeated use resulted in unplanned and 

unauthorized roads and trails.” 

3346 3347 3348 

Response: These statements stand on their own in Chapter 1.02 as part of the background 

discussion of Travel Management on the Stanislaus National Forest that occurred prior to and 

leading up to this project. 

30.	 Comment: The proposal appears to be another step to further restrict motor vehicles from accessing 

public lands. Reducing legal trails and roads will concentrate traffic to the limited designated 

locations, causing a greater amount of environmental harm and a safety hazard caused by rider 

consolidation. If the Motorized Travel Management project is part of a larger plan, the role of 

previous, present and future projects needs to be clearly stated and carefully explained and justified. 

1884 

Response: Implementation of the TMR is only one portion of the purpose and need (see Table 

1.03-1). Other portions include a need for limited changes to the NFTS to maintain motor 

vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities; and, provide a diversity of motorized 

recreation opportunities. In making any limited changes to the NFTS, the Forest will consider 

the criteria contained in Subpart B of the TMR which include the full range of resource 

protection measures outlined in Chapter 1.03. 

31.	 Comment: Nowhere does the DEIS disclose whether unauthorized routes are located in areas 

presently open to cross-country travel, and thus, these routes are not unauthorized by any definition. 

The claim that these routes do not have the same status as NFTS routes is not only highly arguable, it 

is deceptive. 

4397 

Response: This project defines an unauthorized route as a road or trail that is not part of the 

NFTS; it is not included in a forest transportation atlas (see Glossary). The EIS fully discloses, 

throughout Chapters 1-3, that cross country travel is not currently prohibited. The no action 

alternative represents the continuation of cross-country travel including continued use of all 

unauthorized routes by motor vehicles. Alternative 2, required by the implementing regulations 

571 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), serves as a baseline for comparison among 

the alternatives. 

32.	 Comment: The Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of 

Intent (MOI) with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission in 2003. The 

DEIS refers the reader to the project record, which could not be found within the DEIR nor within the 

Stanislaus project and plans web site. The public involvement section does not specify the degree of 

stakeholder involvement in the initial MOI process. 

1881 1882 

Response: Chapter 1.02 describes the 2003 MOI as part of the background information that 

occurred prior to and outside of this NEPA process. The MOI is simply an agreement between 

the Forest Service and the State of California to, “Designate OHV roads, trails, and any 

specifically defined open areas for motorized vehicles on maps of the 19 National Forests in 

California by 2007”. The MOI, part of the project record, is available on the project CD or by 

request. 

1.20 Purpose and Need 

33.	 Comment: The TMR provides policy for ending the trend of unauthorized route proliferation and 

managing the Forest transportation system in a sustainable manner through designation of motorized 

NFTS roads, trails and areas, and the prohibition of cross-country travel. The DEIS is based upon the 

flawed assumption that if cross-country travel is prohibited, there will be no new route proliferation. 

2842 3041 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 

Response: The EIS mentions and discusses route proliferation 88 times (see Index). The 

project record also includes a route proliferation document that presents an analysis of past, 

present and future proliferation expected without the proposed cross country travel prohibition. 

34.	 Comment: The contention that “the proliferation of unplanned, non-sustainable roads, trails and 

areas created by cross country travel adversely impacts the environment” is inappropriately applied 

on the Stanislaus where OHV management has been consistent for over 30 years. A majority of these 

unauthorized routes can be found on Forest Service maps. 

1880 2843 2844 3042 3043 4023 4024 

Response: This project defines an unauthorized route as a road or trail that is not part of the 

NFTS; it is not included in a forest transportation atlas (see Glossary). The project record 

includes a route proliferation document that presents an analysis of past, present and future 

proliferation expected without the proposed cross country travel prohibition. 

35.	 Comment: The TMR does not include motorized recreation opportunities as a primary need. 

Minimizing social and environmental damage from motor vehicles is not equally represented nor 

emphasized. The Stanislaus National Forest not only had a 1991 LRMP decision to halt cross-country 

motorized travel, but the Forest has a very specific Motor Vehicle Travel Management forest plan 

amendment decision in 1998 that further clarified that cross-country travel was banned within the 

Forest. 

2570 2581 3359 4489 

Response: Implementation of the TMR is only one portion of the purpose and need (see Table 

1.03-1). Other portions include a need for limited changes to the NFTS to maintain motor 

vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities; and, provide a diversity of motorized 

recreation opportunities. In making any limited changes to the NFTS, the Forest will consider 

the criteria contained in Subpart B of the TMR which include the full range of resource 

protection measures outlined in Chapter 1.03. The Forest Plan direction to prohibit cross 

572 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

country travel was never implemented with Forest Orders and the required site-specific NEPA 

documentation. 

36.	 Comment: Replace the Purpose and Need objective “to provide a diversity of wheeled motorized 

recreation opportunities” with “to provide an appropriate management balance between wheeled 

motorized recreation opportunities and protection of the resources and non-motorized recreation uses 

that are directly affected by wheeled motorized recreation”. 

1820 2859 3624 3677 3779 3780 4018 

4022 4086 4243 3271 

Response: Providing a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities is only one portion of 

the purpose and need (see Table 1.03-1). Other portions include a need for regulation of 

unmanaged wheeled motor vehicle travel by the public; and, a need for limited changes to the 

NFTS to maintain motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities. In making any 

limited changes to the NFTS, the Forest will consider the criteria contained in Subpart B of the 

TMR which include the full range of resource protection measures outlined in Chapter 1.03. 

37.	 Comment: The closure of 73% of unauthorized routes (400 miles), 400 miles of system roads to 

OHV motorized use and adversely reducing seasonal use on nearly 100% of the existing NFTS does 

not meet the objective of “providing a diversity of road and trail opportunities”. 

2849 3048 3059 4220 2875 2879 2870 

Response: Additions to the NFTS and vehicle class changes vary by alternative based on the 

theme of the alternatives as shown in Table 2.05-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any 

additions while 5, 1 and then 4 include increasingly more additions. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not 

include any vehicle class changes while 4, 1 and then 5 include increasingly more changes. 

Chapter 3.04 discloses the effects on recreation resources (including motorized users). 

38.	 Comment: The purpose and need includes a need for limited changes, yet the following are major 

not limited changes: a tally of affected miles show the true mileage to be 676.5 miles affected; out of 

494 miles, only 157 miles are added to the NFTS; 400.49 miles of roads change from open to all 

vehicles to highway legal only; 46 miles of roads are closed; and, of a total of 2,759 existing miles, 

only 1,819 miles are open to all vehicles. 

2847 3046 3349 3350 3353 4219 3040 

Response: A need for limited changes to the NFTS is only one portion of the purpose and need 

(see Table 1.03-1). Other portions include a need for regulation of unmanaged wheeled motor 

vehicle travel by the public; and, provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities. 

Additions to the NFTS and vehicle class changes vary by alternative based on the theme of the 

alternatives as shown in Table 2.05-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any additions while 5, 

1 and then 4 include increasingly more additions. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any 

vehicle class changes while 4, 1 and then 5 include increasingly more changes. Chapter 3.04 

discloses the effects on recreation resources (including motorized users). 

39.	 Comment: The proposed action restricts all forest access but the Forest Service is apparently sure 

that putting up highway legal vehicles only signs will not invite inappropriate use. The Forest Service 

assumes that no one will demand that all, or at least most, highway legal vehicles be able to use the 

road. 

3459 

Response: The EIS (see Glossary) defines a highway legal only (HLO) route as full width 

roads open to highway legal vehicles only; a highway legal vehicle is any motor vehicle that is 

licensed or certified under California State law for general operations on all public roads within 

573 
 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

the State. Operators of all highway legal vehicles are subject to State traffic laws, including 

requirements for operator licensing. These roads are suitable for normal passenger vehicles and 

high clearance vehicles are not required. 

40.	 Comment: Implementation of the TMR severely reduces motorized recreation opportunities. Short 

spurs that are not part of the NFTS access a substantial portion of known dispersed recreation 

activities and continued use of such routes would be illegal unless these spurs are added to the NFTS. 

4052 4053 4055 4056 3050 

Response: Motorized opportunities vary by alternative based on the theme of the alternatives 

as shown in Table 2.05-1. The analysis in Chapter 3 shows that Alternative 3 is the most 

restrictive on motorized use while Alternatives 5, 1, 4 and then 2 are increasingly less 

restrictive. 

41.	 Comment: The Purpose and Need changed from that stated in the NOI. The DEIS now asserts that 

cross-country travel adversely impacts the environment. We want the agency to withdraw this DEIS 

as written, release a NOI for public comment with a Purpose and Need section that truly expresses the 

intent of the proposal and will not change in its description throughout the NEPA process. 

2839 2840 3038 3039 3874 3875 

Response: The NOI initiates the NEPA process by presenting a preliminary purpose and need 

and proposed action for public scoping comments. In response to the Forest’s request for 

comments during the NOI scoping period, 3,584 interested parties submitted: 220 letters; an email form letter from 3,268 different individuals; 1 petition with 93 signatures; and, 3 verbal 

comments. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, the Forest identified issues, updated the purpose 

and need, and modified the proposed action based on the results of public scoping. 

42.	 Comment: The Forest must consider the criteria for designating roads, trails and areas for motorized 

use, as mandated by the TMR: impacts to natural and cultural resources, public safety, access needs, 

the availability of resources for maintenance and administration of roads, trails and areas that would 

arise if the uses under consideration are designated, the need to minimize impacts to soil, water, 

vegetation and other resources, the need to minimize harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife 

habitat, the need to minimize user conflicts, and compatibility of motor vehicle use with surrounding 

conditions. 

2569 4488 

Response: In making any limited changes to the NFTS, the Forest will consider the criteria 

contained in Subpart B of the TMR which include the full range of resource protection 

measures outlined in Chapter 1.03. 

43.	 Comment: Reflecting the Executive Orders and the TMR, the Forest should adjust the Purpose and 

Need to: eliminate widespread cross-country travel; address degradation of environmental, social, and 

cultural resources; identify the minimum road system; provide opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized recreation within the carrying capacity of the land; adjust the system in light of funding 

limitations for maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement; and, address public safety concerns, user 

conflicts, private property rights, lost non-motorized recreational opportunities, and impact to natural 

soundscapes and air quality. 

2582 2583 2584 4490 4491 

Response: In making any limited changes to the NFTS, the Forest will consider the criteria 

contained in Subpart B of the TMR which include the full range of resource protection 

measures outlined in Chapter 1.03. 

574 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

1.30 Proposed Action 

44.	 Comment: No table shows the magnitude of change we can expect if the proposed action is 

implemented. For example, the change of 400 miles of roads that are open to all vehicles to highway 

legal only will have a profound effect on general forest access; it will have a profound effect on 

dispersed recreation and it will have a profound effect on the motorized recreation opportunity. 

3418 

Response: Chapter 2.05 includes 8 tables that provide detailed comparisons of all major 

aspects of the alternatives. Chapter 3.04 provides 8 more tables along with detailed discussions 

of the effects on recreation resources including motorized opportunities. 

45.	 Comment: Changing the type of vehicle allowed on roads such that four of the five classes of 

vehicles presently allowed are excluded, is not a rational outcome of the process of prohibiting crosscountry travel and designating a motorized system of routes. The Forest Service fails to describe any 

difference in effects to the natural environment between a highway legal pickup and a non-highway 

legal motorcycle driving on the same road. 

3183 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 

Response: In making any limited changes to the NFTS, the Forest will consider the criteria 

contained in Subpart B of the TMR which include the full range of resource protection 

measures outlined in Chapter 1.03. Vehicle class changes vary by alternative based on the 

theme of the alternatives as shown in Table 2.05-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any 

changes while 4, 1 and then 5 include increasingly more changes. 

46.	 Comment: The Forest does not plan to upgrade roads to accommodate highway legal vehicles. The 

Forest perceived it necessary to resolve differences of opinion between private property owners and 

chose to side with those who don't like motorcycles. 

3525 

Response: HLO roads are suitable for normal passenger vehicles and high clearance vehicle 

are not required. Chapter 2.05 includes 8 tables that provide detailed comparisons of all major 

aspects of the alternatives. Chapter 3 provides detailed discussions of the effects on all 

resources. 

1.40 Public Involvement 

47.	 Comment: Extend the comment period for another 30-120 days because the document is large, 

complex and controversial. 

1917 1984 2211 2212 2232 2234 2235 

2236 2237 2239 2240 2241 3014 3015 

3016 3018 3019 

Response: The Forest Supervisor extended the comment period by 15-days for a total 75-day 

comment period. 

48.	 Comment: Provide a minimum 45-day comment period on the EIS prior to issuing the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the public to review the changes in the EIS and to submit their comments for 

your consideration in the ROD. 

3939 

Response: The changes included within the EIS itself do not warrant a 45-day review prior to 

issuing the ROD. The public will have 45 days to review the ROD and appeal the decision. 

575 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

1.50 Issues 

49.	 Comment: Mitigations have not been adequately addressed, such as adherence to mandates, 

sufficient and necessary guidelines, proof of land use viability beforehand, and parallel commitment 

to adequately manage land use, and warranties and guarantees with pre-defined remedies. 

2379 4520 

Response: The EIS includes this information: Chapter 1.05 identifies applicable laws and 

regulations; Chapter 2.03 identifies mitigation measures and other requirements; Chapter 3.01 

identifies the analysis framework; Appendix F defines the mitigations; and, Appendix I lists 

specific mitigation measures required by route segment. 

50.	 Comment: The changes being considered in the proposed alternatives have the potential to impact 

fire frequency and suppression, yet the DEIS does not discuss the matter. 

3188 

Response: Chapter 3.01 includes an analysis of fire risk which is not expected to increase 

under any alternative. 

51.	 Comment: With the proposed decrease of road miles and routes, how does the fire risk increase, 

how are more noxious weeds spread, etc. It is inaccurate to assume and state that impacts will 

increase. 

3287 

Response: Chapter 3.01 includes an analysis of fire risk which is not expected to increase 

under any alternative. Chapter 3.02 disclosed the effects on botanical resources including 

noxious weed spread. 

52.	 Comment: The significant issues selected by the Stanislaus should not exist, or are either irrelevant 

to the decision to be made; conjectural and not supported by scientific fact, or, a comment, opinion, or 

position statement. Regardless of the intensity of a certain public's feelings about any issue, if that 

issue has already been settled by law, it can never be considered a significant issue in a NEPA 

compliant analysis. 

3366 3368 3371 3373 3374 3375 

3376 3378 3409 3410 

Response: Chapter 1.08 and the Scoping Report (see project record) disclose the process that 

the Forest Service used to screen comments and develop issue statements based on public 

comments. 

53.	 Comment: We see 20 Issue Statements, yet only five issues specific to the loss of access are 

considered "significant”. All by itself, that is very revealing of what the Forest Service is "hearing" 

and "looking for. 

3367 3370 3377 

Response: Chapter 1.08 identifies two significant issue statements, not 20. The first issue 

statement “Changes to NFTS routes that reduce motorized opportunities, increase restrictions on 

vehicle class and season of use, and prohibit cross-country travel may affect forest visitors.” 

The other issue statement is “Changes to NFTS routes that increase motorized opportunities, 

reduce restrictions on vehicle class and season of use, and allow cross-country travel, may affect 

forest resources, private property, and forest visitors”. These statements characterize freedom 

for motorized users in contrast to the potential adverse effects. 

576 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

54. Comment: The Forest Service must improve the EIS by including effects of climate change on 

existing conditions by the vehicles using routes. 

2188 2190 2737 2738 2740 2741 2742 

2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 

2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2757 

2758 2759 2760 4500 4501 4502 4503 

4507 

Response: A more detailed statement on climate change in the EIS clarifies the impacts to 

climate expected to occur as a result of this project. 

55.	 Comment: It is unlawful to exclude or restrict lawful activity on public land solely because the 

activity occurs nearby private property or congressionally designated Wilderness areas or may disturb 

opportunities for "quiet recreation" outside of Wilderness. 

3370 3377 

Response: No routes are excluded from consideration simply because they occur nearby 

private property or Wilderness. Chapter 3.04 discloses the effects of routes located in proximity 

to private property and non-motorized areas. 

1.60 Alternatives 

56.	 Comment: Many of the alternatives promoting motorized activity, “recreational diversity”, were 

dismissed because they were “not consistent with the Forest Plan direction for Restricted Motor 

Vehicle Travel Management.” The alternatives selected seek to “restrict” motor vehicle use, which is 

above and beyond the proposed purpose and need statement. 

1885 

Response: The Purpose and Need (Chapter 1.03) states: There is a need for regulation of 

unmanaged wheeled motor vehicle travel by the public. Adding motorized trails to the NFTS 

and designating them for use without causing resources effects accomplishes this Need. Many 

of the alternatives considered and eliminated were outside the scope of the proposed action or 

did not comply with Forest Plan direction. Prohibiting cross country travel, which also brings 

unmanaged wheeled motorized travel into line, “restricts” vehicle traffic to designated routes. 

57.	 Comment: Dismissed alternatives h (“Grandfather” user created routes and monitor) and i (Add all 

routes receiving OHV use) are feasible alternatives that meet the project purpose and need. It is 

reasonable that if a trail is placed in a location which poses a large risk to the surrounding 

environment, then that trail should be decommissioned and noted as a hazardous trail and excluded 

from the alternative. 

1886 

Response: All routes being proposed to be added to the system need environmental analysis, 

no matter how long they have been in existence or been used and managed as OHV routes. 

Routes were either in the NFTS or not in the NFTS. If they were not, they were considered 

unauthorized. Grandfathering in routes was not an option. The routes proposed in “i”, 

Alternatives Considered and Eliminated, were considered. The reasons why they were not 

added can be found in the Alternatives Submitted document (see project record). 

58.	 Comment: I understand that I am stuck with allowing OHVs in some natural areas, even though in 

my heart I know that it is an improper use of wilderness. However, Alternatives 1 and 4 go too far. I 

spend much of my time enjoying the scenic and peaceful areas throughout the Sierra Nevada, 

including the Stanislaus National Forest. I only participate in low-impact activities such as hiking, 

backpacking, kayaking, and snow-shoeing. 

577 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

1682 1683 

Response: Motorized travel is not allowed in Wilderness or other non-motorized land 

allocations. The remainder of the Forest can be considered for motorized use. 

59.	 Comment: Authorizing use of approximately 157 miles of routes and opening approximately 67 

miles of closed roads could result in significant damage to the cultural and natural resources. 

1726 1735 1801 1806 1915 1973 2009 

2015 4592 1926 2142 3900 

Response: Resource specialists evaluated these actions, with the results of their analysis shown 

in Chapter 3. 

60.	 Comment: The Forest should not add all routes receiving OHV use, but it certainly should look 

carefully at each one for its sense of history and connectivity to worthwhile and interesting 

destinations and add those to the NFTS. 

1825 

Response: All routes receiving use were evaluated and considered for further analysis and 

addition to the NFTS. Not all routes receiving use were proposed as additions to the NFTS. 

Motorized opportunities vary by alternative based on the theme of the alternatives as shown in 

Table 2.05-1. The analysis in Chapter 3 shows that Alternative 3 is the most restrictive on 

motorized use while Alternatives 5, 1, 4 and then 2 are increasingly less restrictive. 

61.	 Comment: The dismissed alternatives should be re-evaluated and only dismissed if they do not 

conform to the project purpose and need. 

1887 

Response: Chapter 2.04 provides the reasons why alternatives were considered, but eliminated 

from detailed study. 

62.	 Comment: The DEIR also neglected to address costs associated with each alternative, and there was 

no indication where the funding for mitigation measures and O&M would come from. The 

Implementation Strategy section of the DEIR provides estimates for continued annual funding and 

grants that were previously rewarded. It is possible in this economic recession, grants will not be 

available and the USDA Forest Service budget may be reduced. How would the alternative and 

mitigations change if funding was not available? The DEIR needs to include a cost benefit analysis, 

and to discuss the robustness of the project to withstand various unpredictable and/or unavoidable 

consequences. 

1892 

Response: Chapter 3.06 and 3.08 provide cost information. 

63.	 Comment: The alternatives offered all presume that the current travel system will either be retained 

or that there will be additions to that system. This is not an adequate range of alternatives as is 

required by NEPA. There should be one or more alternatives offered that would reduce the size of the 

road and trail system to a system that can be managed, maintained, and enforced. 

1954 2423 2594 2595 3269 3310 3678 

3084 

Response: Chapter 2 shows a wide range of alternatives considered. 

64.	 Comment: The DEIS provides inadequate consideration of sound pollution in all alternatives. There 

is mention of the impact on “quiet” recreation and the displacement of non-motorized recreation, but 

the sound pollution of motorized use is not adequately analyzed. It is mentioned that 1⁄4 mile is a 

578 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

sufficient buffer between motorized use and non-motorized use or between private property and 

motorized use. How many miles away can you hear the noise of an OHV? One quarter mile is 

completely inadequate. No OHV use should be allowed within one mile of private property. OHV use 

should be isolated from non-OHV use by miles and ideally kept in different sound sheds. Peace and 

quiet should be a major resource protected by the Travel Management Plan just as visual, soils, 

cultural and biological resources are protected. 

1956 

Response: Chapter 3.04 discloses the effects on private property, using the 1⁄4 mile distance as 

an indicator of effects rather than a buffer preventing use. 

65.	 Comment: The number of people using the forest for motorized recreation is just a small percentage, 

10%, of the people recreating in the forest, and they should not be allowed to impact such a 

disproportionately large area of the forest. Approximately 100 miles of approved trails are currently 

available for OHV use in addition to the 1400 miles of dirt roads available for them to use. There is 

no justification for opening up another 157 miles of user- created trails to OHV use. 

1957 2051 3608 3723 

Response: Chapter 2 provides a comparison of alternatives, and Chapter 3 discloses the effects 

on human and natural resources. Motorized opportunities vary by alternative based on the theme 

of the alternatives as shown in Table 2.05-1. The analysis in Chapter 3 shows that Alternative 3 

is the most restrictive on motorized use while Alternatives 5, 1, 4 and then 2 are increasingly 

less restrictive. 

66.	 Comment: The details of the mitigation should be specified. How can a trail be included in the 

system based on some non-specific future mitigation? 

1961 

Response: Appendix F defines mitigation measures, while Appendix I displays the specific 

mitigations required for each route segment proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

67.	 Comment: Alternative 1 is not complete. Alternative 2 would not address the issues. None of these 

address the issues or include a solution. Greeley Hill’s economic well being is camping, ATV riding, 

equine trail riding and 4WD. These alternatives needs to be recreation friendly and environmental 

friendly. 

2028 2926 3972 

Response: Chapter 2 provides a comparison of alternatives, and Chapter 3 discloses the effects 

on human and natural resources. 

68.	 Comment: Fiscal constraints are no excuse for the lack of proper management of our public lands 

and public access should not suffer as a consequence. 

2056 

Response: Fiscal constraints were not a determining factor when evaluating what routes should 

be added to the system. The Forest is relying on the OHV community to help repair and 

maintain these trails when they are added to the system. 

69.	 Comment: Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 fail to adequately protect the many resources that 

are admittedly affected by OHV use. 

2253 

Response: Chapter 2 provides a comparison of alternatives, and Chapter 3 discloses the effects 

on human and natural resources. 

579 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

70.	 Comment: Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 are far too biased towards the approval of motorized 

OHV routes instead of ensuring that environmental values are protected and sustained.. 

2254 3722 

Response: Chapter 2 provides a comparison of alternatives, and Chapter 3 discloses the effects 

on human and natural resources. 

71.	 Comment: I recommend Alternative 3: "Cross Country OHV Use Prohibited" be adopted. If that 

alternative is not selected, I would opt for Alternative 5: "Resources Alternative" as a preferred way 

of controlling this resource abuse. 

2273 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

72.	 Comment: This document failed to design an alternative that addresses Issue 1; Changes to the 

NFTS routes that reduce motorized opportunities, increase restrictions on vehicle class and season of 

use, and prohibit cross-country travel, may affect forest visitors. The true issue raised by the public is 

not the loss of cross-country use as defined by the Forest. But more appropriately, the issue is the 

adverse impacts to motorized recreation and access due to loss of trails and roads where public use 

has been well established, and requested by the public and such use accepted by the agency. 

2832 3031 3032 

Response: Issue 1 (see Chapter 1.08) has several other components with it that further 

addresses the issue. Included in it are: a. Changing the vehicle class and season of use may 

affect available camping opportunities; b. Route designations may not provide adequate 

motorized opportunities; c. Route designations may not provide adequate distinction between 

vehicle classes; d. Route designations may not provide adequate opportunities for motorized 

special use events; and, e. Vehicle class, season of use and cross-county travel restrictions may 

limit motorized access for big game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

73.	 Comment: The agency must develop an alternative that appropriately addresses current and future 

motorized use as described in Chapter 3, Recreation and Scenic values where data and studies have 

shown that two thirds of Stanislaus National Forest visitors are at least partly tied to motorized 

recreation. 

2833 4082 

Response: Chapter 2 provides a comparison of alternatives, and Chapter 3 discloses the effects 

on human and natural resources. 

74.	 Comment: It is not clear how many miles are represented by Maintenance Level 1 roads, temporary 

roads and user created trails. We want the agency to clearly display the mileages for each category. 

2876 

Response: Chapter 2.02 and 2.05 provide this information for each alternative. 

75.	 Comment: We must draw attention to the reference and statement regarding the inability of the 

cumulative effects analysis using the Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) methodology, to be more 

detailed than tenth’s of a percent. 

2887 

Response: One component of an analysis does not determine whether there is a viable range of 

alternatives. Chapter 2 provides a comparison of alternatives, and Chapter 3 discloses the 

effects on human and natural resources. 

580 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

76.	 Comment: The Stewards of the Sierra alternative addresses issues and resource concerns raised in 

this document. It prohibits cross-country use, and meets public motorized access needs. Our 

alternative includes routes as specified in Alternative 4 and additional inventoried routes. 

2827 2901 2902 2904 2903 2907 3024 

3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 

Response: The Forest Service considered this alternative; refer to Chapter 2.04 and the 

Alternatives Submitted document (see project record). 

77.	 Comment: The DEIS shows the existing condition (552 miles of inventoried routes, 61 miles of 

maintenance level 1 roads and 400 miles of roads currently used by all vehicles) as the current 

condition. The impacts resulting from these routes have already occurred and are a part of the baseline 

of which to compare the alternatives. 

2904 4041 4042 2855 

Response: Chapter 1.02 shows the Stanislaus completed an inventory of unauthorized routes 

on NFS lands as described in the MOI and identified approximately 226.3 miles of unauthorized 

routes. The 2006 Inventory also showed an additional 61.2 miles of unauthorized use on 

Maintenance Level 1 roads closed to the public. In addition to the 2006 Inventory, analysis 

work was going on in other project planning which identified an additional 207.6 miles of 

unauthorized roads.” The total miles under consideration are about 230 miles of unauthorized 

routes and 207 miles of unauthorized roads. The 61 miles of ML1 receiving wheeled use were 

considered and either identified as needing to remain a ML1 or converted to a trail. 

78.	 Comment: Include the following monitoring and mitigation requirements: 1. Identify the exact 

measurement that is unacceptable. 2. Identify the cause. 3. Identify the exact section of trail that is 

below standard. 4. Select a solution: Tread repair, structures, or reroute, as appropriate. 5. Implement 

the solution on the ground. 6. Monitor the repair, to ensure the site has been brought up to standard. 

2905 

Response: If monitoring determines additional resource damage is occurring, steps to prevent 

further damage may be taken. If the mitigations are not effective or are not possible, additional 

road or trail closures may be required. Such closures may require additional NEPA analysis. 

The Forest Service will conduct implementation monitoring based on the Forest Plan (see Table 

2.01-1). 

79.	 Comment: Alternatives 2 and 4 are totally inappropriate and I do not support either one. It is 

incorrect and biased to even term Alternative 4 as “Recreation” as what is described is “Motorized 

Recreation” which is usually a detriment to Quiet Recreation. 

3307 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

80.	 Comment: The Forest Service repeats the phrase "increasing motorized use" in the Issues 

Statements; yet no alternative, including the no-action alternative, proposes to increase motorized use. 

3379 

Response: Issue Statement 2 responds to public comment by stating the concerns this way: 

“Changes to NFTS routes that increase motorized opportunities, reduce restrictions on vehicle 

class and season of use, and allow cross-country travel, may affect forest resources, private 

property and forest visitors.” In Issue Statement 1, Changes that decrease opportunities may 

affect forest visitors (Chapter 1.08). A range of alternatives that address these issues raised by 

the public in scoping and response to the proposed action and purpose and need, were 

581 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

developed. The consequences of “how we keep the forest open to everyone” and what are the 

effects are displayed in Chapter 3. Alternative 2 proposes to keep the forest open to everyone 

with no regulation of use. 

81.	 Comment: Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to add zero trails to the NFTS, yet there is no alternative 

that proposes to add all of the presently existing trails to the NFTS. The DEIS has no alternative 

which analyzes the existing condition. CEQ requires a detailed study of this existing situation in the 

DEIS. The DEIS evades the "existing situation" regulation by creating a technically lawful, but 

incomplete no-action alternative, and intentionally discarding the alternative that includes designating 

all unclassified routes and leaving the existing NFTS as it is. 

3380 3468 3988 

Response: Alternative 2 analyzes the existing condition or baseline and is the alternative 

against which all the other alternatives are measured. Alternative 2 allows cross country travel 

to continue which essentially allows continued use of all existing motorized trails and creation 

of new ones. All the existing trails the Forest had mapped and information on were considered 

and evaluated for proposal for further analysis and addition to the system if they met the 

objectives outlined in Table 2.05-1. 

82.	 Comment: Chapter 2 should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives 

in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among 

options by the decision-maker and the public.” The tables and narratives in Chapter 2 omit the data 

from Chapter 3 that reports on the effects of the entire inventory of ~494 miles of existing unclassified 

routes open and in-use by the public, and it does not display the effects of proposed vehicle class 

changes such that the magnitude of the change is even slightly discernable. 

3412 3471 3579 

Response: The evaluations for Alternative 2 in Chapter 3 provide the analysis for these effects. 

83.	 Comment: We strongly oppose alternatives 1 and 4. We strongly support Alternative 3 or 

Alternative 5 because both of those alternatives would prevent a significant amount of environmental 

damage from occurring. 

3730 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

84.	 Comment: ROC wishes to submit an alternative which provides a better balance between motor 

vehicle access, affordability and environmental protection in response to significant issue statement 1. 

3990 3991 3992 

Response: The Forest Service considered this alternative; refer to Chapter 2.04 and the 

Alternatives Submitted document (see project record). 

85.	 Comment: Merced Dirt Riders proposes an alternative that supports maximum recreation access. 

4038 4039 

Response: The Forest Service considered this alternative; refer to Chapter 2.04 and the 

Alternatives Submitted document (see project record). 

86.	 Comment: Alternatives 2 and 4 are the least desirable primarily because of the lack of any 

restrictions on season of use. Alternative 5 has the best balance between a reasonable seasonal closure 

and the need to provide recreational opportunities. 

582 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

4235 4236 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

87.	 Comment: CSERC proposes a modified preferred alternative (Modified Alternative 1) in the spirit of 

compromise as a potential solution that would meet motorized access needs and add new OHV 

opportunities, while minimizing resulting negative impacts. 

4476 4477 4478 4479 4484 4485 4589 

4590 4591 4596 4597 4598 4599 4600 

4601 4816 2572 

Response: The Forest Service considered this alternative; refer to Chapter 2.04 and the 

Alternatives Submitted document (see project record). 

1.61 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

88.	 Comment: Support Alternative 1 because it includes adequate restrictions and opportunities. 

1829 2075 2082 3690 4173 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

89.	 Comment: Support a modified Alternative 1 by replacing the one vehicle length parking limit with a 

300’ allowance. 

2498 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a similar Travel Corridor alternative along with the reasons for 

eliminating it from detailed study. 

90.	 Comment: Opposed to Alternative 1 because it does not provide enough resource protection. 

1673 1765 1802 1804 1857 1869 1916 

1930 2006 2016 2255 2262 2476 2484 

2571 2611 2613 2614 3123 3124 3306 

3778 4252 4475 4481 4815 1775 2502 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

91.	 Comment: Opposed to Alternative 1 because it is too restrictive and does not provide adequate 

motorized opportunities. 

2062 2146 2148 2209 2267 2268 3132 

3133 4215 4216 4217 4250 4257 4260 

4268 4271 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

1.62 Alternative 2 (No Action) 

92.	 Comment: Support Alternative 2 because it provides the most motorized opportunities. 

1835 1836 1837 2073 2282 2338 2373 

2823 3205 3774 3892 4270 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

583 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

93.	 Comment: Opposed to Alternative 2 because it does not include restrictions on cross country travel. 

2088 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

1.63 Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) 

94.	 Comment: Support Alternative 3 because it provides the most resource protection. 

1671 1675 1776 1803 1830 1871 1931 

1983 2001 2053 2244 2257 2425 2438 

2454 2548 2775 3566 3612 3759 3781 

3794 4594 1800 2564 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

95.	 Comment: Support a modified Alternative 3 that includes the season of use restrictions from 

Alternative 5. 

2202 3797 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

1.64 Alternative 4 (Recreation) 

96.	 Comment: Support Alternative 4 because it provides more motorized opportunities than Alternative 

1. 

1753 1889 1890 1903 2040 2054 2074 

2077 2084 2121 2403 3184 3266 3267 

3536 3755 4060 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

97.	 Comment: Support a modified Alternative 4 with increased motorized opportunities including 

wheeled over snow use by 4WD vehicles. 

2207 2208 2209 3134 3146 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

1.65 Alternative 5 (Resources) 

98.	 Comment: Support Alternative 5 because it provides more resource protection than Alternative 1. 

1655 1660 1672 1674 1676 1677 1695 

1696 1707 1708 1711 1712 1728 1729 

1732 1733 1763 1777 1780 1781 1787 

1810 1812 1815 1819 1842 1861 1870 

1947 1953 2008 2014 2079 2095 2285 

2358 2367 2374 2477 2485 2500 2533 

2794 3226 3323 3552 3686 3695 3740 

3902 4016 4071 1764 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

584 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

99. Comment: Support a modified Alternative 5 with additional mitigations and resource protection. 

2349 2097 3760 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

100. Comment: Support a modified Alternative 5 with no unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. 

3270 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

101. Comment: Opposed to Alternative 5 because it is too restrictive and prevents a wide variety of 

motorized activities. 

2076 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

102. Comment: Opposed to Alternative 5 because it is poorly designed (e.g. routes with no connections), 

and it does not accurately reflect the interests of the conservation community. 

4595 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all alternatives considered in detail, 

along with their effects on resources and users, prior to making a final decision. 

1.70 Implementation 

103. Comment: The Forest Service does not have adequate funds or staff to adequately mark, monitor, 

and repair existing trails, let alone police illegal trails. Therefore, we urge the Service to take a 

cautious approach to any changes and make the minimum additions to the trails. 

2115 2399 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

104. Comment: The cost of maintenance, mitigation and enforcement was not given enough weight in 

the analysis. The financial aspects should be explicitly enumerated. There appears to be hope that 

OHV clubs will adopt trails but without specific, written, enforceable commitments this should not be 

relied upon. 

1958 1817 2288 2606 2607 2608 2900 

2380 2381 3568 3966 4116 

Response: The action alternatives proposed reduce the deferred and annual maintenance costs 

by converting roads to trails, reducing maintenance levels from higher maintenance costs to 

lower maintenance costs. Trail maintenance dollars are a different funding source from road 

maintenance. The Forest has had a long history of volunteers stepping up to help when needed. 

105. Comment: Please allow the people concerned with the future of recreating in this wonderful area to 

help with the maintenance and beauty of "our land". 

1991 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

585 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

106. Comment: To open even more roads and trails seems a waste of money given the poor conditions of 

many of the existing ones. 

2276 2277 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

107. Comment: Invasive weeds can be spread by animals and hikers too, not just motorized vehicles. 

Again the solution is to provide information and education to the public. 

2033 2044 

Response: Education will be a key component of the Implementation and Monitoring Schedule 

which will be developed after a decision is made. 

108. Comment: Enforce your current policies and do not create additional and unneeded restrictions on 

our national forest. 

2066 

Response: Making a decision on what trails and roads are open to motorized use will enable 

forest visitors to know where they can recreate. Showing these routes on MVUM will enforce 

the designations. 

109. Comment: The proposal that all trails are open unless signed closed does not work. All trails should 

be closed unless signed open. 

2347 

Response: There is no proposal to have all trails open unless signed closed. The MVUM will 

show what is available for motorized use, when it is available, and what type of vehicle can be 

used. If it is not on the map, it is not available for motorized use. 

110. Comment: Leaving trails un-rehabilitated and without physical barriers is against Forest Service 

engineering, education, and law enforcement tactics policy as stated in Appendix E. The Forest 

Service is responsible for that damage and it must be accounted for according to NEPA law and 

repaired to conform to Water Quality Act agreements. 

4311 4320 4315 4317 

Response: The Forest will not be making a decision about what further use unauthorized uses 

may have in the future in this project. Decommissioning was not part of the Purpose and Need. 

Routes not added to the system will be further evaluated for any different need other than 

motorized use and rehabilitated where needed. The analysis assumption is recreationists will 

stay on designated routes shown on the MVUM. 

111. Comment: We recommend development of a detailed Travel Management Plan Monitoring and 

Enforcement Strategy. Such a Strategy should include specific information on the monitoring and 

enforcement program priorities focus areas, personnel needs, costs, and funding sources. 

2185 2402 

Response: The Forest will develop an Implementation and Monitoring Schedule after this 

decision. 

112. Comment: We recommend routes not yet open due to required mitigation measure be excluded from 

the MVUM in order to reduce the unintentional un-authorized use of these routes. 

2186 2187 

586 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: Routes requiring mitigation will not be added to the MVUM until mitigations are 

complete. Appendix I includes a table of routes requiring mitigation. 

113. Comment: No trails should be created for which there is not adequate funding to analyze, construct, 

maintain, and enforce regulations on them. 

2417 

Response: The trails proposed for addition to the NFTS already exist on the ground. No new 

trail construction is proposed. The Forest encourages stewardship groups to come forward and 

work with the Forest on maintaining the system of routes adopted under this process. 

114. Comment: The failure of the Forest to halt motorized use on unauthorized roads is exacerbated by 

the Forest's lack of road maintenance funding. When compared to the annual average maintenance 

budget for the Forest of $375,000, there is a budget shortfall of roughly $6,000,000 each year. The 

DEIS attempts to ignore this huge deficit in road maintenance dollars by "adding" 16 miles to the 

road system. The Forest should spell out exactly what proof is available to show that the 157 miles of 

unauthorized trail, including miles that will eventually be opened after mitigation work is completed, 

will somehow be able to be fully maintained through volunteer workday efforts or by assured grants. 

2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2899 3096 

3787 4539 

Response: None of the alternatives add 16 miles of road to the transportation system (see Table 

205-6). The annual maintenance costs developed assumed every mile of road would need 

maintenance annually, which is not the case in reality. Maintenance needs are determined 

annually and can vary greatly depending on the severity of the previous winter. The Forest is 

basing the assumption that trails can be maintained by volunteers once they are brought up to 

standard on the fact that historically, we have had clubs reliably doing trail maintenance. 

115. Comment: There is zero fiscal information given in the affordability section of the DEIS as to the 

difference in law enforcement needs comparing the various alternatives. 

2606 2609 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

116. Comment: Wherever a motorized route crosses a stream or riparian area, the route should be 

improved by installing a bridge or other infrastructure to prevent incursion by OHVs into the actual 

stream channel or meadow. 

3230 

Response: Specialists reviewed all trails proposed to be added to the system (see Chapter 3). If 

there was a need for mitigation, it was recommended as shown in Appendix I. 

117. Comment: Failure by USFS to maintain roads is not a reason to close the total road, likewise lack of 

comment on any particular road does not justify closure as the plan is far to cumbersome and 

confusing to follow in a logical manner, and commenting on every route is impossible. 

3291 

Response: Reduction of road maintenance needs was accomplished through reducing the 

maintenance level of some roads from ML3 (passenger car) to ML2 (high clearance vehicle). 

Closures were based on administrative needs or other issues, not costs for maintenance. Routes 

not commented on were actually treated in the opposite manner; e.g. if a route was not 

commented on, it was assumed to have no issues with the public and retained for consideration 

by the Forest Supervisor for addition to the NFTS. 

587 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

118. Comment: Mitigation and garbage cleanup will be needed in remote and difficult locations. Also, 

there are the hazards inherent at the intersections of OHV trails and other roads, which I assume must 

be signed. 

3791 

Response: The Forest will develop an Implementation and Monitoring Schedule after this 

decision and the MVUM will be updated annually 

119. Comment: How does the Forest Service intend to comply with the Travel Management Rule and 

agency direction in considering current and future funding levels to support system maintenance? 

3828 

Response: Chapter 3.08 addresses this issue. 

120. Comment: Please include a schedule in the EIS when all pre-mitigation measures will be completed 

for each alternative, the cost to implement them and how they will be funded. 

3975 

Response: The Forest will develop an Implementation and Monitoring Schedule after this 

decision. 

121. Comment: Even though the Forest Service plans to reduce road maintenance level, the general 

public, using the HLO designated roads, will be expecting a higher standard of maintenance. 

4117 

Response: Changing vehicle class on a road is not connected with its maintenance level, but 

with other issues. There will be no increase in road maintenance on ML 2 roads where highway 

legal only vehicles are allowed. 

122. Comment: Reducing operational road maintenance levels should be seriously considered to bring 

the SNF’s road maintenance program in alignment with the Forest’s expected out year budgets. The 

primary vehicle class using the road should drive the assignment of operational road maintenance 

levels. The lack of road maintenance is a serious liability issue for the Agency. 

3968 3969 3970 3971 

Response: Re-classifying road maintenance levels requires NEPA when it changes the mode of 

travel and affects the public. The Alternatives do propose a reduction in road maintenance 

levels. Roads are also being converted to trails in Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 (see Chapters 2 and 

3.08). 

1.80 Maps 

123. Comment: The Alternative 1 map shows area 2 and 3 overlapping. If you are in the overlapping 

area, which area are you really in? 

2819 

Response: Areas 2 and 3 refer to the map insets shown on the right hand side of the map. 

These are areas where the view of the map is magnified. The overlap area is an area that appears 

in both inset 2 and inset 3. 

124. Comment: GIS data appears to show that instead of 157 miles of unauthorized OHV routes being 

recommended for approval in Alternative 1, there are in fact 166 miles of such routes that would be 

approved. This means that roughly 9 miles of extra OHV routes would be designated for long-term 

OHV use. 

4807 4808 4809 4810 4813 4814 

588 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: The Forest found and corrected inconsistencies between the data used to generate 

the maps and the data displayed in the DEIS. Routes not listed in the DEIS are not included I 

the final maps. 

125. Comment: General map deficiencies include: inventoried routes are not included; the maps only 

include NFTS numbers. 

2301 2836 2852 3035 3051 3385 2779 

3876 

Response: The Forest intended to include map labels for every route proposed as part of the 

NFTS and available for public use. All inventoried routes, including routes not proposed for the 

NFTS, are displayed and labeled in the more detailed quad maps included with the CD-ROM. 

126. Comment: Some roads identified or omitted from the DEIS and accompanying maps may be 

potential R.S. 2477 roads, though it is not possible to tell from the maps. Further, the maps are hard to 

work with and don't always represent what's on the ground. 

2316 2871 3283 

Response: No routes known to be historic routes qualifying for public access under RS 2477 

were removed from the system or reclassified as closed to public motor vehicle travel. 

2.00 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

127. Comment: The Forest Service should not designate OHV routes less than two miles from 

neighborhoods or hiking trails. Road and trail densities should not be in excess of two miles per 

square mile. 

3783 

Response: The EIS considers the effects of motorized vehicle traffic and OHV use and 

responds to these issues in the range of alternatives evaluated (see Table 1.08-1). However, 

rather than use numerical standards, the alternatives make site specific proposed designations 

taking into account geography, habitat, and private property locations. 

128. Comment: Designating routes adjacent to private property imposes burdens on the property owners. 

The Forest Plan indicates that surveys should be conducted, conditions observed and rehabilitation 

carried out to minimize and mitigate conflicts with private property and other user groups caused by 

motor vehicle use. Also, the TMR states that in designating trails and areas local agency officials 

must consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing populated areas. 

3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 

Response: The EIS considers the effects of motorized vehicle traffic and OHV use on adjacent 

property owners and responds to these issues in the range of alternatives evaluated (see Table 

1.08-1). 

129. Comment: Because there is an annual road maintenance deficit of $5,000,000 and a deferred 

maintenance backlog of $80 million, it is unwise to add more motorized routes to the system. 

2051 2198 3310 3832 3674 3675 4420 

4439 4537 3827 

Response: The EIS considers the road maintenance funding shortfall and the issue of 

affordability of maintaining the route system (Chapter 3.08). 

589 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

130. Comment: Routes in the vicinity of Blue Creek Estates should be designated open to provide 

emergency access. West Point area residents successfully negotiated with SPI about a year ago to 

obtain permission to use certain key SPI roads. 

2822 3799 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

131. Comment: Our goal is to have an interconnected transportation system for non-highway legal 

vehicles using unpaved county and NFTS roads. If County Boards choose to designate mixed use on 

their unpaved roads, please review the designations to provide a seamless transportation system for 

the riding public. 

3945 

Response: The EIS will not preclude future revisions in the route system to respond to changes 

in county road management. 

132. Comment: The DEIS does not provide alternatives aimed at complying with the intent of the TMR 

to ensure that unneeded roads are decommissioned, restoration of ecological processes are initiated, 

and that the system is designed to reflect long term funding expectations. 

3673 3675 3782 4461 

Response: The Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1.03) is limited to designation of the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS) (p. 4) as prescribed in 36 CFR 212, Subpart B. Decisions 

to decommission routes will necessitate further Environmental Analysis which may require 

more time and money than were available for this EIS. 

133. Comment: Will the Forest Service upgrade the maintenance level for passenger vehicles on roads 

changing to HLO? Changing 400 miles from open to all vehicles to HLO would destroy motor 

touring opportunities because many people do not own highway legal OHVs. 

3454 3461 3507 4112 4113 

Response: Roads being reclassified Highway Legal Only would remain in the same 

maintenance category. The objectives of changing routes to Highway Legal Only include 

reducing unwanted OHV traffic on county roads and on or near private land, reducing 

incursions into adjacent non-motorized areas, and reducing conflicts between different uses (see 

Chapter 1.03). The concerns of loss of motorized recreation opportunities and concentration of 

OHV use are considered in the range of alternatives and evaluation of environmental 

consequences (see Chapter 3.04). Potential for rule breaking, cross country travel and 

proliferation of user created routes are considered throughout Chapter 3 and in Appendix E. 

134. Comment: No table shows the entire inventory of unclassified routes. 

3467 

Response: In the interest of efficiency, only those unauthorized routes which are under 

consideration in at least one alternative are listed in Table 1.01-1. Other unauthorized routes 

with problems that precluded inclusion in any alternative were not considered in detail but are 

described in Chapter 2.04 and listed in the project record. 

135. Comment: The inventory of unauthorized routes is not complete. Some routes were not reported by 

the public for fear of having them closed by the Forest Service. 

4085 4041 

590 
 

 

 

 

2433 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: An effort was made to create a complete inventory of the potential motorized route 

system for this EIS, including numerous opportunities for public input. While the inventory is 

not 100% complete, the analysis and decision will be completed with the information that was 

known and recorded at the time of the publishing of the DEIS. The decision will not preclude 

further analyses designating other routes in the future. 

136. Comment: Unmaintained roads, especially those crossing streams, impact water quality and aquatic 

habitat. 

Response: The effects of motorized routes on watersheds (Chapter 3.10) and aquatic habitats 

(Chapter 3.11) were evaluated. 

137. Comment: The MOI from the California OHMVR granting $3,800,000 to the Forest Service to 

inventory OHV routes obligated the Forest Service to analyze the entire 494 miles of unauthorized 

routes. 

3386 3387 3388 3389 3394 

Response: An effort was made to inventory 100% of the potential motorized route system. The 

National Environmental Policy Act requires the Forest Service to analyze the full range of 

reasonable alternatives, however it allows the Forest Service to consider but eliminate from 

detailed study alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. In the 

first stages of analysis many routes were found to be unacceptable for inclusion in any 

reasonable alternative due to problems such as erosion, wildlife impacts or impacts on private 

land owners (see Chapter 2.04). 

138. Comment: The statement that “low clearance Highway Legal vehicles are not prohibited on trails” 

(p. 167) is incorrect due to width restrictions. 

3456 

Response: Motorized trails may be designated open to all vehicles or to vehicle classes limited 

by width standards, such as ATV and motorcycle. 

139. Comment: DEIS page 178, item 4, the very last sentence has not been completed: "High clearance 

roads ...." 

4115 

Response: This will be corrected in the EIS. 

2.10 Cross Country Travel 

140. Comment: Forest users, in general, are not causing major problems. Most damage is the physical 

damage that occurs when vehicles are allowed to be driven, off road, particularly during periods of 

inclement weather. 

Response: The forest user is using the vehicle to create the damage when they travel cross 

country and create new routes. The damage caused is not confined to wet weather. The analysis 

shows that negative impacts have occurred to cultural sites, botanical resources, etc. Cross 

country travel spreads weeds from which the impacts may not be known for several years. 

141. Comment: The Forest has not implemented its own direction to prohibit cross country travel. 

2545 2546 3392 4025 4026 4811 

591 

4284 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: The Forest has guidelines in its Forest Plan to prohibit cross country travel. The 

direction was not implemented with a Forest Order. This site specific decision which examines 

the effects of cross country travel and prohibits it will implement the Plan direction. 

2.20 Parking 

142. Comment: Parking allowed for only one vehicle length is not reasonable; it will have a detrimental 

affect for us to continue our traditional cultural heritage practices. 

2787 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

143. Comment: The prohibition of motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads and trails effectively 

restricts Forest access beyond authorized routes to physically disabled citizens only, thereby 

restricting access for handicapped, aging, and other physically challenged population sectors. 

1789 1795 2320 3160 4011 

Response: No legal requirement allows people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, 

on trails, and in areas that are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that 

are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. 

144. Comment: Parking limit results in the closure of many sites established for years. It also creates a 

safety hazard. 

1743 1744 1826 1827 2041 2063 2149 

2259 2308 2336 2488 3294 3703 3776 

4047 4251 4269 4281 2055 

Response: The one vehicle length is perpendicular to the road, not parallel. Camping and 

recreation sites will still be available, with some converted to walk in sites. There is no 

anticipated increase in use in developed campsites. 

145. Comment: The one car length parking is of great concern for Mariposa County. As proposed the 

policy would appear to have the potential to be an extreme fire hazard. 

2331 

Response: Chapter 3.01 includes and analysis of fire risk, which is not expected to increase. 

146. Comment: The elimination of 100-150’ access is outside the Purpose and Need. A far more 

reasonable and enforceable standard is to limit the 100’ access to existing dispersed campsites and 

parking areas, and to prohibit OHV use in a 100' corridor. 

1745 2481 3176 3538 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a travel corridor alternative, along with the reasons for 

eliminating it from detailed study. 

147. Comment: The parking restriction is going to cause a huge misunderstanding resulting in tickets. 

2935 3258 4292 

Response: Education will be a key component to helping people understand access. 

148. Comment: The TMR states: “In designating routes, the responsible official may include in the 

designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, 

and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or 

retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.” TuCARE 

proposes parking up 150' for the retrieval of big game and access to dispersed camping. 

592 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

3196 3981 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a travel corridor alternative, along with the reasons for 

eliminating it from detailed study. 

149. Comment: If the ID Team identified over 1,300 camp sites and 99% were not doing resource 

damage, then 99% should have been added to all of the alternatives instead of approximately 200 

being added to alternatives 1 and 4 only. 

3218 

Response: The ID team identified about 1,300 sites with camp fire rings, but only evaluated 

access routes for about 200 at this time. 

150. Comment: Vehicle length and parking off trail allows no exemption rule. As before; it allows no 

exemption even when Forest Service personnel voiced there are possible allowances. 

3337 

Response: The proposed action allows for exceptions by permit or other authorization (see 

Table 2.02-3). 

151. Comment: Restricting parking to within one vehicle length of NFTS routes negatively impacts 

hunters, fishers, and wildlife observers seeking dispersed camping. We suggest implementing a 

temporary limit on parking to within 50’ of NFTS routes to provide more numerous and higher 

quality camping opportunities. 

3590 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a travel corridor alternative, along with the reasons for 

eliminating it from detailed study. No sites will be eliminated, but some will be converted to 

walk-in sites. 

152. Comment: It would be nearly impossible to site all of the potential areas where a grazing permittee 

would need to be able to park a truck and livestock trailer. 

4277 

Response: Under the terms and conditions of your permit, you would have an exemption to the 

parking distance limit for activities needed to operate your permit (see Table 2.02-3). 

153. Comment: ROC recommends continued motor vehicle access to all historically used dispersed 

campsites. ROC recommends parking be permitted within 30 feet from any designated road, trail or 

open OHV area when it does not cause damage to national forest resources or facilities. 

3980 

Response: Vehicle length includes the vehicle and any trailer it is towing. 

154. Comment: This proposal requires site specific permits for parking. This would limit wood gathering, 

dispersed camping and other activities you may enjoy in the forest. 

4262 2151 

Response: The proposal does not require issuing site specific permits for parking. Wood 

cutting permits are still required as are campfire permits. 

155. Comment: We support allowing parking one vehicle length from NFTS routes. 

1967 3908 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

593 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

2.30 Public Safety 

156. Comment: Vehicles may not be able to safely park away from or adjacent to the roadway 

1865 

Response: Due to topography, road widths and vegetation, suitable safe parking is not 

available in all locations. Visitors must park safely off the traveled surface within one vehicle 

length of a NFTS route. Vehicle length includes the vehicle and any trailer it is towing. 

157. Comment: The DEIS does not provide accident records justifying the restriction of OHV use. The 

Forest Service should provide specific data supporting the Mixed Use Analysis. 

2315 2854 2898 2906 3095 3532 3533 

3956 3957 3958 3959 3961 3962 3963 

3964 3965 4114 

Response: A qualified Forest Service engineer prepared a Mixed Use Analysis (see project 

record) for all ML 3 and 4 road segments with proposed changes from HLO to All Vehicles. 

The engineer provides all available pertinent information in that analysis. 

2.40 Private Land 

158. Comment: The Proposed Action will close numerous roads. Many cabin owners would not be able 

to get to their cabins or resorts until May 15. 

2049 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

159. Comment: If the Forest Service is going to designate OHV routes adjacent to private property, or to 

private property boundaries, it must be responsible for environmental effects and mitigate them. 

2394 

Response: Any action the Forest Service takes considers the effects to private property 

(Chapters 3.04 and 3.06). The Forest Service is not responsible for providing barriers to protect 

private property from trespass. That is the private property owner’s responsibility. 

160. Comment: Intrusions into our private space by noise, dust, and travel is a real concern. Please 

establish use rules, enforce them and limit travel that prevents and eliminates such intrusions. We 

whole-heartedly support the designation of roads in the area for highway legal vehicles only. 

2384 3553 

Response: Routes passing through private land that do not have a documented easement for the 

public will not be shown on the MVUM map. This also includes routes on National Forest that 

can only be accessed through the private land. Routes within 1⁄4 mile of private land were 

addressed under indicator 2 in the EIS (Chapter 3.04). This was done to address the concerns 

expressed. 

161. Comment: I favor public access to roads accessing private land, for simplicity of administration. As 

an in-holder and I am not bothered by public use of the road accessing my property. 

2442 

Response: The Forest will pursue with you getting legal access across your land if you are 

willing to grant it. 

162. Comment: I would like to see the trails routed around private property to complete that trail. 

594 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2932 3255 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a new route construction alternative along with the reasons for 

elimination from detailed study. 

163. Comment: Owners of private property adjacent to National Forest land may want to ride to routes 

directly from their property. Three existing routes from private land onto road 3N48 were excluded 

from the analysis and other routes in the area were designated HLO. 

3463 3464 3465 

Response: The three routes excluded from the analysis were apparently not found in the 

inventory prepared for the EIS. Although the best effort was made with available funding and 

personnel to inventory all motorized routes, some routes were not picked up in the inventory. 

The EIS will be completed with the inventory available at the time of public scoping and future 

analysis may consider designation of additional routes. Because some private property owners 

object to the effects of OHV traffic near their property, Alternative 1 designates some routes 

like 3N48 Highway Legal Only (see Table 1.08-1). In Alternative 4, road 3N48 is designated as 

maintenance level 2 open to all vehicles. 

164. Comment: Forest should not arbitrarily reject a popular historic OHV route simply because 

segments of it end or transect private property and the agency does not have documented rights. 

Review such routes for consideration for designation using "acquired but undocumented rights." 

3130 3131 3136 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a similar add all unauthorized routes alternative along with the 

reasons for elimination from detailed study. 

165. Comment: The Stanislaus National Forest did not designate a number of routes that cross private 

property because the agency claims they do not have documented rights. Consider rights acquired 

through appropriation, prescriptive rights, and other rights which may not be documented. 

2057 3150 3151 3152 3263 3629 3630 

3631 3860 3861 

Response: The Forest has not contacted private landowners to ask for public right of ways. 

Until a decision is made, this work will have to wait. “Appropriation and the assertion of 

prescriptive rights” are a last resort. Until the Forest has exhausted all means of acquiring a 

willingly given right-of-way, this method will not be used first. 

166. Comment: The Forest provides misleading information by stating that trails proposed affect only 

274 acres or less than 0.04% of the forest. This would assume that noise, dust and damage don't reach 

much farther than the width of the trails on which this motorized recreation occurs. The impacts of 

motorized vehicle-generated noise, dust and erosion have effects much farther reaching than the 

width of the trails. 

3664 

Response: The reference to 274 acres was only to describe the total amount of acres in the 

trails being added to the system. In Chapter 3.01, Vegetation: “The alternatives considered in 

detail do not affect the distribution of vegetation across the Forest for these reasons: motorized 

trail use occurs over only 274 acres or less than 0.04% of the project area;” No correlation is 

made between dust, noise, and erosion and the number of acres. 

167. Comment: The Forest Service has not identified the authority delegated by Congress or by 

Executive Order for the purpose of resolving some individuals "disagreement" with lawful and 

harmless activities. This is a controversy, not a case to be prosecuted in this analysis. 

595 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

3441 

Response: Chapters 3.04 and 3.08 disclose effects on private property. Only routes shown on 

MVUM will be available for motorized access 

168. Comment: Everyone knows the very nature of the ATV or motorcycle makes trespass easy. 

Everyone knows that when people use one of these vehicles, trespass is commonplace. The vehicles 

can travel cross-country. They are light and they can easily negotiate rugged terrain; and furthermore, 

they are actually designed to do this. 

3442 3443 

Response: Chapters 1.08 and 2 provide a variety of reasons for vehicle class changes; trespass 

is only one. 

169. Comment: Private inholdings have multiple owners and most of them have existing NFTS roads to 

them and through them. The inventory quad maps that we sampled showed zero trespass. 

3443 3444 3445 3446 

Response: The Forest did not inventory OHV use on private lands. 

170. Comment: We would like to add confirmation to the public comment record that public access or 

right of way will not be granted. 

3800 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

171. Comment: ROC does not agree with: “The alternatives considered in detail do not affect private 

roads or use on private property.” If forest routes to private land have existed for decades, now is not 

the time to close them simply because of the private land issue. 

3984 3986 3985 4174 4176 

Response: The Forest Service does not have the authority to add routes to the system without a 

public right of way and current policy does not provide for adding routes contingent on future 

right-of-way acquisition. 

172. Comment: Four segments (1.02 miles) in the Jelmini and Bear Trap areas access private property 

and popular summer and winter motorized and non-motorized use. Obtain the necessary right-of-way 

to this area in an attempt to keep the area open to both motorized and non-motorized use. 

4150 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

173. Comment: If property owners are unwilling to grant public access, then the Forest Service should 

honor their requests. Also try to resolve the conflicts with quite recreation opportunities, and conflicts 

between forest visitors. 

4175 4176 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

596 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2.50 Road Closures 

174. Comment: Designate all trails and roads proposed for closure kept open where appropriated funding, 

Grants, and Green Sticker funding were spent. The Forest recognized these routes as part of the 

transportation system through the expenditure of these funds. 

2856 3055 

Response: Additions to the NFTS vary by alternative based on the theme of the alternatives as 

shown in Table 2.05-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any additions while 5, 1 and then 4 

include increasingly more additions. Chapter 2.04 describes several alternatives (b, h and i) 

considered, that include all of the routes suggested, along with the reasons for eliminating them 

from detailed study. To our knowledge, the Forest has not spent any State of California 

Cooperative Agreement dollars for road maintenance. 

175. Comment: The closure of approximately 46 miles of NFTS roads; these roads provide dispersed 

recreation opportunities and connectivity to other riding areas. We want the Forest to open these roads 

for public use. 

3060 

Response: Roads available for motorized use varies by alternative (see Table 2.05-4). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 do not close any roads (see table 2.5-5). 

176. Comment: The closure of 300 miles of inventoried existing routes is not acceptable. These existing 

and inventoried routes must go through the full NEPA process. The changing of 400 miles of mixed 

use to street legal only is another big loss, because it affects many more miles of access for OHVs. 

3174 3637 3252 3637 3931 

Response: Chapter 2 describes how alternatives were developed and Table 2.05-1 shows how 

routes were included in each alternative. Unauthorized routes that were proposed for additions 

to the system were evaluated to see if they met Forest Land Management Plan standards and 

guides. Where they did not and they were deemed potentially needed for the recreation system, 

a plan amendment was developed which would exempt them from the Standards and 

Guidelines. In addition to the DEIS the 2006 inventory is available on the Stanislaus website 

and by request on CD. 

177. Comment: The following significant issues created by “increased motorized opportunities” are 

erroneously inaccurate: a. Administration 2.1 i. The assumption and conclusion that the options 

“increase motorized use” when the total number of all roads will in reality be reduced 

3284 

Response: Significant issues are based on public comments received during scoping (see 

Chapter 1.08). 

178. Comment: A more restrictive decision by the Forest Service will result in more resource damage. 

Choosing to close or severely restrict access will lead to new unauthorized routes. 

3541 4295 4048 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

2.60 Season of Use 

179. Comment: Roads are being improved to support more traffic and larger vehicles, which means the 

purpose is to allow more people into the area especially along roads 5N01 and 5N01A. But, the 

opposite seems to be the reality. More areas are to be closed to camping and other activities. 

597 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

3199 

Response: Chapter 2.02 provides season of use descriptions for each alternative, and Tables 

1.03-1 and 2.05-1 list reasons for restrictions. 

180. Comment: The Anderson Valley A-21, G-37 and J-15 hunts all occur between mid-November and 

early-December. Closure of the hunt areas to vehicular access effectively eliminates these heavily 

sought deer hunts. 

3214 3890 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

181. Comment: Close the route system based on actual conditions, not a pre-determined set of dates and 

re-route all routes that are closed due to crossing private property. 

4005 

Response: Chapter 2.04 includes several similar alternatives (d, e, and f) along with the reasons 

for eliminating them from detailed study. 

182. Comment: The proposed closure from December 1 through March 31 is unacceptable, and another 

way of eliminating wheeled over-snow play. 

4096 4261 2150 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

183. Comment: Proposed changes to the seasonal zones are needed: Zone 1 elevation changed to 5000 

feet and below open year round with the wet weather closure 11/30 to 5/15, no wet weather closure 

during season of use. Zone 2 elevation be changed to 5000 to 7500 feet, closed 11/30 to 5/15 with no 

wet weather closure applied during season of use. Zone 3 elevation changed to 7500 feet and above, 

be closed 11/30 to 5/15 with no wet weather closure applied during season of use. 

3918 2507 4033 3845 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

184. Comment: Retain the seasonal closure now in use from the LMP. In addition, add the wet weather 

closure for the same time period as the LMP seasonal closure, forest wide. Arbitrary zones that totally 

eliminate all use of the forest for 5 to 6 months would not be necessary. 

2804 2353 2354 3114 3843 3888 

Response: The Forest Plan (see Appendix C) has two references to seasonal closure: (1) for the 

protection of deer and states as follows “a. Deer winter concentration areas or critical winter 

deer range may be closed to motorized use from 11/15 to 4/15. b. Deer summer concentration 

areas or critical summer deer range may be closed to motorized use from 4/15 to 8/1 (2) a 

general statement that references the seasonal use closures to protect routes: “d. Utilize seasonal 

closures to protect road and route surfaces.” 

185. Comment: Season of use negatively affects hunting, fishing and camping. The Forest should do a 

more comprehensive analysis of the effects of these proposed closures. 

2370 3890 3891 3930 3917 4294 2065 

2279 2335 2528 3193 3194 3203 3204 

2445 3586 1994 2213 3540 3192 1866 

3617 

598 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: Chapter 3.04 discloses the effects of the season of use and other restrictions on these 

activities. 

186. Comment: The Zones as proposed eliminate complete usage of the forest for 5 to 6 months out of 

the year. The Zones must consider the forest as a multi-use forest plus the historical usage there of. 

3115 2506 3754 2806 2805 3844 3616 

3618 4067 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

187. Comment: The DEIS does not state the reasons for the current year-round road closures or whether 

the proposed season of use changes would have adverse effects as a result of providing open periods 

for roads currently closed year-round. Nor does the DEIS describe the criteria used to select the 

season of use dates or whether current wet weather use of existing NFTS and unauthorized routes 

results in significant environmental impacts. 

2170 2172 3887 

Response: Table 2.02-7 shows the existing closures along with the type of restriction. Table 

2.05-1 shows the rationale for the season of use: “protect resources including road and trail 

surfaces during the normal winter season”. Considerations were given based on elevation and 

weather information on when roads and trails have been closed in the past. Wildlife 

considerations and public safety were also included to determine season of use in Alternatives 

1, 4, and 5. Each road and trail was not analyzed. Elevation areas were mapped out to provide 

area boundaries that could be located on the ground. 

188. Comment: Amend season of use dates to allow earlier opening or later closing based on conditions 

and local Forest Service determination. There is no benefit to keeping gates closed based on arbitrary 

dates if the office determines that conditions don’t warrant closure. This will provide for increased 

recreational opportunities and will benefit the local economies with no additional resource damage. 

3177 3338 

Response: Gates are an effective way of managing roads. Seasonal closures would be the 

enforcement tool to cite going around gates. Dates can be changed with a temporary Forest 

Order if weather conditions warrant a change. 

189. Comment: Winter closures should be based on weather conditions and not a flat date period. The 

best riding time is after weather has had time to soak into the ground and not during the muddy time, 

which is expected for the riding areas to be closed at the wet times to preserve the land. 

3264 4003 2133 2471 3256 

Response: The Chapter 2.04 includes similar alternatives (d and e) along with the reasons for 

eliminating them from detailed study. 

190. Comment: The Hull Creek and Clavey River areas should be closed Oct 15 each year so that we can 

do work on trails to winterize them before it snows and protect them from erosion. 

1794 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

191. Comment: Congregating use reduces my personal enjoyment of the forest and may create more of a 

management problem for forest officials. Making more vehicles use fewer miles of roads puts too 

much extra human pressure in the localized area and increases possible environmental impacts. 

599 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

3765 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

192. Comment: The wet weather closure concept could be integrated into the season of use. 

2215 4802 4803 

Response: The season of use restrictions include a provision for wet weather closures during 

the season of use. 

193. Comment: Sensible and necessary seasons should be set for resource protection. The DEIS fails to 

disclose that the Stanislaus already restricts motor vehicle access. 

3311 

Response: Existing closures are identified in Table 2.02-7. The Forest currently has no forest 

wide plan for seasonally restricting access. 

194. Comment: A seasonal closure was adopted in the 2005 Forest Plan. The Calaveras Ranger District 

and the Summit Ranger District already restrict motor vehicles to designated trails in substantial 

areas. 

3355 3354 3357 3356 3636 3888 

Response: The Calaveras and Summit Ranger districts never proposed or evaluated prohibiting 

cross country travel or implementing seasonal closures in their decisions. In the description of 

the scope of the analysis in Chapter 2.02, the area to be considered in this analysis is Forest 

wide. The seasonal closures in the LMP must have site specific analysis and its affects disclosed 

before it can be implemented. The seasonal closure dates for critical deer winter range in the 

LMP are similar to those in Alternative 5. To be consistent across the Forest, the analysis 

considers seasonal closures on a forest wide basis. 

195. Comment: The proposed action means limited use and delays to usage of campgrounds and fish 

plantings. Resorts, cabin and range permittees would be adversely affected. 

3775 2313 1741 2865 3063 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

196. Comment: The zone system effectively closes the forest three to six months a year to off road use 

regardless of the actual conditions. This system is an extremely heavy-handed way of controlling use 

of a relatively small percentage of the forest at elevations that see wide variance of conditions. 

3235 2342 3260 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

197. Comment: Season of use dates should avoid and minimize adverse effects on environmental 

resources, especially those most vulnerable to motorized vehicle use, and be enforceable. 

2157 2171 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

198. Comment: The proposed Season of Use closure is exclusionary for our ability to gather and hunt 

during our traditional times. The Tribe recommends the Seasonal Closure timeframe should be 

February 1 to April. 

600 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2786 2783 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

199. Comment: The Alternative 5 dates fit better with road conditions than those in Alternative 1. 

3785 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

200. Comment: Having approximate dates of closing and opening seasonal roads will be appreciated so 

the public knows when these roads will be open. Similar to a policy that Cal Trans just put in place 

regarding the opening of Ebbetts Pass (and 108 too). 

3749 2543 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

201. Comment: The proposed closure of Upper Elevation Zone roads through May 15 may limit the 

Department's ability to stock trout in traditional stocking locations prior to the opening of trout fishing 

season, which is the 1st Saturday of April. The Department requests that the Forest coordinate with 

Moccasin Creek Fish Hatchery staff to ensure that necessary Upper Elevation Zone routes remain 

available for stocking truck access beginning April 15. 

3587 2213 

Response: Coordination with the Department for fish planting will occur and any needed 

access for the Department to conduct their activities on National Forest lands will be given. 

202. Comment: Alternative 3 should be improved by adding the winter season closure described in 

Alternative 5. It would keep vehicles off the trails when the soils are saturated and highly vulnerable 

to erosion 

3614 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

203. Comment: During the closure times, the only access to the Forest will be on State Highways or 

County Roads. Many Forest roads are presently closed a portion of that time under present 

management. I could not find this information in the DEIS to compare proposed closures with 

existing closures. 

1739 

Response: Zone 1 would be open year round in Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. 

204. Comment: Of most concern is the closing or all roads between 3,000 and 5,000 ft. from November 

30 to April 1. This could mean limited access for opening of trout season with campgrounds closed 

and no access for fish planting off forest roads prior to April 15. This would not allow Kennedy 

Meadows Resort to open before May 15th. 

3704 1760 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

205. Comment: Modify the season of use for a particular road when legitimate conflicts require a road to 

be open. My fear is that once the ROD is signed that changes will not be possible. To avoid the 

601 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

conflicts and issuance of road use permits, use the existing closures under Alternative 2 as a base for 

the season of use dates. An alternative to set dates for season of use would be to utilize weather and 

road conditions for closure. 

2214 2086 4798 4799 4800 

Response: The existing closures identified in Table 2.02-7 are year-round closures. The Forest 

currently does “swing gates” to close roads. There is no Forest Order to enforce the gate 

closure. Whichever “Season of Use” is selected, it will be shown on the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) and provide that enforcement tool. Any time a change in management is 

proposed which affects National Forest access it must undergo some level of environmental 

analysis (NEPA). The Forest Supervisor has the authority to temporarily lift or extend seasonal 

closures through a temporary forest order, should the need arise. 

206. Comment: Proposed late opening dates and the early closing dates, and road closures due to snow 

and rain, make it very confusing. Any reduction in hunting licenses and deer tag sales will directly 

result in reduced revenue to the California Department of Fish and Game. Closures of the forest, for 

any reason, deprive hunters of hunting opportunities. 

3213 3217 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

207. Comment: A closure period of November 1 to May 30 is too restrictive and prohibits motorized use 

when ground conditions will support vehicle traffic. 

2863 2866 2455 4288 3064 4012 3144 

Response: The DEIS does not include a closure period of November 1 to May 30. The 

proposed open access in Zone 3 in Alternative 5 is 5/15-11/15. 

208. Comment: There are great opportunities for family outings during the winter months in this national 

forest that would be forever lost to ours and future generations should this plan be implemented. 

2043 2058 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

209. Comment: Seasonal closure of roads are supported in areas that are damaged by wet weather use 

and those where seasonal use would have adverse effects on wildlife, in particular, a long winter 

closure in the Deer Creek and Rose Creek areas to protect the wintering deer and the Jawbone area. 

3207 3696 3909 4283 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

210. Comment: We suggest that you make changes prior to issuing a ROD to address resource impact 

concerns which, in our opinion, are not resolved satisfactorily in the DEIS, in several areas with high 

habitat and fishing or hunting values. For all motorized routes in Use Zones 2 and 3, impose the more 

restrictive start-finish dates proposed under Alternative 5. 

3226 3227 3903 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

602 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

211. Comment: Individual routes in the Middle and Upper Elevation Zones open to all vehicles or to 

HLO should be assessed to determine what impacts would result from winter use. Where no 

significant impact to the environment would result, the route should remain open through the winter. 

3589 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

212. Comment: Expand the winter closure period s to protect water quality. 

1767 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

213. Comment: As range permittees we are concerned about access to our ranges before the season of use 

becomes in effect. Our fences need to be put up and road work needs to be performed, prior to cattle 

being put on allotments. 

2482 

Response: Under the terms and conditions of all special use permits, permittees can and will be 

granted access to conduct any necessary business associated with their permit. For range 

permittees, a letter of authorization will be issued along with the Annual Operating Instructions 

(AOI). 

2.61 Wet Weather 

214. Comment: The wet weather closure is too difficult to implement and unenforceable as written. It is 

confusing. Communicating a closure would be difficult if forest visitors were in the backcountry. 

1703 1717 1746 1821 1785 2281 2314 

2337 2339 2064 2087 2343 2489 2173 

2174 2372 3705 2505 2530 2531 

2815 2816 2788 3135 3190 3191 3251 

3766 3212 3277 3295 3312 3332 3339 

3786 3916 3920 4004 4287 3616 3620 

4032 3588 3338 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

2.70 Special Uses 

215. Comment: Serious evaluation of local customs, historic use, public access and access to private 

parcels inside the Forest boundaries must be made on existing authorized and unauthorized routes. 

2300 

Response: Chapters 3.04 and 3.06 provide this information. 

216. Comment: My understanding is the permit roads will not be shown and therefore are not open for 

public motorized travel. The GIS database will incorporate the changes that I recommended insuring 

that all of the project access roads are correctly mapped and shown as permit roads. 

2457 2458 2459 

Response: Permit roads will show as gray dotted lines on the Alternative and Decision maps. 

217. Comment: It is difficult to determine all the potential impacts the Plan will have on PG&E's utility 

business obligations and we request the Plan contain a utility company exemption. The Plan proposes 

to "Prohibit public motorized travel off of designated NFS roads and trails except where: (a) traveling 

603 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

up to 100 feet off of designated NFS roads and NFS trails for direct access to campsites, parking, 

woodcutting, or gathering of forest products provided that no resource damage occurs and such 

access is not otherwise prohibited; or, (b) allowed by permit or other authorization." 

1949 1950 

Response: The DEIS does not propose item (a) as outlined above. Changes were made to the 

original Notice of Intent. Motorized travel will be allowed only on designated routes. Item (b) 

covers all types of permits. The language recommended above does not cover every type of 

permit that could have exemptions. Each permitted use will have specific language that does or 

does not exempt it from route designations. 

218. Comment: SNF must maintain public access leading to private parcels and permit allotments 

2299 2482 

Response: The Forest Service will work with permittees and private inholders to continue 

access. 

219. Comment: While PG&E does not have special use authorizations (SUA's) for the project access 

roads that are outside of the FERC boundary, PG&E considers the Road Plan to be the valid 

authorization until such time as SUA's can be issued. 

2460 

Response: Permit roads will show as gray dotted lines on the Alternative and Decision maps. 

220. Comment: For the most part, the project access roads authorized by the Easement were either 

designated or simply were not shown on the quad maps. In addition, to effectively close project 

access roads that are within critical habitat for special-status plants, PG&E proposed to install two 

gates: 1) Junction of NFSR 4N90 and project access road 4N90C (shown as Unauthorized Route 

17EV212); and 2) Junction of NFSR 3N39 and project access road 3N06X (shown as Permit Road). 

These proposed gates are not shown. 

2462 

Response: Gates will not be shown on Alternative maps or the Decision map. These roads 

should be shown as permit roads. 

2.80 Unauthorized Routes 

221. Comment: No more than the 31 miles of unauthorized routes added to the system in Alternative 5 

should be designated. However the routes should be selected from those with least resource conflicts. 

3736 

Response: The objective of addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS and minimizing 

resource conflicts is considered in the range of alternatives and Chapter 3. 

222. Comment: More of the existing user created routes should be designated open to reduce the impacts 

of concentrating OHV use on fewer routes. 

4084 

Response: The effect of concentrating OHV use on fewer routes is evaluated fully in Chapter 

3.04 and was considered in the creation of the range of alternatives. 

223. Comment: Unauthorized routes should not be added to the system because OHV use causes 

resource damage. Adding more routes would increase the resource damage. 

1909 1955 2256 2437 2560 2567 3831 

4419 4434 4462 

604 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: The resource impacts of OHV use and motorized routes are evaluated fully in 

Chapter 3 and were considered in the creation of the range of alternatives. 

224. Comment: No unauthorized routes should be added to the system because the Forest Service cannot 

afford enforcement and monitoring of damage on the current route system. 

2198 3708 3832 

Response: Affordability of maintenance and administration is one of the primary criteria in 

determining if a route should be added to the system and is considered in the range of 

alternatives and Chapters 3.06 and 3.08. 

225. Comment: Evaluation of user-created routes should be at the local not Regional Office level. 

2837 

Response: Evaluation of these routes has been performed at the Stanislaus National Forest 

level with local public input and local Forest Service employees. The decision will be made by 

the Forest Supervisor. All the National Forests in the United States are undergoing 

Environmental Analysis of Motorized Travel Management, so regional coordination and 

assistance is being provided by the Regional Office. 

226. Comment: The effects of adding the unauthorized routes to the system is minor because the routes 

already exist and are being used, and because their impacts are less than the impacts of existing roads 

and trails, vegetation management, wildfires, mining and grazing. 

3987 

Response: As suggested in this comment, the effects of adding unauthorized routes to the 

system are evaluated in the context of the total system. 

227. Comment: The requirement that mitigation is accomplished prior to the addition of certain 

unauthorized roads to the system will likely prohibit their addition to the system. 

4105 

Response: While it cannot be known for certain whether specific mitigations will be funded 

and accomplished in the future, the EIS intends to add some routes to the system upon signing 

of the EIS decision and make them open to public motor vehicle traffic if and when the 

mitigations are completed. 

228. Comment: Some user-created routes are designated in spite of specialist recommendations that they 

cause unacceptable environmental impacts. 

2196 2199 2562 

Response: The DEIS allows for the possibility that an adequate mitigation may be found and 

implemented in the future, even for some of the routes rated 4 by a resource specialist. The 

Forest Supervisor is the official responsible for deciding whether to add these routes to the 

system. Such routes would not be open to public motor vehicle travel until adequate mitigation 

is completed. 

229. Comment: User-created routes should not be added to the system because they were created 

illegally. 

1955 2051 2197 2287 2419 2516 4367 

4468 

Response: User-created or unauthorized routes are not illegal (see Chapter 1.02). 

605 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

230. Comment: Unauthorized routes should not be added to the system because OHV use spoils the 

experience of recreationists seeking to enjoy the beauty of the forest in a quiet environment. 

2051 4457 4458 

Response: The conflicts between OHV use and quiet, non-motorized recreation is evaluated in 

Chapter 3.04. 

2.90 Vehicle Class 

231. Comment: We should be able to continue using the National Forest. It should not come down to 

how big the voice is or if they have come up with what they feel are valid reasons to close National 

Forest Property. 

1980 1981 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

232. Comment: Closing many of the roads to OHVs and leaving them open to HLO is a bias against 

OHVs and doesn't represent equal protection or access. Unloading and parking locations should be 

provided for those OHVs moved by trailer or truck. Crossover or trail continuity is at issue with many 

OHVs restrictions. 

1790 1796 4122 4131 4173 4162 

Response: OHV use on the Stanislaus is estimated at approximately 7% of visitor use while 

driving for pleasure is 15% (National Visitor Use Monitoring Surveys, Chapter 3.06). 

Opportunities for OHV use were evaluated and proposed in a range of alternatives. Table 2.05-4 

clearly shows that a substantial percentage of the Forest Roads are open to all vehicle use. 

233. Comment: Restricting access to HLO on Candy Rock Road is perfectly reasonable as off road 

vehicles have no business in this steep terrain and tricky road. It would however be a travesty if public 

access was denied as proposed in Alternative 5. 

3550 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

234. Comment: We oppose the change of 400 miles of NFS roads from open to all to HLO. This massive 

closure to OHV access has a severe adverse impact to providing OHV connectivity to separate riding 

areas. We want a mixed use traffic study preformed to determine what the safety issues are and 

potential mitigation requirements needed to allow all motorized use. 

2861 3061 3460 

Response: Alternative 1 does propose to change 400+ miles of All to HLO. Alternative 4 

proposes to change 145.76 miles of All to HLO. The areas mentioned above are not proposed 

for HLO changes in Alternative 4. 

235. Comment: The agency is overreaching their authority by considering Forest Service roads identified 

as Maintenance Level 3-5 as highways for the purposes of enforcing the California Vehicle Code 

(CVC). The California Highway Patrol specifically clarifies that, Forest Service roads do not meet 

their definition of a highway as defined in the CVC. We want the Agency to designate all roads that 

were requested for motorized mixed use but were denied consideration because of the use of the 

CVC, to be designated mixed use. There is NO reason for the Stanislaus to change any NFTS route 

from "all" to "HLO" unless these routes are "paved" roadways. 

2896 2897 3093 4224 4226 4225 3947 

606 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 

3955 

Response: The Mixed Use analysis has been submitted to the Regional Office for review. 

There were other reasons for making roads Highway Legal Only. Consideration was given to 

roads where no public access was available across private property. Roads leading to private 

property were designated as Highway Legal Only to respond to the significant issues of private 

property, trespass, noise and dust (Chapter 1). Roads coming off of County roads that were dead 

end and did not make a loop opportunity were proposed for Highway Legal Only as well in 

Alternatives 1 and 5. 

236. Comment: The other 393.11 miles of changes in Alternative 1 from "all vehicles to HLO" are not 

necessary to comply with the CVC. Converting these other roads would be a conflict with the 

Purpose and Need of this project, which is to "Provide a diversity of motorized recreation 

opportunities. 

4227 3125 3126 3127 3128 

Response: The CVC did not drive the determination of what routes were being proposed for 

changes to HLO. The recreation opportunity and responses to significant issues determined 

what changes to the transportation would be considered. 

237. Comment: Closing trails will make a lot more people ride at the OHV White Pines Park. Allow 

people to ride on trails and spread out use and don’t concentrate them in a smaller area. 

1979 

Response: The Forest Service does not have an OHV White Pines Park per say. The Calaveras 

Ranger district did make a decision in the Interface area, near White Pines, to designate OHV 

travel and provide new trails. The roads going in and out of this area are not available to all 

motorized vehicles as they are county roads, cross private property with no public right of way, 

etc. This area does resemble a ‘park’ on the map because the area is isolated on all sides by 

private property. There are other opportunities in the forest that spread out OHV use and do not 

make it a ‘park like’ feeling. 

238. Comment: It is not clear how many miles are represented by Maintenance Level 1 roads, temporary 

roads and user created trails. We want the agency to clearly display the mileages for each category. 

For Maintenance Level 1 roads that are currently used by the public we want them to either be 

converted to a Maintenance Level 2 road or converted to concurrent use as a trail. 

3074 

Response: Chapter 3.08 lists the mileages of ML1 roads total on the Forest. Temporary roads 

were not considered in the analysis as a subgroup. If, during the inventory process, they were 

identified as being used by wheeled vehicles, they were then incorporated into the 2006 

Inventory and considered for potential for additions to the system during the development of the 

Proposed Action (Alternative 1). Temporary roads, by their very nature, are temporary and 

should be closed when through with their primary purpose, which is usually vegetation 

management related. ML 1 roads were considered when they were identified as being used by 

motorized traffic and were either proposed to be converted to trails (see Chapter 2) or kept on 

the system as ML1 with no motorized use. Those routes are listed in Appendix I- Changes to the 

Transportation system with the mileages. 

239. Comment: The proposed action would allow only “street legal” vehicles on the entire northwestern 

corner of the Mi Wok District from roughly the eastern portion of the Italian Bar Road loop. This 

would prohibit ATV travel on roads which are for the most part rough, rocky, narrow and better 

suited for ATV use, and many of which are nearly impassable for standard vehicles. 

607 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

1848 4045 4046 

Response: In Alternative 4, all motorized use is allowed in this area for roads coming off 

Italian Bar. Italian Bar Road is a county road and OHV use is prohibited on county roads. 

240. Comment: The DEIS fails to provide evidence to support the conclusion of a severe liability issue on 

ML 3 and 4 roads requiring extreme measures to reduce risk. We want the agency to include the 

required evidence to support the need to reduce OHV incidents with licensed vehicles. 

3053 4035 1848 

Response: ML 3 and 4 road segments that had recommendations for changes from HLO to all 

motorized use allowed underwent an engineering analysis (Mixed Use Analysis) with 

information available to a qualified engineer. Records were requested from California Highway 

Patrol, our law enforcement officers, etc. 

241. Comment: FS roads must remain as designated unless there is rationale and significant reason based 

on science for re-designation. 

3293 

Response: Proposed changes to the system respond to the significant issues outlined in Chapter 

1.08. The range of alternatives respond to the issues raised by the public during scoping. 

242. Comment: The DEIS does not disclose any reliable criteria or standard for the change in vehicle 

class. One road the FS wants to restrict is almost completely on private land. Most of the road is not 

even under the jurisdiction of the FS, and in fact, in the small area we selected, the change will affect 

at least 40 property owners. 

3450 3450 3451 

Response: Table 2.05-1 provides rationale for vehicle class changes. The referenced road 

segment, 3N07 (1.8 miles) that is proposed for Highway Legal Only, goes through SPI lands 

which are not managed for OHV recreation. In alternatives 2, 3 and 4, this road would remain 

open to all vehicles. It is only proposed for HLO in alternatives 1 and 5. 

243. Comment: The 2005 inventory found no unauthorized routes on any private lands in this area. 

Criteria for vehicle class changes appear to be irrational. 

3452 3453 

Response: The 2006 Inventory (referred to above as 2005) did not survey on private lands. It is 

a moot point whether there are OHV trails on private lands or not. The Forest Service has no 

jurisdiction of activities on private lands or jurisdiction to allow access. The map submitted with 

this comment does not represent the entire length of 7N08 which is major connector crossing 

private property for most of its length. The road does cross federal lands in the northern and 

southern areas on the Alternatives maps. Proposed changes are on the northern most segment of 

7N08 coming out of the Mokelumne Canyon and on the southern most section from Highway 4. 

There is only one kind of right of way concerning the public access: the Forest Service has a 

right of way that allows the public to travel across private property to access federal lands. 

244. Comment: The broad closures proposed do not make a distinction between highway legal vehicles 

and OHVs. Opportunities exist to retain access for certain vehicle classes in some areas and seasons 

with few significant impacts on the environment should be explored. 

3607 

Response: The changes proposed in vehicle classes were based on significant issues (Chapter 

1.08) raised by the public during scoping and during other pre-NEPA meetings conducted in 

608 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2007. Impacts to roads from different types of vehicles were presumed to be equal and analyzed 

as such. The reasons for the changes in vehicle class are found in Table 2.05-1. 

245. Comment: A summary in Table 2.05-1 supports changes from all vehicles to HLO. This is the only 

information ROC could find that describes the need to prohibit OHV travel on 20 percent of your ML 

2 roads. No mitigation was discussed that would allow these roads to remain open to all vehicle 

classes. 

3973 

Response: Table 1.03-1 displays all the reasons for proposing to change vehicle class from 

ALL to HLO: “county roads; private property; short roads; no connection to non-highway legal 

opportunities; reduce incursions into adjacent non-motorized areas; reduce conflicts between 

different uses”. A majority of the roads being proposed to be changed to HLO fall into the 

category of no public access. Because of this, roads leading into private property were 

designated HLO. Roads on FS managed lands that did not have access (surrounded by private 

property) were also designated HLO. Alternative 4 has about 10% of the ML2 category has 

HLO as opposed to the 20% identified above (Alternative 5). In areas with no right of ways, the 

only mitigation would be acquiring right of ways. 

246. Comment: Substantial portions of the people who use some roads that will be changed to HLO are 

the property owners themselves. It is not the Forest Service's job to resolve differences between 

neighbors on private lands. If the property owners wish to assign such authority to the Forest Service, 

we contend that the property owners must also give up their claim to restrict access on those roads. 

3447 3448 3253 

Response: It is the Forest’s responsibility to have legal access and not invite public use on 

roads where the public has no legal access. 

247. Comment: We strongly urge the Forest to replace the OHV designations for the Bell Mountain, 

Rock Creek, Bourland Creek, Reynolds Creek and Hells Mountain zone of the Mi-Wok District. This 

was the only substantial quiet recreation block of forested, roaded land with the Stanislaus Forest that 

was recommended for highway legal only in the 2007 proposed action. 

3725 3726 3784 

Response: These areas are designated HLO in Alternative 5. There was no proposed action in 

2007. The meetings held in 2007 were conducted to discuss possible proposed actions for the 

NEPA phase of this project. They were pre-NEPA community meetings. 

248. Comment: OHV routes should be closed in our traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering areas. 

2781 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

249. Comment: The Date Flat, Texas Hill, Quail Mine area 2S52, 2S21, 2S53 2S44, 2S45 have very little 

traffic if any and none of it would be classified as a highway in the vehicle code book. A 16 mile 

round trip is not a spur. Most of these roads have existed for over 75 years. 

1944 2927 1942 

Response: These routes do not connect to any other all motorized routes. They come off of 

county roads. The condition of the road did not determine the vehicle class. The opportunity to 

access legally (highway legal vehicles only on county roads) was not there. 

609 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

250. Comment: Shifting nearly 403 miles of roads into HLO will probably inconvenience some riders of 

OHV motorcycles and ATVs. This shift must assume that there are adequate street legal parking 

areas for off-loading OH Vehicles where OHV and HLO routes meet. Motorcyclists can change to 

dual sport-bikes but ATVs cannot. 

1824 

Response: Alternative 4 changes about 147 miles from all motorized use to HLO. 

251. Comment: BRC believes the conversion of high standard forest roads (levels 3-5) down to a level 2 

road or to a "road managed as a trail" will help the Forest achieve both recreation and budget 

objectives. 

3140 

Response: This concept is incorporated into Alternatives 1 and 4. Chapter 2 shows the specific 

mileage and changes. 

3.00 RECREATION (EXCLUDING MOTORIZED) 

3.10 Dispersed Recreation 

252. Comment: Complete the unfinished inventory of dispersed access routes and keep appropriate 

routes open to motorized use. Closure of most dispersed access routes to motorized access is a huge 

change and will result in a significant loss of recreation opportunities. 

1748 1993 2271 2280 2309 2310 

2321 2435 2441 2446 2480 2784 

3210 3479 3480 3481 3706 3976 3977 

3978 3979 4069 4119 4196 4198 4199 

4285 4291 4385 4399 4804 4805 4806 

2085 3296 

Response: The Forest would like to complete the inventory and analysis of dispersed recreation 

sites in the near future. Unfortunately, schedules and circumstances did not allow for a complete 

inventory within this EIS. Until this supplemental analysis occurs, undesignated routes will be 

closed to motorized use. The areas will remain available to non-motorized use. Many campsites 

and use areas are within convenient walking distance of the parking location along the main 

road. 

253. Comment: Elimination of motorized access to campsites will concentrate use in remaining sites, 

changing the recreation experience and causing resource impacts that are not a problem with 

infrequent use. Some campers will relocate to developed campgrounds. Mixing hunting parties with 

regular campers will create problems for both groups in developed campgrounds. 

2321 2371 2434 2479 3480 4285 

4399 4285 4399 

Response: If the supplemental inventory and analysis is performed promptly, the negative 

effects may be avoided. If it is delayed, then the above concerns will need to be addressed. The 

implementation plan will identify actions to minimize disruptive change. The Forest will work 

with our campground concession operators to accommodate early and late season demand. 

254. Comment: A disparity exists in how various activities are treated relating to cross-country travel. As 

an example, the proposed action would allow for limited cross-country travel for fuel wood cutting. A 

wood cutting permit holder would be allowed to travel cross-country, off designated routes, within the 

Stanislaus National Forest. 

610 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2269 2271 

Response: The Forest’s approach has been consistent. Big game retrieval and dispersed 

camping will follow the same rules. Travel will be limited to designated NFTS routes. Firewood 

gathering is different since this activity is under the permit system which establishes conditions 

for motorized travel. 

255. Comment: The public does not want to stage one vehicle length from the edge of a road. Camping 

within one car length of the main road will be a safety problem. Parking within 50 feet of a road 

would be more workable and understandable. 

2371 2441 3979 4036 4199 4399 

Response: Chapter 2.04 lists a similar travel corridor alternative along with the reasons for 

elimination from detailed study. No sites are being eliminated; some may be converted to walkin sites. 

256. Comment: Existing authorized and unauthorized routes provide access to those physically unable to 

visit their Forest and dispersed camping areas via non-motorized means. This proposed change will 

have a negative impact on all forest users who are elderly, young, and with disabilities. 

2309 4119 4196 

Response: Persons with disabilities, the elderly, and families with small children are likely to 

be more dependent upon motorized forms of mobility to get to their desired recreation setting. 

The reduction in motorized access could affect the ability of some people to get to a particular 

destination. Regardless of the alternative selected, the MVUM map will include many 

opportunities to access remote and quiet areas of the forest, especially during low use periods. 

As additional routes are added in the future, opportunities will be restored. 

257. Comment: Restricting use to a car length disrupts historic uses and is unenforceable. Car lengths 

vary and this regulation is either unenforceable or will be applied unevenly. A better length is a 

quantifiable 100 feet. 

2435 2436 2441 2480 

Response: An implementation plan will address the challenges of communicating and 

enforcing this restriction. Chapter 2.04 lists a similar travel corridor alternative along with the 

reasons for elimination from detailed study. 

258. Comment: General Forest Access is preferred by an estimated 50 percent of the overnight visitors 

(2004 NVUM). The analysis fails to disclose and analyze the effects of the non-motorized activities 

reliant on motor vehicles, which will be displaced by the loss of dispersed access: fishing, hiking, 

camping, watching wildlife, and so forth. 

3478 3479 3480 

Response: Chapters 3.04 and 3.07 disclose these effects. 

259. Comment: Over 1,300 disperse camping sites identified and yet only approximately 200 sites 

surveyed. This is unacceptable. To classify the roads that access these sites "unauthorized" and 

propose to close 80 percent of them is the very essence of arbitrary and capricious 

4291 3398 3398 

Response: The dispersed recreation access routes were identified in the project record. Chapter 

3.04 discusses dispersed sites. Table 3.04-7 provides a summary of routes. Individual dispersed 

access routes were listed in the project record. No campsites are being closed. Some sites have 

motorized access and some don’t. For those sites that do not have authorized routes, parking a 

vehicle length from the road will be allowed and walk in access for the sites will be allowed. 

611 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

3.20 Non-Motorized/Quiet Recreation 

260. Comment: The impact and disturbance of OHVs often extends well beyond the immediate area. The 

plan under consideration makes too much accommodation to the demands of the OHV interests, and 

represents a serious loss of rights for recreational forest users who seek a quiet and natural 

environment. 

2017 2200 2549 3303 3305 4072 

Response: All of the action alternatives will limit motorized use to designated NFTS routes. 

Many of the existing routes, currently being used will no longer be legally used. This will result 

in fewer areas impacted by motorized use during the season of use. In addition, zones 2 and 3 

will be closed to all motorized use (with the exception of a few WOS routes) from late fall 

through spring. The MVUM will identify the allowable motorized routes and quiet recreation 

activities can be planned away from them. 

261. Comment: Portions of the Forest should be zoned and allocated to quiet recreation activities, 

allowing only highway legal vehicles. This concept was presented in meetings but does not appear in 

the alternatives. It is desirable to confine off road motorized activity into manageable areas rather than 

being dispersed throughout the forest, where it impacts quiet recreation and other resources. 

1856 2263 2362 2364 3571 4521 4522 

4524 

Response: Although the areas are not highlighted or featured in the maps, many areas are 

highway legal only and without designated OHV trails. This is especially true of Alternative 5. 

The concept of quiet recreation zones was one of many considerations that influenced 

development of alternatives. 

262. Comment: Wildlife viewing opportunities, especially bird watching, are impacted by OHVs. Some 

of the best opportunities with level terrain are dominated by motorcycle use. 

2017 2360 2362 2550 3572 

Response: The MVUM will identify the allowable motorized routes and uses on them. It will 

be possible to identify areas that are far removed from OHVs. Bird watching and other wildlife 

viewing opportunities can be planned with assurance that no legal motorized activity will 

interfere, other than highway legal vehicles on the designated routes. All of the action 

alternatives will limit motorized use to designated NFTS routes. 

263. Comment: Peace and quiet is shattered by the noise and dust of intruding vehicles. The standard of 

1⁄4-mile to protect from dust and noise should be brought to at least a mile from homes and areas of 

quiet recreation. 

1856 2443 3272 

Response: All of the action alternatives have a reduced number of routes near private land. 

Cross country travel will be prohibited and Forest Orders will support enforcement. Potential 

impact to adjacent private land owners was an important consideration during the selection of 

routes for the alternatives. There should be a noticeable reduction in motorized use near private 

property in the future. 

264. Comment: The Stanislaus National Forest is 26.58 % Wilderness. When the Wilderness acres are 

added to the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized acres, you have an outstanding 40.9% of the Forest. The 

"Deciding Officer" needs to consider the "quality of the human environment" for the motorized user. 

When you add "seasonal closures" to the mix, there are even more "quiet settings" during some times 

of the year. 

612 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

4211 4212 4213 4214 4230 4231 4083 

4232 

Response: Wilderness and other non-motorized settings on the Forest are discussed in the 

Chapter 3.04. Routes are not proposed within these settings (except for the North Fork of the 

Stanislaus River). Your point is an important one, since these areas offer substantial nonmotorized/quiet recreation opportunities. However, these settings are not part of the analysis 

since we are not proposing routes within them. Due to their isolation, these settings are 

generally not available to the average Forest visitor who may lack the time, mobility, skill, and 

interest to journey there. Many visitors come to the Forest and do not venture too far from their 

vehicle, yet they may seek the quiet and/or sounds of nature. Many off-road enthusiasts ride in 

the Forest for the scenery and the experience of nature. The challenge of this planning effort is 

to provide sustainable motorized opportunities while minimizing the negative impacts to those 

who come to experience nature. This is our way of considering the “quality of the human 

environment” for both motorized and non motorized recreation opportunities. 

265. Comment: Trails used by OHVs are difficult for hikers to enjoy. OHV riders just create new routes 

when the old ones become impassible. Our members at times have experienced personal risks from 

driving on narrow Stanislaus Forest roads and having OHV riders drive recklessly around corners. 

2287 2550 

Response: Chapter 3.08 discloses the effects of mixed use on trails and roads. All of the action 

alternatives will limit motorized use to designated NFTS routes. Many of the existing routes, 

currently being used will no longer be legally used. They will be available for use by hikers, 

horses, and mountain bikes without the presence of motorcycles or dirt bikes. The MVUM will 

identify the allowable motorized routes and people can avoid them if they prefer. 

266. Comment: The vast majority of the non-motorized, quiet recreation opportunity areas are 

inaccessible due to snow-pack and closed roads for the majority of the year. 

2287 

Response: Zones 2 and 3 are seasonally closed to motorized use during much of the time that 

the Wilderness is inaccessible. Portions of these areas are accessible during both the spring and 

fall and will be non-motorized during the closure period. Due to low use during the spring and 

fall, it will likely be possible to have a quiet recreation experience in many areas, even if OHVs 

are permitted. This is a proposal for managing motorized use and we disclose the effects on 

non-motorized. 

267. Comment: OHV use should be limited to specific areas on the Forest. The nature of water, soil, 

wildlife and botanical resource impacts works on a cumulative scale. 

1856 2200 2364 2501 2550 2551 3305 

3571 3572 4072 4515 4516 4517 4522 

4523 4524 

Response: All of the action alternatives will limit motorized use to designated NFTS routes. 

Many of the existing routes, currently being used will be closed to motorized use. Many routes 

identified in the alternatives will not be shown on the MVUM until identified mitigation is 

performed. Routes. The prohibition of cross-country travel, the Forest order, and enforcement 

will limit use to the designated routes. This will result in fewer areas impacted by motorized use 

during the season of use. Season of use restrictions will close zones 2 and 3 to all motorized use 

(with the exception of a few WOS routes) from late fall till spring. The season varies by zone 

and by alternative. 

613 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Alternative 5 most closely meets the expressed desire to confine OHVs to limited areas. Under 

this alternative, quality OHV riding would largely be confined to the existing NFTS riding 

areas. The funneling of use from the entire Forest to these areas will intensify resource impacts 

and change the recreation experience for riders. It will be similar to an OHV park in intensity. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 will both reduce the extent of OHV activity as described above, but not 

result in the concentrated OHV use of Alternative 5. 

268. Comment: Most people enjoy the forest for fishing, hiking, camping horseback riding and other 

non-motorized uses. Expanding OHV use will compromise the quality of the forest experience for us. 

Also the Forest Service cannot maintain or monitor existing routes, so why add more? 

2501 2795 4072 

Response: The Forest is evaluating the routes that exist and deciding which ones to include in 

the NFTS. In fact, all of the action alternatives will result in a reduction from current use. From 

an activity perspective, almost twice as much pure non-motorized use as pure motorized use on 

the Forest, but the majority of use can not be categorized as either. See NVUM discussion in 

Chapter 3.06. Since virtually all visitors to the Forest arrive in a motor vehicle, at least a part of 

their recreation experience is motorized. 

3.30 User Conflicts 

269. Comment: I am very concerned that OHVs will spook our horses if we happen to encounter them 

while on trail. 

1834 2052 

Response: The MVUM will identify the routes where OHVs are allowed. Hiking and horse 

riding can occur on the other routes, without encountering motorized traffic. Routes currently 

being used by OHVs will be reduced in all alternatives except alternative 2. Prior to being 

shown on the MVUM, unacceptable impacts to soil and water will be mitigated. 

270. Comment: The Forest should limit OHV users as much as possible to allow enjoyment by the other 

90 percent of visitors. I'd like to see routes discontinued where they intersect with private property 

and where Forest Service property meets private property, it should be designated. 

1834 

Response: Existing routes in close proximity to private property (1/4 mile) are being reduced 

in alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 to varying degrees. According to Chapter 3.04, Alternative 5 will 

have less than 1/3 of the existing routes within this zone designated for use by non-highway 

legal vehicles. Alternative 4 will retain about 73%. Unless a documented public easement 

exists, routes through private land and dependant National Forest land beyond are not included. 

The MVUM will show this and signs on the route will identify the end of a designated route at 

the private property boundary. 

271. Comment: Remove indicator measure 1. The physical presence of motor vehicles outside of 

Wilderness is legal and necessary. Application of Wilderness and ROS SPNM criteria to the general 

forest setting is inconsistent with the approved Forest Plan. The "Quiet recreation" concept has no 

legal status outside of Wilderness. 

3411 3427 3428 3429 3437 3473 3474 

3475 3883 

Response: Indicator 1 reveals routes that are proposed within designated Wilderness, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and SPNM areas as approved in the “Near Natural” management areas within the 

Forest Plan. Since designation of these routes will require a forest plan amendment, they are a 

significant departure from existing approved direction. It is appropriate to use this as an 

614 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

indicator in the recreation analysis. Alternative 1 proposes 1.7 miles and Alternative 4 proposes 

5.2 miles. 

272. Comment: The DEIS inadequately considers the potential impacts of noise. OHV use directly and 

significantly degrades the recreational experience for non-motorized visitors within a 1/4 mile or 

further from the OHV rider. 

2022 2052 2707 2708 4519 

Response: Noise from motorized traffic is an important consideration and this factor 

influenced route selection on a case by case basis. Recreation indicators 1 and 2 were selected 

in part because they are a proxy for protection of quiet recreation opportunities. 

273. Comment: Many responsible hunters are accustomed to OHV use to retrieve their catch. If this 

practice were not sanctioned as a special use, we feel that hunting would shift further towards trophy 

killing only. 

4519 

Response: Chapter 3.04 acknowledges that many hunters on the Stanislaus National Forest use 

OHVs while hunting. These same vehicles may be utilized to retrieve big game, but access will 

be limited to the designated routes. With the elimination of cross country travel in all action 

alternatives, OHV use will be restricted to designated routes. This will result in more use on 

these routes and a greater concentration of hunters along some routes. Non-motorized hunting 

opportunities will expand accordingly. 

274. Comment: Indicator measure 2 for recreation resources is irrational. 

3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 

Response: Noise from motorized traffic is an important consideration and this factor 

influenced route selection on a case by case basis. Recreation indicator 2 was selected in part 

because it is a proxy for protection of quiet recreation opportunities. 

4.00 MOTORIZED RECREATION 

275. Comment: To further confine OHVs to the popular designated areas is not very realistic. They are 

already over crowded, not to mention that there are very few of these locations. 

4243 4365 

Response: Chapter 3.04 acknowledges that all of the action alternatives will concentrate 

existing OHV use into areas with designated routes. The MVUM should offer enough 

opportunities to avoid serious congestion and safety problems. Corrective action will be taken to 

address safety problems as they are identified. 

276. Comment: Resource damage was the spark that initiated the designated trails process and yet the 

main impetus behind the Proposed Action is to provide a varied experience to the OHV community. 

There should not be any "All Motorized" use allowed in eastern portion of the Mi-Wok district (Bell 

Mt. and Bourland areas) to protect furbearer habitat. Adding 157 miles of unauthorized, user created 

OHV routes to the NFTS means continued impacts to the environment, flora and fauna, as well as 

continued conflicts with non-motorized recreation. 

1955 2249 2250 

Response: Impacts to resources including wildlife have been considered in the EIS. The 

eastern portion of the Miwok District that is identified is primarily HLO in Alternative 5. Use of 

615 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

OHVs in this area is a tradition, especially during hunting season. Alternatives 1 and 4 allow 

this use to continue where appropriate. 

277. Comment: Access for persons with disabilities, the elderly, and families will be affected. I have met 

very many family groups out riding ATVs, motorcycles, and OHVs. Without a motor vehicle the 

average person/family cant' get out in the forest even to camp or hike. Camping at the end of a spur 

road is the most enjoyable camping. 

1986 1987 2790 3884 3885 4206 

Response: Chapters 3.04 and 3.06 acknowledge that many recreation experiences are a blend 

of motorized and non-motorized activities, and persons with disabilities, the elderly, and 

families rely more upon motorized access. The reduction in motorized access could affect the 

ability of some people to get to a particular destination. Regardless of the alternative selected, 

the MVUM map will include many opportunities to access remote and quiet areas of the forest, 

especially during low use periods. The Forest Supervisor will consider all alternatives prior to 

making a decision. Following this decision (in the future), additional dispersed recreation routes 

may be evaluated to add to the NFTS system, thereby permitting motorized access. Right-ofways may be sought for some routes through private land. This also could open up additional 

opportunities in the future. 

278. Comment: The DEIS states that OHV open areas are “outside the scope and purpose and need for 

this project”. On the contrary, open areas are completely within the scope of the TMR and are 

specifically addressed as a legal activity for motorized use. 

2862 3062 3886 

Response: Chapter 2.04 describes an open play area alternative along with the reasons for 

eliminating it from detailed study. 

279. Comment: We would love to have the existing single track trails stay open and if possible, increase 

the trails available for riding especially in the Deer Creek, Crandall Peak and Hull Creek areas. I 

would hate to see another great recreation area be closed down to this kind of activities. 

3254 3263 

Response: Many of the single track trails in the areas you mention remain open in alternatives 

1, 2 and 4. 

280. Comment: None of the trails off-road-vehicle riders have carved out for themselves or roads they 

use without authorization should be included in the Motorized Travel System. Not only are these 

unauthorized routes not built to standards, but to include them would send the wrong message to offroad enthusiasts by rewarding their non-compliance with forest rules. 

2283 

Response: Many of the existing routes under consideration for addition to the NFTS were 

designed as temporary roads, fuel breaks, or trails. Some of these routes have been maintained 

by the Forest Service to meet standards. Many of these routes are historic. Their origin is not 

known. A limited number of the routes are recently created by users. All proposed routes have 

been evaluated by resource specialists. Problems have been identified and mitigation to prevent 

resource impacts will be implemented before the trail is included on the MVUM. 

281. Comment: Some of the trails that have been listed in the action alternatives for inclusion, have 

actually been eliminated due to mitigation measures, i.e., routes rated "4" by the specialists. I would 

like to encourage the deciding officer to allow all of the listed spur roads to be included into the NFTS 

system and listed on future MVUM under some sort of "condition basis". If this can not be done, the 

616 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

mileage on all of the action alternatives should be corrected to reflect what really is being considered, 

and which routes will not be considered due to mitigation measures. 

2289 2365 2420 4178 4179 4180 4181 

4182 4183 4184 4185 4186 4187 4188 

4421 2406 

Response: The DEIS allows for the possibility that an adequate mitigation may be found and 

implemented in the future, even for some of the routes rated 4 by a resource specialist. The 

Forest Supervisor is the official responsible for deciding whether to add these routes to the 

system. Such routes would not be open to public motor vehicle travel until adequate mitigation 

is completed. 

4.10 Route Specific 

282. Comment: Add routes to the NFTS, remove routes from the NFTS, continue to manage route as 

currently designated, add route to NFTS as an All Vehicle route, or designate route as a Highway 

Licensed Only (HLO). 

1700 1701 1702 1850 1988 2004 2033 

2083 2221 2222 2224 2226 2228 2265 

2329 2774 3315 3316 3334 3335 2220 

3554 3555 3639 3643 3644 3646 4154 

4604-4770 2251 2252 2264 2521 2522 2523 

2524 2525 2526 2527 2773 2908 2909 

2910 2911 2912 2913 2917 2936 2937 

2938 2939 2940 2941 3105 3106 3107 

3108 3109 3110 3279 3280 3567 3645 

3727 3974 4109 4602 4631 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider a full range of choices, along with the effects 

on all resources and recreation users, prior to making a final decision. See Motorized Recreation 

Route Specific spreadsheet in project record. 

283. Comment: Trails located in the Bear Valley Area were non-motorized in past. Continue to manage 

as such and do not add to NFTS as motorized routes open to motorcycles or ATVs. 

3542 3543 3687 3688 3689 4076 4077 

4078 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider a full range of choices, including not adding 

routes in the Bear Valley Area to NFTS, along with effects on all resources and recreation uses, 

prior to making a final decision. 

284. Comment: Do not designate OHV use on Candy Rock Road (4N73Y/4N80Y) as access is through 

private property with homes located adjacent to the road and the North Fork of the Stanislaus River 

has been recommended for Wild and Scenic River Designation. 

1951 1964 1969 2011 2013 2019 2025 

2110 2472 2473 3665 

Response: The DEIS considered changing Candy Rock Road (4N80Y) from all vehicles to 

highway legal only in alternatives 1, 4 and 5. The DEIS did not consider changes to 4N73Y 

which will remain open to all vehicles at this time. 

285. Comment: Cedar Ridge and Mt. Elizabeth are longtime problem areas of intensive use and damage, 

yet are not appropriately addressed in the DEIS. This raises questions whether Stanislaus National 

Forest is serious about addressing impacts of OHVs, rehabilitating the damage, and enforcing a 

designated trail system. 

617 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

4343 4344 4346 4347 4348 

Response: EIS considers all roads and trials for season of use zone 2 for the Cedar Ridge/Mt. 

Elizabeth Area prohibiting use during winter months, extends HLO designation on access roads 

leading out of the private residential areas (e.g., 3N02, 3N52, 3N51Y, 2N03Y), provides for a 

cross country travel prohibition in the entire area, and prescribes mitigation measures including 

route tread hardening. Ongoing OHV Restoration Projects in the area are near completion 

including restoration and closure of routes adjacent to residents and enforcement of a motor 

vehicle closure zone; these areas are not part of this project. 

286. Comment: Road 4N06 provides access to residential homes in area. All alternatives designate road 

4N06 in zone 3 restricting access during winter months. Area residents request 4N06 be designated in 

zone 1 permitting use and access year round. 

3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider a full range of choices, along with the effects 

on private land access, all resources and recreation users, prior to making a final decision. 

287. Comment: Eagle Meadow Road (5N01) is listed as no public access from the Bennett Juniper east to 

the Relief Reservoir and Silver Mine area. This limits access to fishing, hunting, camping, wilderness 

trailhead and private cabins in the area. 

1747 2026 2325 2344 2345 2478 3563 

3777 4273 

Response: The Forest Service does not have legal access (right of way) on segment of road 

5N01 through the private land parcel adjacent to the Bennet Juniper and Sardine Meadow (T5N 

R20E Sec. 5), thus can not designate road 5N01 beyond this point. Acquisition of ROW or a 

possible reroute around private will be considered in future. 

288. Comment: All roads in the Greeley Hill, Dog Town, Hells Hollow, Date Flat and Wagner Ridge 

areas should remain accessible to all residents and uses including OHVs. Ponderosa Way is a 16 mile 

round trip that provides a breathtaking trip by any type of vehicle. 

1939 1940 1941 1942 1945 1946 2029 

2030 2031 2032 2036 2921 2922 2923 

2924 2925 2928 2929 3240 3241 

3243 1841 

Response: The EIS considers HLO designation due to private land conflicts, lack of legal 

access (right of way) through private land parcels, and County roads throughout the area 

prohibiting OHV use. 

289. Comment: Do not designate proposed motorcycle trails in the Deer Creek area that cross or come 

within 200’ of Deer Creek. This area is important winter habitat for mule deer, and Deer Creek may 

have small populations of wild trout. 

3228 3904 

Response: Proposed season of use prohibits use during the winter months reducing potential 

impacts within winter deer habitat. Deer Creek area streams historically have minimal or no 

water flow during proposed season of use and route mitigation measures include hardening of 

stream crossings. 

290. Comment: What is the reason for closing road 1N09 along Jawbone Ridge? Map designates as 

administrative use only limiting public access to woodcutting, hunting, camping, and site seeing. 

1699 1713 1731 4163 

618 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: Road 1N09 conflicts with the Near Natural non-motorized land allocation. 

Alternative 4 considers a Forest Plan amendment, allowing it as a NFTS route open to motor 

vehicles. 

291. Comment: Change Zone 2 to Zone 1 along Cottonwood Road (1N04) south to the Merced River. 

This area is traditionally used for 4WD wheeled over snow (WOS) use. Alternatively, change the 

elevation of Zone 2 Forest wide to Zone 1. 

2351 2469 2486 3634 3752 3926 3936 

4063 4603 

Response: Proposed season of use on routes south of Cottonwood Road (1N04) consistent with 

route management by private land owners (e.g., SPI), traditional NFTS seasonal road closures, 

and historical annual snow conditions. The Forest Supervisor will consider this, including 

designating routes open all year in these areas, and all alternatives considered in detail, along 

with their effects on resources and recreational users, prior to making a final decision. 

292. Comment: The Forest Plan Directions states: “Locate OHV staging areas where associated off-site 

use does not damage sensitive plants or resources”. Move the parking areas at Deer Creek (road 

3N58) and on Grant Ridge at the intersection of Italian Bar Road and 4N16. This would reduce the 

OHV (ATV/motorcycle) traffic on Italian Bar Road and impacts to sensitive plants and resources. 

1849 3317 

Response: OHV Staging and Parking Areas are outside the scope of this EIS. Proposed season 

of use on OHV routes in the Deer Creek Area coincide with season of use on roads 3N58 and 

4N16 minimizing need for traditional parking areas along Italian Bar Road. Existing vehicle 

barriers are in place to protect sensitive plants adjacent to OHV parking areas and along road 

3N58 and 4N16. Mitigation measures prescribed in EIS for additional protection of various 

resources in the area including sensitive plants. 

293. Comment: We oppose changes to existing NFTS or addition of routes to NFTS on various routes 

and the associated Forest Plan Amendment due to being located in occupied Western Pond Turtle 

habitat, California Spotted Owl PAC or other sensitive areas. 

4771 4772 4773 4774 4775 4776 4777 

4778 4779 4780 4781 4782 4783 4784 

4785 4786 4787 4788 4789 4790 4791 

4792 4793 4794 4795 4796 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

4.20 Wheeled Over Snow 

294. Comment: No over snow opportunity for 4WD vehicles exists at all in your plan. This must be 

addressed in the EIS. Roads should be open to over snow use by 4WD vehicles along each of the 

major highways. Motor Vehicles and OHVs should be allowed on native surface routes when 

conditions permit. 

2100 2350 2352 2355 2356 2468 2470 

2792 2800 2918 3153 3156 3167 3170 

3245 3248 3281 3341 3528 3530 3539 

3633 3635 3751 3753 3924 3927 3935 

4007 4008 4061 4064 4089 4090 4091 

4092 4093 4094 4095 4097 4223 4293 

3889 3165 3531 

619 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: The EIS carries forward historic use that has been in place for years. ATVs are 

excluded from established cross country skiing and groomed snowmobile routes, and 

accommodated at a few specific locations on the Forest. 4WD vehicles use these and other over 

snow routes by permit. During the winter, many roads in zone 1 are frequently covered with 

snow. Some of these roads are county roads that may or may not be plowed during the winter. 

The Forest Service roads are not plowed. Roads within zone 1 will be open year round and 

some will have snow cover for extended periods of time. 4WDs are allowed over snow within 

zones 2 and 3 by permit only during the seasonal closure period. During late spring, roads will 

be open for use in zones 2 and 3. Many of the higher elevations will hold snow cover during this 

time, some well into summer. These roads will be available for 4WD travel over snow. 

295. Comment: Snow wheeling should be prohibited, because it presents risks of pollution from engine 

fluids spilled in the snow, and erosion when lug tires break through the snow and spin in saturated 

soil. 

2429 

Response: ATVs present less risk of resource damage than heavier and larger vehicles. With 

12” of snow cover, we believe there is a low risk of resource damage. 4WDs are allowed by 

permit only so that we can monitor the types of vehicles and where they are traveling. 

296. Comment: The DEIS suggests that 4WD over snow use can be allowed by special use permit. That 

may work for large events but will not address the general public spontaneous day of fun driving in 

the snow and playing in the snow. 

2487 2792 2800 3341 3528 3530 4221 

Response: The permit system is not a new requirement. It has been in place for many years and 

we do not expect difficulties. Most permits will be for small groups, wishing to plan an outing 

in advance. For a large group, or at some sensitive locations, there may be a need for analysis 

and documentation that will require more lead time. For individuals and small groups, the 

permit system enables the Forest Service to make sure that riders are prepared and to know 

where they are going if severe weather or mechanical failure puts them at risk. 

297. Comment: At least two things are wrong with the WOS. First, it excludes 4WD vehicles with no 

evidence that ATV and 4WD mixed use have any conflicts or safety issues in the snow; the travel 

speeds are very slow for both. Second, the WOS season of use is the same as the regular season of 

use. 

2352 2355 2470 3156 3170 

3173 3248 3635 3753 3927 3935 

4007 4008 4064 

Response: Since WOS is defined as an exception to closure in the EIS, the WOS season of use 

is as suggested. 7N01 is a groomed snowmobile trail and WOS is not compatible. 

298. Comment: Change Zone 2 to Zone 1 along Cottonwood Road (1N04) and to the south to Pilots 

Peak. This area is historically used for 4WD drive over snow use! Or change the elevation of Zone 2 

forest wide to Zone 1. 

2817 2919 3155 3169 3247 3262 3527 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

299. Comment: Forest Service policy does not mention or define wheeled vehicles traveling over the 

snow except where snow is among the types of terrain for OHVs. Over-snow usually refers to 

620 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

snowmobiles. The EIS should include altitude based seasons and conditional wheeled snow travel by 

wheeled motor vehicles and OHVs. We suggest 12 inches of snow with minimal ground contact. 

2867 2868 3066 

Response: The TMR and this EIS address motorized travel by wheeled vehicles regardless of 

snow cover. The proposed action is consistent with your recommendations. Our zones and 

season of use are based on altitudes and our WOS criteria specify a minimum of 12” of snow 

cover. 

300. Comment: In addition to the WOS routes, these routes need to remain open to 4WD over snow use: 

7N01, 1S02, 1S13, 1S66Y, 1S14, 1S12, 1S03, 2S89, 2S25, 2S20, 1S26, 1S25, 1S32, 1S78, 1S04, 

1S25A, 1N07, 1N04, 2S02 and 2S03. 

4066 

Response: 7N01 is a groomed snowmobile trail and WOS is not compatible. The other roads 

listed would be affected by the closure. The EIS will specify the opportunities for 4WD use in 

more detail. The Forest Supervisor will consider other changes that may provide additional 

opportunities for 4WDs. 

301. Comment: Do you plan on providing groomed parking areas for tow rigs? Why can't there be mixed 

use on the over snow routes? Where the variety as is stated in Table 2.05-1? Do you really have crash 

histories on these routes when they have at least 12 inches of snow? Because no mixed use would be 

occurring with the prohibition of Highway Legal vehicles on the wheeled over snow use routes, the 

risk of crash between higher speed vehicles such as 4WD jeeps and ATVs is significantly reduced. 

4222 

Response: Some WOS routes have informal parking areas nearby that are plowed by CalTrans 

or county snow removal operations, providing a safe place to park. Past use has not indicated a 

need to develop formal parking areas for ATVs. A mixed use analysis is required to mix 

highway legal 4WDs and ATVs on native surfaced roads and a combined use analysis is 

required on paved roads. Reference to “crash histories...” was a general statement that applies 

to all roads with proposed changes. It was not intended to imply a history of crashes when roads 

are covered with at least 12” of snow. We are not aware of any past incidents. 

302. Comment: We want the agency to amend the DEIS to include; a description of wheeled over snow 

travel; acceptance of said activity considering the restrictions below; and, elevation based closures of 

May 10th through June 7th for elevations over 5000 ft. and February 15th through May 1st for those 

elevations below 5000 feet. 

2868 3066 

Response: Season of use varies by alternative but none of the dates match these proposed 

dates. Alternative 2 does not include a season of use restriction and would allow travel over 

native surfaced roads. WOS is described in Chapter 2, defined in Appendix D, and conforms to 

Forest Plan Direction in Appendix C. 

303. Comment: WOS use is very popular on NFTS roads when the snow reaches a specified depth. No 

rationale is provided in the DEIS to explain why WOS is restricted on all other system roads except 

for the ones listed in Table 2.02-2. Table 2.02-2 is confusing; based on the text above the Table (item 

a), it appears WOS would be prohibited on the listed roads, not allowed on them. 

3982 

Response: In order to protect resources and road surfaces the EIS indicates that WOS is 

prohibited except by ATVs with 12” minimum snow cover on the routes listed in table 2.02-2. 

621 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

5.00 ROADLESS AND SPECIAL AREAS
 

304. Comment: The Assumptions Specific to Roadless and Special Areas claim that unauthorized routes 

are currently available for motorized travel because cross-country prohibitions are not in effect 

directly contradicts the 1991 Forest Plan and the 1998 Motorized Travel Management Forest Plan 

Amendment decision that further directs the Forest to halt cross-country motorized travel. 

2723 2724 

Response: The assumption is correct as written because the Forest Plan direction to prohibit 

cross country travel was never implemented with Forest Orders and the required site-specific 

NEPA documentation. 

305. Comment: Remove the word “No” from items 7 and 8 of the Assumptions Specific to Roadless and 

Special Areas as several additions of unauthorized routes and vehicle class changes appear in 

Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. 

4129 4130 

Response: Item 7 is correct as written because it refers only to the Wild and Scenic Rivers that 

are officially designated by Congress: the Tuolumne and Merced Wild and Scenic Rivers. Item 

8 item is now replaced with a different assumption. 

306. Comment: The DEIS states, “All unauthorized routes proposed as additions to the NFTS will be 

added as trails. No unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS as roads in any alternative.” This 

appears intended to circumvent existing policy direction for, and widespread public disapproval of, 

construction of new roads in IRAs. 

3224 3901 

Response: This project does not include new construction of roads or trails. All unauthorized 

routes proposed as additions to the NFTS are existing native surface routes; none are 

constructed to current road standards; and, they all meet Forest Service direction for designation 

as trails. 

307. Comment: Roadless Areas provide quiet, primitive non-motorized recreation; fish and game habitat; 

and other ecosystem values. The Forest should not approve OHV routes or open any closed roads in 

IRAs or in Wild segments of proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. The responsible National Forest 

officials are required to “minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed uses 

of National Forest System lands.” Approving additional motorized use in Roadless Areas creates 

direct, significant conflicts for those recreational users who seek quiet primitive recreation. 

2439 2721 2722 2726 2736 3223 3224 

3234 3613 3758 3795 3901 3910 4534 

4535 

Response: The analysis presented in Chapter 3.05 discloses the effects of the alternatives 

considering Roadless Area Characteristics and Wild and Scenic River Values. The summary of 

effects on Roadless and Special Areas (Table 3.05-12) shows that values improve across all 

action alternatives. 

308. Comment: The DEIS lists many indicators and characteristics that provide value for Roadless and 

Special Areas. Yet in the following pages that describe each Roadless Area, none of the 

characteristics are described as being negatively affected by either the 31 miles of existing NFTS 

roads or the 11 miles of NFTS trails. The DEIS briefly explains how those characteristics or features 

are or are not harmed by proposed additions to the NFTS; "adding a motorized trail could affect nonmotorized recreation opportunities by reducing opportunities for solitude in nearby areas." 

622 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2725 

Response: The analysis presented in Chapter 3.05 discloses the effects of the alternatives 

considering Roadless Area Characteristics including full disclosure of the effects of cross 

country travel, additions to the NFTS, changes to the existing NFTS and cumulative effects. 

The summary of effects on Roadless and Special Areas (Table 3.05-12) shows that values 

improve across all action alternatives. 

309. Comment: Route 06N17B (a dead-end spur in the North Fork Stanislaus canyon) has no ideal 

camping spot at the end nor a view that provides for outstanding dispersed camping. Routes 

06N66YB, 06N80Y, and 06N80YA are all dead-end spurs that provide nothing more than countless 

already available motorized dispersed camping sites elsewhere, but those routes would all open up 

"closed" ML1 routes and make them "All" motorized. Adding these routes to the system, when two 

of them cross creeks and drop over the ridge into a canyon that is primarily wild and pristine, directly 

threatens the solitude and peace of those who may have walked for miles to get into that canyon for 

non-motorized recreation. 

2728 

Response: The analysis presented in Chapter 3.05 discloses the effects of opening these 

existing ML1 roads by converting to t-ALL (road converted to All Vehicles trail) in alternatives 

1 and 4. They remain closed in the other alternatives. 

310. Comment: Routes 6N33Y, 6N34Y, and 6N34YD are all dead-end routes in the Dome IRA that lead 

nowhere, provide no high value deer hunting or dispersed camping area, and which do not offer a 

prime view. This area has no dispersed recreation value, yet it has high wildlife value for reclusive 

wildlife. With legal access to the top of Double Dome and intensive traffic down on the highway far 

below, these combined routes are the only vehicular disturbance to the extensive amount of late seral 

stage old growth patches that exist within this IRA. A revised Proposed Action Alternative 1 should 

designate all of these routes ML1 (administrative use only) to protect resource values and to close 

unneeded, poorly maintained, potentially hazardous routes 

2729 2730 

Response: The analysis presented in Chapter 3.05 shows that changing the vehicle class on 

these existing NFTS roads from all vehicles to HLO in alternatives 1 and 5 improves roadless 

and wilderness characteristics. 

311. Comment: Table 3.05-3 shows 2.07 miles, but the written description of unauthorized routes listed 

for Carson-Iceberg, Mt. Reba, North Mountain, Raymond Peak, and Tuolumne River IRAs on pages 

132-136 describes a total of 2.93 miles of unauthorized motorized routes. This conflict needs to be 

resolved in the EIS. 

2727 

Response: The mileages are correct as shown. Table 3.05-3 includes only the routes proposed 

as additions to the NFTS (2.07 miles). The IRA text discussions list all of the existing 

unauthorized routes, actually 2.91 miles as shown in Table 3.05-2. 

312. Comment: The mileages shown in Appendix I, Table I.02-1 do not match the mileages shown in 

Table 3.05-4 for 03N17Y, 06N17B, 06N34Y, 06N34YD, 06N36Y, 06N66YB, 06N80Y and 

FR9330. If the proposed changes affect the entire mileage both within and outside the IRAs, then the 

vehicle class changes in Table 3.05-5 must reflect the entire mileage. 

4134 4138 4139 4140 4141 4145 4146 

4147 4158 

623 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: They should not match: Table I.02-1 shows the mileage of entire route segments 

both within and outside the IRAs while the tables in Chapter 3.05 only show the portions 

actually within IRAs. 

313. Comment: With so few miles currently available for public motorized access in roadless and special 

areas, there should not be any need to propose any further vehicle class restrictions changing the 

current vehicle class of All to Highway Legal Only or Administrative. These proposed changes 

should not be allowed and routes should be maintained as trails accessible to the motorized public 

(03N17Y, 7N17, FR9441). 

4134 4135 4167 4168 4171 4172 

Response: Of the routes mentioned only FR9441 and a small portion of 03N17Y are within 

IRAs. Vehicle class changes vary by alternative: 3N17Y, an existing NFTS route, changes to 

HLO only in Alternative 5; 7N17, an existing NFTS route, changes to HLO in alternatives 1 and 

5; FR9441, an unauthorized route is added to the NFTS as 4WD in alternatives 1, 4 and 5. 

314. Comment: At the western edge of this roadless area access to the river is provided by a 4-wheel 

drive road to a site known as Ramsey." I believe the Ramsey 4-Wheel drive road is an Adopt-a-Trail / 

Contra Costa Jeepers, and due to location of private property, is not open to the general motorized 

public. I would hope that The DEIS will not affect the Adopt-a-trail of the Contra Costa Jeepers 

arrangements with the Forest Service or private property owner. 

4136 

Response: The Ramsey route is an existing NFTS road with no public access (no public rightof-way across private property). The Adopt-a-Trail agreement with Contra Costa Jeepers covers 

the National Forest portion of the road. The Jeepers also have agreements with the private land 

owners to maintain and use the route once per year. This project will not change any of these 

existing agreements. 

315. Comment: Eight segments (0.65 miles in one small area near the intersection of Ferretti and 

Lumsden roads) proposed as additions to the NFTS at the upper reach of the Tuolumne River IRA 

should have little affect on non-motorized uses and should be added to the trail system. 

4161 

Response: The analysis presented in Chapter 3.05 discloses the effects of the adding these 

routes to the NFTS in alternatives 1 and 4 while they are not added in alternatives 2, 3 and 5. 

5.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

316. Comment: In updated management area SHAPE files, the Forest changed boundaries of: a Wild 

River to accommodate 18EV310; the Mokelumne Wilderness to accommodate 7N93; recommended 

Wilderness to allow 20EV100, 62035A1 and 62127C; and, Near Natural areas to accommodate 

1N32Y, 52007A and FR9090. The EIS should either fully disclose and describe the reasons why the 

Forest modified established boundaries of these non-motorized areas in order to accommodate 

motorized use, or return to the original legal boundaries as laid out in the 2007 SHAPE files. 

2731 2732 2733 3334 3335 4525 

4528 

Response: Besides the National Forest boundary, congressionally designated Wilderness 

(Carson-Iceberg, Emigrant and Mokelumne) and Wild and Scenic Rivers (Merced and 

Tuolumne) are the only legally established boundaries on the Stanislaus National Forest. The 

Forest hand mapped (1⁄2”:1 mile) management area land allocations in 1991 and reserves the 

right to continually update the land allocation boundaries based on new technology or better 

local information. The route specific details are as follows: 

624 

4527 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

- 18EV310, a proposed 0.56 mile addition to the NFTS, contains a 0.26 mile portion 

previously mapped to the Wild River allocation. Here, the Forest will revert to the previous 

GIS land allocation and add the mitigation: rock barriers 30' MP 0.30 to block access 

beyond. 

- 7N93, an existing NFTS road, contains a 0.03 mile portion previously mapped to the 

Wilderness allocation. This road does not extend into the Mokelumne Wilderness; it 

terminates at the highest point on the ridge at a cliff and does not turn to the east as shown 

on the maps. The maps referred to in this comment do not reflect that most recent mapping 

of the Wilderness Boundary as shown on the Mokelumne Wilderness map published by the 

Forest Service. 

- 20EV100, a proposed 0.09 mile addition to the NFTS, contains a 0.01 mile portion 

previously mapped to the Proposed Wilderness allocation. Here, the Forest will revert to the 

previous GIS land allocation and add the mitigation: rock barriers 30' MP 0.08 to block 

access beyond. 

- 62035A1, an existing NFTS trail is not within the Proposed Wilderness allocation. The GIS 

data now correctly shows that no changes are proposed on this route in any alternative. 

- 62127C, an existing NFTS road, contained a 0.08 mile portion previously mapped to the 

Proposed Wilderness allocation. Recent field checks confirmed the 0.08 mile portion does 

not exist. Here, the Forest will revert to the previous GIS land allocation and correct the 

data to show a 0.06 mile segment that is outside the Proposed Wilderness allocation and add 

the mitigation: rock barriers 30' MP 0.06 to block access beyond. 

- 1N32Y, an existing NFTS road, contains a 0.10 mile portion previously mapped to the Near 

Natural allocation. Here, the Forest will revert to the previous GIS land allocation and add 

the mitigation: rock barriers 30' MP 0.91 to block access beyond. 

- 52007A, an existing NFTS trail, was mistakenly mapped within the near natural land 

allocation. This trail, along with other motorized trails existing in roadless portions of the 

Eagle Meadow area, was allocated to narrow motorized corridors of Wildlife in the 1991 

Forest Plan. Here, the updated GIS layer change corrects that map mistake. 

- FR9090, a proposed 0.17 mile addition to the NFTS, contained a 0.06 mile portion 

previously mapped to the Near Natural allocation. Recent field checks confirmed the 0.06 

mile portion does not exist. Here, the Forest will revert to the previous GIS land allocation 

and correct the data to show a 0.11 mile segment that is outside the Near Natural allocation. 

317. Comment: Do not designate the 5.44 miles of unauthorized motorized routes along the Clavey River 

or its tributaries (e.g. Trout Creek) in the area proposed for Wild and Scenic designation (upstream of 

Forest Road 3N01) that cross or come within 200’ of the high water mark in the streambed. 

3229 3905 

Response: Additions to the NFTS vary by alternative based on the theme of the alternatives as 

shown in Table 2.05-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any additions while 5, 1 and then 4 

include increasingly more additions. 

318. Comment: The Forest Service recommended the North Fork Stanislaus for Wild and Scenic status. 

Motorized trails near the river should be eliminated to maintain the resource values consistent with 

this designation (5N02R, 4N80Y and 4N73Y). The proposed Forest Plan Amendment allowing 

motorized use on 4N80Y and 5N02R will degrade the outstandingly remarkable (OR) values of that 

river segment. 

1966 1971 2020 2111 2412 2734 2735 

625 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

3685 4529 4530 4531 4532 4533 

Response: These roads (5N02R, 4N80Y and 4N73Y) are currently available for all vehicles. 

The Forest did not propose any changes to 4N73Y. The analysis in Chapter 3.05 shows that 

changing one segment of 4N80Y (0.16 miles) and one segment of 5N02R (1.48 miles) from all 

vehicles to HLO improves OR values because the vehicle class prohibits non-highway legal 

vehicles and the segments are located within or adjacent to existing road corridors and 

developed areas. Although these two roads are located within proposed Wild River corridors, 

continued highway legal only use will not preclude future Wild and Scenic River designation of 

these segments of the North Fork Stanislaus River. 

319. Comment: Non-motorized users have access to many thousands of acres in Wilderness, Proposed 

Wilderness, Research Natural Areas and a majority of Roadless and Special Areas. Vehicle class 

changes eliminate green and red sticker motorcycle access, and every OHV vehicle that is not 

highway legal. This highway legal only reclassification does nothing to enhance OHV motorized 

access. I would like to encourage the deciding officer to allow the current existing motorized use to 

remain unchanged. 

4100 4102 4132 

Response: Vehicle class changes vary by alternative based on the theme of the alternatives as 

shown in Table 2.05-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any changes while 4, 1 and then 5 

include increasingly more changes. 

6.00 SOCIETY, CULTURE AND ECONOMY 

320. Comment: Most trips to the forest take place early in trout season or late fall during deer season. 

Restrictions imposed by the wet weather closure provision and the expanded winter closure period 

will discourage sportsman and could lead to a decline in visitor days from this user group and 

subsequent loss of revenue to the community. 

2933 3189 4128 

Response: Chapters 3.04 and 3.06 disclose the effects on these activities. 

321. Comment: TMR subpart A 212.2(c) requires the forest service to develop, fund and maintain an 

annual “program of work for the transportation system”. The proposed alternatives will have a direct 

impact on local revenue to the community which should be considered. However the DEIS does not 

have a comprehensive discussion on this subject. 

3186 

Response: The lack of road maintenance during the past several decades has created a number 

of problems which you accurately identify in the above comment. The decisions within the EIS 

will determine the allowable uses on the roads, not the funding for maintenance activities. 

Although changes to maintenance levels and mixed use/combined use suggest changes to 

funding, there is no direct correlation to be made. It would be speculative to predict changes in 

revenue to local communities, by alternative, based on the road maintenance program of work 

that in theory could vary by alternative. 

322. Comment: The maintenance work generated from the various alternatives has the potential to impact 

local contractors. Due to the current economic downturn, it is important to know which alternatives 

will provide the greatest opportunity for local contractors. Which alternative will provide the best 

revenue stream for the community? TuCARE would like to request the forest service include a oneyear program of work and a five-year forecast of work for each alternative. 

626 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

3187 

Response: There are many unknown variables that influence future funding and available work 

for contractors. It is not possible to predict the specific “revenue stream” and the program of 

work for each alternative, but some generalizations can be made. Alternative 4 is likely to have 

the most economic activity centered on maintenance of roads and trails. Alternative 5 is likely 

to have the most economic activity focused on decommissioning routes and performing 

restoration activities. It cannot be predict the levels of appropriated funds for either type of 

activity, nor how much work may be performed by volunteers. Alternative 1 will have both 

types of funding. There may be little or no difference in overall funding between the three 

alternatives. Following the implementation of the decision, alternative 4 can be expected to 

generate a greater amount of work for local contractors, since there will be more trails to 

maintain. Funding will be sought to keep these trails open and minimize resource impacts. 

Alternative 2 is continuation of the current situation. Without the determination of NFTS routes 

and prohibition of cross country travel, little funding will be made available. Alternative 3 will 

prohibit cross country travel but will not change the NFTS system. All unauthorized routes will 

be closed to motorized use and no new trails added. Funding may be found for barriers and 

restoration of closed routes, but since there will be no new routes, this alternative will result in 

the least long-term maintenance activity. 

323. Comment: The local economy will be greatly affected by the limited Season of Use on the forest, 

closing the forest 4 months a year, the changes in wheeled over snow for 4 WD, and limited 

opportunities for motorized access and dispersed recreation sites. The effect on economics would be 

speculative and the point in time when this would occur is speculative. 

4128 

Response: The combined effect of the five changes mentioned in the comment will affect 

many forest visitors. Our analysis does not support the statement that the local economy will be 

“greatly affected”. Some businesses may be affected, but very few jobs are at risk. Overall, use 

may shift from one part of the Forest to another, and some individuals may choose to not adapt 

to the change. We believe the majority of users will adapt and adjust. A significant change will 

occur in dispersed recreation site access, but we hope to complete an analysis soon to minimize 

negative and unintended consequences. Seasonal and wet weather closures are under review. 

324. Comment: The DEIS shows that motorized recreation activities draw visitors and increase economic 

activity for the area. However, the DEIS fails to support this assumption with evidence. Significant 

economic impacts may be associated with an increase in motorized use and corresponding decrease in 

non-motorized recreation. 

3189 3666 

Response: It is the forest setting that draws recreational visitors that enjoy both motorized and 

non-motorized activities. Since almost all forest visitors arrive in a motor vehicle of some type, 

motorized and non-motorized activities are not a black and white issue. Motor sports that use 

non-highway legal vehicles can negatively impact quiet recreation activities such as bird 

watching. All of the alternatives (except alternative 2) will reduce the footprint of motor sport 

activities from what currently occurs. Even though more routes are added to the NFTS, many 

more are closed to motorized use through the elimination of cross country travel. The MVUM 

will identify where motor sports can occur in the future. Visitors seeking quiet recreation can 

avoid these areas. Seasonal closures will further expand quiet recreation opportunities during 

the fall and early spring. Regardless of the alternative selected, quiet recreation will benefit 

(except for alternative 2). There is no evidence to suggest any economic impact will occur from 

loss of existing non-motorized opportunity. Some current motorized routes will receive more 

use in the future while many others will be closed. 

627 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

325. Comment: There are duplications of table numbers in the DEIS: Table 3.07-5, Table 3.07-6, Table 

3.07-7, and Table 3.07-8. 

4125 4538 

Response: The forest will review and correct the above tables within the EIS. 

7.00 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

326. Comment: The Forest has misconstrued its obligations to apply the minimization criteria at a sitespecific level during the route designation process and is proposing to designate roads through 

numerous known cultural resource sites resulting in potentially negative effects to the heritage 

resources. 

2716 

Response: As noted in Chapter 3.03, all routes proposed to be added to the system have been 

surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. If a route was near or in a cultural resource, the 

resource was inspected for damage. Mitigation measures were prescribed in accordance with the 

Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA 

Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California State 

Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 

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

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

in California (Motorized Recreation PA). 

327. Comment: Before any motorized use is even considered for approval on the routes deemed to have a 

potentially moderate risk, a baseline for the impacts must be established, which does not currently 

exist on the majority of the cultural resource sites. 

2718 

Response: Baseline condition for each cultural site was established when the site was first 

recorded. Current condition was established by monitoring. 

328. Comment: The Motorized Recreation PA allows that surveys of unauthorized routes can be deferred 

for those routes that receive light use and “[w]here inventory was deferred, Forests shall conduct 

periodic monitoring...to identify any changes in use frequencies that could result in effects to historic 

properties if they are present.” The Stanislaus National Forest has not conducted a field survey for all 

182 miles of unauthorized routes. 

2719 2720 

Response: No field surveys were deferred. As noted in Chapter 3.03, all routes proposed to be 

added to the system have been surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. 

329. Comment: For those unauthorized routes considered to pose major effects on the historic resources, 

the recommended mitigation must be completed before the route can be designated for motorized use 

and placed on the MVUM. The Motorized Recreation PA allows for the addition of unauthorized 

routes to the NFTS and their use by the public within historic properties provided there is no 

additional impact to the property expected through managed use of the route or area. There is no 

assurance that the low impact barriers, signage, or padding will actually protect cultural resources. 

2717 2719 

Response: The range of standard resource protection measures provided in the Motorized 

Recreation PA has been shown to be effective in protecting cultural resources. Specific 

628 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

mitigation measures were based on site type and condition. Since monitoring is required by the 

PA, any mitigation measure found to be inadequate will be corrected. 

330. Comment: The cultural specialist listed 24 unauthorized route segments with a ranking of "4" as 

revealed in Appendix H. That recommendation was based on the determination that the site could not 

be adequately protected, even with the use of mitigation. Along with SHPO, Tribes should also be 

consulted on these “4’s.” 

2717 2719 3898 

Response: These are draft recommendations that the Forest Supervisor will consider before 

making a decision. 

331. Comment: The Forest must provide a monitoring plan with a dedicated funding stream. Otherwise, 

based on the current level of funding for cultural resource monitoring protection, adequate monitoring 

is unlikely to occur in a timely fashion to detect ongoing damage to the cultural resource sites. 

2719 

Response: In accordance with the Motorized Recreation PA, the Forest is required to conduct 

monitoring to ensure that prescribed Standard Resource Protection Measures are effective. 

332. Comment: Too much burden is placed upon the federal land managers by special interest groups and 

stakeholders for their own interests. The heritage resources are part of the land and they should 

receive protection and not be diminished. Cultural resources are not just an object but were a house or 

a sacred area for Natives for thousands of years. The cultural resources could be intangible and only 

known to those who have lived there. 

2718 3897 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

333. Comment: The Tribe has always had paramount concern with the illegal use of some motorized 

vehicles within the Forest boundary. This illegal use has had detrimental affects on irreplaceable 

traditional cultural heritage resources. So therefore, we support prohibiting cross country travel. 

2780 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

8.00 NATURAL RESOURCES 

334. Comment: The travel off road without concern to mode of travel and its effect on management of all 

forest resources such as soils, seed beds, wildflowers, nesting birds, camping and other resources 

uses such as grazing and forestry. The solution is a management plan that allows routes to be preplanned to avoid conflicts. 

2027 

Response: Chapter 3 discloses all of these effects. 

335. Comment: There are already enough designated trails. We are losing more and more of the purity of 

nature. More and more of the natural experiences will be lost to our grandchildren. There are times in 

life when one must stop and make the right decisions for the right reasons and practice good 

stewardship for the good of our earth and its citizens. 

2444 

629 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

336. Comment: The proposed action is likely to degrade or substantially sacrifice good game and 

possibly fish habitat, and related recreational opportunities. 

3233 

Response: Chapter 3 discloses the effects on these resources. 

337. Comment: Routes in old forest areas hinder, rather than further, the goal of maintaining high quality 

habitat for old forest associated species. Merely attempting to assess the potential impacts may or may 

not meet the legal bar for NEPA compliance, but it does not meet the higher standard of protection 

required under the Executive Orders and Travel Management Rule. Some species, such as marten, are 

especially sensitive to fragmentation; and “may experience exponential population declines at 

relatively low levels of fragmentation.” 

2685 2686 2685 

Response: NEPA requires analyzing and disclosing the effects of the proposed action and any 

alternatives. The effects to habitat and associated species have been analyzed and findings 

disclosed in Chapter 3.11. 

338. Comment: Tuolumne Group of the Sierra Club endorses CSERC's compromise strategy for that area 

because it would significantly reduce harm to rare plants and wildlife, but would still provide for 

OHV use in the eastern part of the basin and along the ridges where the least harm would occur. 

3738 3739 3724 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

339. Comment: Natural resource protection should take priority over motorized recreation whenever 

there is any potential conflict between the two. All designations of motorized routes should take into 

account the financial constraints and limited trail maintenance and enforcement capabilities that are 

now realities for the Forest Service, as they are for other federal land management agencies. 

2796 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

340. Comment: Your plan comes not a moment too soon. We hope it will stop the abuse of the land by 

off-road vehicles. It should establish a much smaller network of ORV routes. Unneeded roads should 

be closed and decommissioned, so the forest can recover and provide better wildlife habitat and areas 

for quiet recreational use. 

3757 

Response: Decommissioning is not part of the proposed action. 

8.10 Air Quality 

341. Comment: The Forest Service must improve the EIS by including a comprehensive inventory of 

fugitive dust and engine emissions by the vehicles using routes. 

4498 4499 2617 2617 2619 2620 

Response: A more detailed air quality analysis in the EIS clarifies air quality impacts expected 

to occur as a result of this project. 

630 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

8.20 Botanical Resources 

342. Comment: Chapter 3.02 does not disclose the essential conclusion of the BE, which says that no 

alternative is a threat to the viability of any of the sensitive species. The omission encourages the 

misperception that some alternatives provide a significant advantage for protecting botanical 

resources. 

3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 

Response: The BE findings are incorporated into Chapter 3.02. Impacts to sensitive plant 

resources are expected to increase under all alternatives because of the anticipated population 

growth in California and commensurate increased use of National Forest facilities. Route 

designation along with prohibiting cross country travel protects botanical resources. 

343. Comment: The 1.8 score for Alternative 2 on Table 3.02-17 leads reviewers to believe that 

Alternative 2 is bad for the plants. 

3493 

Response: Alternative 2 ranks as the highest potential impact to sensitive plants because it does 

not prohibit cross country travel. Alternative 2 has the most miles associated with known 

occurrences and suitable habitat. 

344. Comment: Nothing in Table 2.05-8 discloses that the BE concluded that no alternative was a threat 

to the viability of any species. 

3494 

Response: Table 2.05-8 compares the alternatives by summarizing their environmental effects, 

and describes the variability of risk between the alternatives. This table was not intended as 

listing all the results of the analysis, but just a summary. A summary of viability findings will 

be added to the table. 

345. Comment: Based on the agency's own standards and the disclosure that the 200-foot zone is 

arbitrary, this DEIS lacks the fundamental ingredients needed for a scientifically credible analysis. 

The connection (or lack of connection) between the presence of the road and the presence of the 

plants is not examined. 

3495 3496 3497 3498 

Response: The integrity of the scientific analysis is dependant on the accuracy of the data and 

methods used to run the data. The data for this analysis identified, quantified and demonstrated 

cause and effect on the relationship of motorized travel to sensitive plants and noxious weeds by 

using the GIS data and vegetation maps depicting known occurrences of sensitive plants and 

potential suitable habitat. The sensitive plant data used to find occurrences near proposed routes 

was derived from datasets that vary in accuracy and content. Some data was captured as points, 

polygons, and lines. The 200 ft. buffer was determined as a means to distinguish habitat, 

sensitive plants, and noxious weeds as accurately as possible. 

346. Comment: We find not a single factual or empirical piece of information that tells us why the 

suitable habitat near roads is occupied by plant communities that need that habitat. That is, it is the 

habitat that supports the plants and the road or trail happens to pass through the habitat. 

3497 

Response: Suitable habitat is identified in the site specific analysis (see project record). If the 

route passes through or within 200 feet of suitable habitat and or sensitive plant communities, 

631 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

the effects are disclosed in the BE and specialist reports. This is one of the key elements of the 

analysis discussing the human and recreational activity and effects over time. 

347. Comment: The connection (or lack of connection) between the presence of the road and the 

presence of the plants is not examined and in no way does restricting vehicle use to the existing roads 

increase the potential to affect the plants, because the plants do not grow in the roads and the roads 

already exist. 

3499 3498 

Response: Plants do grow in roads, gravel and unpaved routes, even existing routes and routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

348. Comment: It appears that the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action are completely 

unknown. CEQ provides for gaps in information and unknowns. The Forest Service has failed to 

follow the regulations guiding the disclosure that the agency does not know what the environmental 

consequences of the proposed action. Did the ID Team use the same faulty methodology to delete 

routes prior to the analysis? That is, if a road was nearby to lots of plants of concern, that road was 

dropped. 

3500 

Response: Each alternative states that impacts to sensitive species could be significant at the 

local, site and specific level, and the significance of direct and indirect impacts is dependent on 

many factors (season of use or route proliferation). Each alternative also states what the 

foreseeable impacts will be, and in some cases projects the rate at which impacts will occur. 

349. Comment: By using the proximity metric, a perfectly rational outcome is that the presence of the 

roads is why there are so many plants in close proximity. Because most of the resource disciplines 

used a similar methodology, we are looking at the frightening possibility that all of the action 

alternatives will do more. Because the DEIS declines to reveal the prescreening process, we cannot 

provide constructive, informed comment on this possibility. 

3501 

Response: Resource specialists all used indicators and assumptions relevant to their specialty 

and reviewed in an interdisciplinary process. Table 2.05-1 shows a summary of the themes used 

to develop the routes included in each alternative. 

350. Comment: Select a preferred alternative which avoids and minimizes adverse effects to threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species and their habitat. 

2179 

Response: Alternative 5 would have the least impact to these plants, followed by Alternative1. 

The Forest Supervisor will consider this full range of choices, along with the effects on all 

resources and recreation users, prior to making a final decision. 

351. Comment: The Forest Service lacks the data required to make qualified decisions regarding whether 

or not proposed actions in Big Prather Meadow would have significant adverse effects on any 

sensitive or watch list species and other nearby meadows and the areas adjacent to them are moist 

habitats which contain vascular and nonvascular plant which are rate species. 

3824 

Response: No rare or sensitive plants exist in Big Prather meadow, or within 200 feet of 

proposed additions to the NFTS. Quantification of existing data is the basis for qualifying the 

decisions regarding adverse effects on known or suspected habitat and sensitive plant species. 

632 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

352. Comment: The Forest should authorize any motorized route that has not had sufficient surveys for 

botanical resources as this clearly conflicts with this standard and guideline. The DEIS includes no 

ongoing monitoring plan to detect damaging disturbance or changes in known populations. The DEIS 

has not disclosed which route additions have or have not had adequate botanical surveys. 

4508 4509 4510 2667 

Response: The guidelines and management direction state that any potential suitable habitat of 

unsurveyed routes will be treated as if occurrences are there and analyzed for potential effects. 

Additional surveying of routes is recommended within the site specific analysis (see project 

record). Monitoring of known populations is recommended in the specialist report. Ongoing 

monitoring is required in 36CFR212.57: Monitoring of effects of motor vehicle use on 

designated roads and trails and in designated areas. For each administrative unit of the National 

Forest System, the responsible official shall monitor the effects of motor vehicle use on 

designated roads and trails and in designated areas under the jurisdiction of that responsible 

official, consistent with the applicable land management plan, as appropriate and feasible. 

353. Comment: Activity on lava caps in general and in the Deer Creek area specifically, is exacting much 

too heavy a toll on the Stebbins lomatuim and Allium tribracteatum. These plants cannot tolerate the 

impacts of ATV and motorcycle traffic and the loss yearly is a sad mark. 

3326 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the effects on sensitive plants. One assumption is that 

motorized travel will stay on the routes. 

354. Comment: On page 70, cross country paragraph, remove third sentence "Fewer acres are disturbed, 

resulting in fewer weed infestations. On page 73, remove the fourth paragraph since the addition of 

routes has nothing to do with the weed infestation. On page 70, second to last paragraph, remove third 

sentence: "Direct impact to sensitive species from cross country use could be significant since there is 

no proof that sensitive species have been affected. 

4081 4108 

Response: Pages 70 and 73 analyze the effects and cumulative effects of Alternative 1 on 

sensitive plants. Adding trails to the system reduces the effects of cross country travel by 

designating routes, resulting in fewer acres disturbed with fewer weed infestations from motor 

vehicles as the seed disperser. The important phrase in the last sentence is "could be 

significant". An EIS discloses what is known and what is known. Cross country travel affect 

plants; where cross country will occur is not predicable but when it does occur, it may impact 

plant populations. 

8.21 Noxious Weeds 

355. Comment: The proposed project violates FSM 2081.03 which requires a weed risk assessment. No 

discussion in the DEIS explains or analyzes how OHV use may increase the risk of the spread of 

noxious weeds and wildfire ignition. 

1913 2739 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds and refers to the Weed Risk 

Assessment (see project record) which is a determination of the known invasive plant locations 

on the Forest. Chapter 3.01 includes an analysis of fire risk which is not expected to increase 

under any alternative. 

633 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

356. Comment: Yellow starthistle, the number one noxious weed in California, has high ecological 

impacts and spreads aggressively in disturbed soils. Invasive weed infestations directly compete with 

native plants and cause their displacement. 

1911 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds. 

357. Comment: Ground disturbance causes invasive weeds to spread, particularly if the weeds are already 

on or near the area being disturbed. Alternative 1 has a high risk for the spread of existing noxious 

weed infestations and for the introduction of new weed infestations as well as for indirect and direct 

effects on native vegetation and soils 

1912 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds. All routes exist with already 

created ground disturbance and footprint. One of the assumptions of the analysis is that vehicles 

will stay on roads and trails that are already disturbed. 

358. Comment: It is much more cost effective to prevent the dissemination of an invasive species than to 

try and control and eradicate it. Increasing motorized vehicle/OHV traffic in the forest will provide an 

avenue for the proliferation of noxious weeds, not only in the areas where they currently exist, but 

also into new areas of the forest and onto adjacent private lands as well as public right-of-ways 

outside the forest boundaries. 

1914 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds. Motorized traffic is expected to 

increase, not from the results of this decision but from the general growth of the population of 

California. Limiting vehicles to designated routes along with visitor education will aid in 

diminishing weed proliferation. 

359. Comment: The Forest only did limited field analysis and limited assessment work for the presence 

of invasive weeds in some select locations. The Forest proposes to ignore agency direction, NEPA, 

and the identified risk by proposing to designate routes for motorized travel that it knows will result in 

the spread of noxious weeds on the forest without mitigation. 

2662 2661 2664 2666 4514 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds. 

360. Comment: Table 3.02-8 does not answer the basic question of whether noxious weeds exist 

elsewhere along the majority of routes not listed. The focus of analysis was not where invasive plants 

might be found, but where known locations of invasive plants posed risk to nearby sensitive plant 

populations. 

2663 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds and refers to the Weed Risk 

Assessment (see project record) which is a determination of the known invasive plant locations 

on the Forest. 

361. Comment: The DEIS does not disclose when invasive weed surveys were completed, so the public 

has no way to determine if the information regarding numbers of noxious weed populations is current 

or outdated. 

2665 3325 

Response: Noxious Weed surveys were completed between 2000 and 2007. This information 

will be added to Chapter 3.02. 

634 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

362. Comment: The proposed project violates Executive Order 11312. The Noxious Weeds assessment 

discloses the high risk of further spreading invasive weeds by designating the OHV routes identified 

in the assessment. The agency has not made public a determination that the benefits of designating 

OHV trails outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species. 

2668 

Response: EO 12047 revoked EO 11312 in 1978; the correct reference is EO 13112. The 

Forest Supervisor will consider these effects along with all other mandated requirements prior 

to making a decision. 

363. Comment: The agency has not proposed feasible measures to minimize the risk of the spread of 

noxious weeds. Therefore, it would be arbitrary and capricious to designate 157 miles of unauthorized 

OHV routes that contain nearly 27 miles of segments adjacent to noxious weed infestations. 

2669 4513 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds. Motorized traffic is expected to 

increase, not from the results of this decision but from the general growth of the population of 

California. Limiting vehicles to designated routes along with visitor education will aid in 

diminishing weed proliferation. 

364. Comment: Remove sentence, page 73 fourth paragraph: “This alternative includes noxious and 

invasive weed infestations associated with 26.66 miles of additions.” 

4080 

Response: Chapter 3.02 will include this correction. 

365. Comment: The primary mode of transportation for noxious weeds and invasive species is motor 

vehicles. An increase in open roads in the areas shown on the Tamarack, Liberty Hill, Spicer 

Reservoir and Calaveras Dome quads will increase the likelihood of invasive species in this area. The 

DEIS route analysis indicates that no mitigation measures would be considered for proposed actions 

in the area. 

3823 2667 

Response: Chapter 3.02 discloses the risk of spreading weeds. While it may be true that the 

primary conveyance of noxious weeds is through motor vehicle travel, mitigation to prevent 

infestations is extremely difficult. The BE, Noxious Weed Assessment, and specialist report 

contain management recommendations (see project record). 

8.30 Soil Resource 

366. Comment: Unless opinions regarding soil and geologic conditions are prepared and cited in an EIS 

by licensed and/or accredited professionals using methods that comply with accepted standards of 

care, they have no place in an EIS, nor basis in legal arguments (Siskiyou Regional Educational 

Project vs. Rose, 87, F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1086 (D. Or. 1999)). 

2874 

Response: Chapter 4.01, Consultation and Coordination, shows the qualifications of preparers. 

367. Comment: One of the major assumptions used in Chapter 3.07 is that direct effects from soil 

displacement have already occurred. Thus, instead of focusing on the continued deepening of ruts, the 

continued widening of routes, the continued displacement of loose soil, or the braiding that inevitably 

happens over time through ongoing OHV use, the assessment assumed that soil damage was already 

done. 

2623 

635 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: The existing condition is approximately 250 miles of unauthorized mapped routes, 

currently being used by motorcycles and ATVs primarily. Soil productivity is diminished on the 

250 miles of mapped routes (158 acres). Trails on sensitive soils will continue to degrade 

without appropriate actions taken. Actions are (1) closure and passive recovery; or (2) repair of 

existing problems with periodic condition survey and maintenance. Over 30 percent of the 

existing unauthorized routes, about 81 miles are located on sensitive soils (Figure 3.07-1 and 

Table 3.07-3). Alternatives 3 and 5 require closure and passive recovery on all or almost all 

unauthorized trails. Alternatives 1 and 4 require a combination of actions 1 and 2 above. 

Alternative 4 represents about 13 more miles of repair of existing problems on sensitive soils, 

compared to Alternative 1. 

368. Comment: About 26 miles of additions to the NFTS have steep gradients (>15% grade). This 

implies higher maintenance needs and costs for some segments. It is highly telling that the bias 

apparent in the document leads to a conclusion that adding unauthorized OHV routes on steep terrain 

with higher maintenance needs does not lead to any judgment that approval of such a route is 

inappropriate and ecologically risky. Similar to the assessment that the 128 miles of unauthorized 

routes on high MEHR soils is not a concern, the entire section on soils does not appear to provide a 

neutral, objective analysis of risk to the soil resource. 

2626 3506 3829 4324 

Response: Initially three factors were used to evaluate “risk”: MEHR, HFC and trail grade. 

Observation of routes on different soil types showed that HFC and trail grade was a more 

accurate predictor of “high risk” and MEHR was not. A GIS analysis of routes, HFC, and trail 

grade showed miles of routes that are prone to soil rutting and erosion. The GIS soil maps are in 

the project record. The product of this analysis is summarized in Table 3.07-4. The highest level 

of concern is where soil rutting and erosion potential overlapped with steep trail grade. A 

judgment was made by the ID team to mitigate, re-route or drop the route from further 

consideration. Re-routes will require further NEPA to implement. 

369. Comment: Under the Soil Resources in Chapter 3, please display your red/yellow/green condition 

survey results by alternative so the public understands the difference between them. 

3943 

Response: The red/yellow/green condition survey was not used to compare alternatives. GIS 

coverage of the condition survey, trail gradient, and HFC was used to determine mitigations 

specific to individual routes. The GIS coverage of condition survey is in the project record. 

370. Comment: The DEIS states: “Unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, 

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

erosion are the primary effects of OHV use on soils. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent species are 

particularly vulnerable to OHV use”. Please provide substantiation of the above statements regarding 

OHV use in your EIS with the appropriate soil studies done. 

2873 2884 3071 3081 

Response: The Red/Yellow/Green Condition Survey was the primary tool or protocol used to 

document erosion on trails. A survey of 245 miles showed 55 miles of red or yellow condition 

routes. The red and yellow routes were commonly found on steep grades or on soils susceptible 

to mechanical rutting and erosion. 

371. Comment: There is no discussion of how the presence of specific soil types relates to the existing or 

proposed motor vehicle routes. Major soil series are identified, but the public is not informed as to 

what portion of areas contains each of the soil types, the erodibility of each of the soil types, and how 

each withstands vehicle use. 

636 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

2621 2622 

Response: HFC is a soil hazard interpretation based on specific soil types and is described in 

Chapter 3.07. Routes found on soils with a high rutting or erosion potential are shown in 

Figures 3.07-1 and 3.07-3. Miles of high rutting and erosion potential (soils) are given in Table 

3.07-3. 

372. Comment: The DEIS fails to consider specific soil types and elevation locations when determining 

Soil Risk Assessments. All native roads were lumped into “high risk” category without regard to 

differing soil types, potential risk of erosion, and the time of use. This has resulted in a distorted 

analysis of risk assessment relating to soil erosion. We want the agency to revise its Soil Risk 

assessment to more accurately reflect existing conditions relating to soil types and affects of use. We 

want the agency to display all routes into categories of high risk and low risk determinations. 

2872 3070 

Response: Two soil indicators were used to evaluate “risk”, MEHR and HFC. Observation of 

routes on different soil types showed that HFC was a more accurate predictor of “high risk”. 

Soil effects are based on a GIS analysis of routes and HFC (see Figures 3.07-1 and 3.07-3). The 

Hydrologic Function Class sorts route segments that are prone to loss of water control and 

eventual loss of facility (the trail itself). These segments are more difficult to maintain 

depending on trail grade, soil, use, and time of use factors. More detailed soil maps are available 

in the project record. 

373. Comment: The Forest suggests an unsubstantiated effort of getting the trails up to "normal 

maintenance" and carrying out ''mitigation'' will fulfill planning requirements, NEPA, and BMPs. The 

impacts are not fully analyzed and are dismissed by being mitigated by hardening. Impacts cannot be 

minimized by ignoring hazardous soil indicators. This is not a NEPA analysis or a minimizing of 

impacts required by executive orders and 36 CFR 212. The alarming precedent in the excerpt is the 

MEHR and steep slope indicators are not used to decide which trails will be added to the NFTS 

system. 

3662 4330 4321 4325 

Response: Factors used in the soil analysis were steep trail grades, HFC, and MEHR. Trail 

grade and HFC were good predictors of “high risk”. The MEHR was not a good predictor of 

erosion, on or off the trail. Therefore the MEHR was not used to decide which trails will be 

added to the NFTS. Trail grade and HFC was used to determine which trails to drop (assign a 4 

rating) and which trails to mitigate (assign a 3 rating), after field work by the project 

hydrologist, soil scientist and OHV specialist. Appendix H summarizes the rating for each 

route. GIS maps in the project file visually display trail grade and HFC by individual route and 

R/Y/G condition survey by route. The resource analysis spreadsheet (project record), documents 

where future short re-routes are recommended on trails with high erosion or rutting potential. 

Such recommendations are based on modeling, R/Y/G condition survey and field review. 

374. Comment: The DEIS acknowledges that 17% of all OHV route additions to the NFTS in Alternative 

1 have steep segments and that 26 miles of additions to the NFTS have steep gradients. This 

information further underscores the potential for new additions to cause significant environmental 

impacts to soil resources. CSERC urges the Forest to remove from its list of routes to be added any 

routes that contain steep segments as well as other resource concerns of high ranking by resource 

specialists. 

4543 

Response: Steep trail grade was one factor considered for mitigation and effects analysis. 

637 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

375. Comment: Several routes were recommended to not be included as part of the NFTS. Yet, the Forest 

still proposes to open the following routes given a 4 ranking by the soil specialist: 16EV191, 

11908M, 1S1728, 1S1930, 2N1820, 2S1804, 15EV43C, 15EV54, 16EV248, 17EV11, 17EV205, 

17EV231, 17EV289, 18EV106, 18EV133, 31821H, FR98619, FR98704. 

4540 4541 

Response: These are draft recommendations that the Forest Supervisor will consider before 

making a decision. 

376. Comment: The agency stated that the cumulative affects analysis was derived from affects resulting 

from past, present and future activities, actions, and decisions on the soil resource. To include past 

activities in this analysis is an important deviation from direction on how the cumulative affects 

analysis is usually performed. We want the agency to re-evaluate the cumulative effects analysis and 

strike any results that would incorporate past activities. 

3082 

Response: The Forest Supervisor will consider this and all comments before making a 

decision. 

8.40 Water Resources 

377. Comment: Can the Forest Service justify closing motorized trail access when its acreage 

contribution to the entire forest is minimal and most likely negligible? The DEIS emphasizes OHV 

contribution to the forest but fails to address it as a very small part of a very large picture 

4321 

Response: Chapter 3.10 addresses the OHV route area. Table 3.10-8 and accompanying text 

describe the small contribution of unauthorized routes in the context of cumulative watershed 

effects, acknowledging both the length of routes on the forest as well as the narrower widths of 

most OHV routes compared to NFTS roads. 

378. Comment: Baseline water quality data is not provided, nor are water quality standards and the 

amount of change acceptable. The DEIS does not establish monitoring methods and appropriate 

mitigation. 

1896 1897 4321 4332 2658 

Response: Baseline (existing) water quality is described in Chapter 3.10 along with State water 

quality objectives (“standards”) and acceptable change. Water quality meets state requirements 

based on existing water quality data. Monitoring is outside the scope of the DEIS – it is a 

component of project implementation. Mitigation related to water quality is found in Chapter 

2.03 and Appendix I. 

379. Comment: The DEIS states nine unauthorized motorized routes in Alternative 1 cannot be 

practicably mitigated regarding water quality impacts (11 routes in alternative 4), and therefore are 

not recommended for inclusion. The forest has chosen to ignore the majority of these 

recommendations. 

1898 4545 4546 4547 2642 

Response: These are draft recommendations that the Forest Supervisor will consider before 

making a decision. 

380. Comment: SNFPA S&G 70 requires the Forest Service to avoid road construction, reconstruction, 

and relocation in meadows and wetlands. Any proposed additions of routes through meadows conflict 

with S&G 70. 

638 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

4548 4333 4336 4337 

Response: No construction, reconstruction or relocation of roads is included in this project; 

such activities are outside the scope of the project (see Chapter 2.04, item f). S&G 70 does not 

apply to route additions. 

381. Comment: The Forest proposes to add 1.8 miles of user-created, unauthorized routes located in 

meadows. Motorized travel should be prohibited in all mountain meadows and meadow management 

zones. 

2440 4548 4549 

Response: The commenter provides no information on the amount or location of this mileage. 

While there are some short existing route segments proposed for addition at meadow margins, 

they are not altering physical or biological characteristics to the extent that would compromise 

them. 

382. Comment: We ask that the EIS disclose the failure to properly survey water quality in intensively 

used OHV areas (Deer Creek, Upper Rose Creek and Italian Bar watersheds), and propose 

mitigations to attempt to account for the currently unknown amount of water quality impacts. 

4550 

Response: Water quality survey data for Deer Creek and Upper Rose Creek will be included in 

the EIS; this stream was not surveyed prior to the DEIS but was surveyed in June 2009. Upper 

Rose Creek was surveyed in 2006 but data was inadvertently omitted in the DEIS; this 

information will be provided in the EIS. Italian Bar was not considered a concentrated use 

watershed because it has very few route segments in hydrologically sensitive areas. 

383. Comment: “Passive recovery” is a failure to inventory and repair damage to trails not proposed for 

addition to the NFTS. Not all of these trails will recover passively and those that will may take longer 

than stated in the DEIS. The DEIS must require inventory and rehabilitation of user-created damage. 

2632 4342 4542 1962 3679 3789 4310 

4311 4312 4313 4314 4316 4318 4319 

4340 3674 

Response: Inventory and rehabilitation of trails not added to the NFTS in this project is subject 

to future NEPA analysis. The scope of this project (see Chapter 1.03), consists of three actions: 

cross country travel, additions to the NFTS and changes to the existing NFTS. It does not 

include rehabilitation of trails not added to the NFTS. Some segments of some trails not added 

to the NFTS (such as those on steep gradients with sensitive soils) may not passively recover; 

other route segments may recover within a few to about 10 years while some may recover but 

will take longer. This variability would be considered in determining courses of action in 

rehabilitation when conducting future NEPA. 

384. Comment: Stream crossings are inadequately addressed in the DEIS. A site-specific analysis is 

necessary at stream crossings. 

4321 4329 4336 4363 2657 4338 4330 

2638 

Response: A site-specific analysis of stream crossings was conducted. Information is in the 

Water Resource supporting documents in the project record. 

385. Comment: The list of mitigation and maintenance in Appendix F is not a plan. Mitigation cited in 

Appendix I is incomplete, unproven and does not address direct effects. 

4329 4359 2634 3906 

639 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: Appendix F provides definitions of mitigations. Site specific mitigations by route 

are provided in Appendix I. Mitigations prescribed are believed to be able to reduce effects to 

an acceptable level; water control mitigations on trails have been demonstrated effective when 

implemented and maintained. Water control mitigation addresses direct effects since it is 

prescribed to be implemented along hydrologically connected segments of trails. 

386. Comment: Ignoring the soil and water indicators (HSA, HCS, MEHR, HFC) is not minimizing 

impacts. 

4330 

Response: Indicators were not ignored in the analysis; in fact, their primary purpose was to 

identify site-specific locations of potential impact and determine a course of action to minimize 

impacts where needed; that is, route maintenance or mitigation, or recommending exclusion of 

routes from addition to the NFTS. Indicators were secondarily used for comparison of 

alternatives. 

387. Comment: Trail 15EV46 begins eroding an area hundreds of feet from a watercourse but has 

inundated a down-slope stream with hundreds of cubic yards of sediment. 

4331 4338 4361 4363 

Response: A site-specific analysis of this area was conducted. There are three unauthorized 

routes at this site that were inventoried for potential addition to the NFTS, one of which is 

15EV46. The other two, one of which is used by OHVs and the other an abandoned mine access 

route, are closer than 15EV46 to the small channel noted in the comment. The stream 

sedimentation is nearly all from the two routes which are not proposed for addition to the 

NFTS. Mitigation measures are proposed for 15EV46 to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

The other two routes can be included in future NEPA to correct the sedimentation problems 

they are causing. 

388. Comment: SNFPA S&G 92 requires the Forest Service to determine consistency with Riparian 

Conservation Objectives (RCO). How the DEIS conforms to SNFPA guidelines is never addressed. 

4332 4333 2643 2644 2645 2646 

Response: The RCO Analysis is in the water resources supporting documents. RCO 

consistency is based on condition as mitigated or maintained, or not added to the NFTS. All 

hydrologically connected route segments proposed for addition were field evaluated to 

determine RCO consistency. 

389. Comment: Adding routes to the NFTS would significantly threaten water resources and watershed 

values. There are 41.02 miles of routes proposed for addition in hydrologically sensitive areas. 

2633 4020 4021 4353 

Response: Route “additions” actually result in less route mileage compared with the present 

total in alternative 2 (see Table 2.05-2). It is expected that water quality would increase rather 

than decrease, not only based on mileage reduction but by applying mitigation measures to the 

routes that are added to the NFTS and by passive recovery of the routes not added. 

390. Comment: The Five Mile Creek watershed has concentrated use and is not on the map (Figure 3.10­

1) as a concentrated use area. 

4360 

Response: Within the Five Mile Creek watershed there are only five short routes proposed for 

addition, none of which are in hydrologically sensitive areas. Some routes referenced in the 

comment may be in the adjacent Italian Bar watershed since drainage boundaries are difficult to 

640 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

casually define in the Cedar Ridge area. There are likely additional routes in the Cedar Ridge 

area that were inventoried for this project but not included in any alternative, thus adding to 

what seems like a concentrated use area. 

391. Comment: Allowing wheeled over snow vehicles to drive on gravel or dirt roads that are saturated 

under the snow increases the potential for rutting, erosion and soil displacement. 

2632 

Response: Wheeled over snow vehicle use is allowed only on surfaced roads (paved or well 

graveled roads) with a minimum of 12” of snow (see Table 2.02-2). Little or no road damage is 

expected from this activity. 

392. Comment: The Forest should be proposing a proposed action alternative that produces the least 

contribution of sediment into water resources. 

2635 

Response: Alternative 3 responds to the comment since it prohibits any cross country travel. In 

this alternative there would be no addition of routes to the existing NFTS. 

393. Comment: The DEIS assumes that OHV use does not affect water quality in Lyons Reservoir. That 

assumption is not valid because no measurement of sediment entering the reservoir from slopes and 

drainages affected by OHV use has been documented in the DEIS. 

2636 

Response: The water resources supporting documents in the project record display the few 

OHV route stream crossings that drain into Lyons Reservoir. These crossings represent a very 

small amount of potential sediment in a watershed with good existing water quality. 

394. Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose that the Forest Service is subject to permitting requirements 

for its OHV trails and roads, as it must comply with requirements of both the federal Clean Water Act 

and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. OHV trails and roads will discharge 

pollutants into waters of the United States through point source conveyances. 

2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 

2654 2655 2656 4331 

Response: Permits are not required. A Waste Discharge Permit (WDR) is not applicable based 

on the Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the Non-Point Source Pollution Control 

Program of the Porter Cologne Act. In this, WDRs are programmatically waived by the 

Management Agency Agreement (MAA) between the California Water Resources Control 

Board and the Forest Service through the latter agency’s Water Quality Best Management 

Practices program. An NPDES permit is not required since travel ways are not point source 

conveyances. The Forest Service does not have to obtain such permits for road or trail 

construction or use. 

395. Comment: The SNFPA stipulates that OHV trails are not to be designated on routes with rutting and 

live water crossings. Despite this prohibition, the DEIS contemplates that there will be designated 

OHV routes throughout the forest, many of which cross streams. 

2657 

Response: SNFPA does not prohibit OHV trails with ruts or at live water crossings. 

396. Comment: The Forest used the existing condition and all past activities to establish a baseline of 

condition for analysis and comparison of effects by alternative. The baseline needs to include the 

footprint and existing impacts of the 552 miles of inventoried routes. The agency has failed to analyze 

and determine the effects of these miles in relation to watershed impacts. 

641 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

2881 2882 3079 3080 3083 

Response: The baseline miles shown in Table 3.10-7 are based on information in Chapters 2.02 

and 3.08. A footprint of 552 miles of unauthorized routes is inaccurate. Chapter 3.10 presents 

the analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the footprint. 

397. Comment: The failure to distinguish the size difference between a road and a trail will make the 

Forest Service the laughingstock of the scientific world. 

3502 3503 3504 

Response: The size difference between roads and trails of various widths was recognized in the 

analysis and is described in Chapter 3.10. The summary of the Cumulative Watershed Effects 

(see Table 3.10-8) includes variable route widths in its calculations of disturbed area. Further 

details are available in the water resources supporting documents in the project record. 

398. Comment: Water quality is currently good to excellent and can only get better when cross-country 

travel and the unauthorized trails that are not being added are eliminated. A balance must be made, 

and considering current water quality there is no reason why this issue should limit the addition of any 

of the routes. 

4228 4229 

Response: Only 10 routes are proposed for exclusion from being added to the NFTS based on 

water quality issues. 

8.50 Wildlife: Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 

399. Comment: With the prohibition of cross country travel and the implementation of season of use, 

California red-legged frog and western pond turtle habitat should improve over time. 

4201 4205 

Response: The positive effects of the implementation of season of use and negative effects of 

cross country travel are discussed in Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged Frog and Western 

Pond Turtle. A discussion of the positive effects of prohibition of that type of travel has been 

added to the EIS. 

400. Comment: Many of the routes listed in Table 3.11-52, “Routes inconsistent with USFWS PDC 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Project Design Criteria) for the California red-legged frog,” in Table 

3.11-53, “Routes inconsistent with the Forest Plan for the California red-legged frog,” and in Table 

3.11-54, “Routes inconsistent with the Forest Plan for the western pond turtle” lead to dispersed 

camping sites. They should be mitigated to allow for continued off-highway vehicle (OHV) access 

and included in the NTFS. 

4201 4202 4203 4204 4205 

Response: The USFWS PDC and the Forest Plan address not only quality of routes in terms of 

species effects, but also location of routes in species’ habitats. These are the USFWS criteria 

and Forest Plan standards and guidelines with which the routes are inconsistent. Mitigation to 

the routes would not remove them from the habitat. Discussion of the effects on the California 

red-legged frog and the western pond turtle, including the effects of not following the PDC and 

of amending the Forest Plan, is found in Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged Frog and Western 

Pond Turtle and the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE). 

8.51 Analysis 

401. Comment: Out of the 510 individual unauthorized route segments analyzed, none were identified as 

having wildlife impacts that could not be mitigated. No route was identified as posing an 

642 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

unacceptable risk to the fisher, the marten, the California spotted owl, mule deer, the California redlegged frog, or other at-risk wildlife. No route was recommended to be left out of the proposed 

system. This is clearly a significant deficiency that discredits the adequacy of the discussion of 

wildlife within the document. The lack of balance and appropriate mitigation for wildlife impacts in 

the DEIS makes the entire document legally deficient. 

2704 2705 

Response: The wildlife biologist assessed every proposed route addition to the NFTS in any 

alternative at a level sufficient to support his effects analysis and identify any necessary sitespecific mitigation (Appendix H). Site-specific surveys/assessments of any local sensitive 

wildlife habitats with routes proposed to be added to the NFTS were made (Chapter 3.11, Data 

Sources; BA/BE). After further review, one route was recommended to be left out of the NFTS: 

16EV79, which is approximately 10 feet from a California spotted owl PAC. Some routes were 

identified as needing mitigations in order to meet law, regulation, and policy, and to reduce the 

impacts. Mitigation measures were proposed for those routes, and the effects were analyzed. 

The proposed mitigations consist of tread hardening, drain dips, fence/log/rock barriers, 

boardwalks, full benches, padding, water bars, and hardened stream crossings, all designed to in 

the long term improve hydrologic and soil conditions (Chapters 3.07 and 3.10). A summary of 

this information in relation to wildlife habitat has been added to the EIS, Chapter 3.11. 

402. Comment: The Stanislaus National Forest used the existing condition and all past human and natural 

activities to establish a baseline of condition for analysis and comparison of effects by alternative. 

This baseline condition needs to include the footprint and existing impacts of the 552 miles of 

inventoried routes and the effects of eliminating cross-country use. The reduction of use, road/trail 

densities, and stream crossings are not analyzed nor compared to any action alternatives anywhere in 

the document. The agency has failed to analyze and determine the effects of these miles in relation to 

terrestrial and aquatic species impacts. 

2888 2889 3085 3086 

Response: The existing condition and the impacts of the reduction in route mileage are now 

presented more clearly in Chapter 3.11 of the EIS. 

403. Comment: More than 80% of the inventoried routes are over 25 years old and most impacts 

resulting from the creation of these routes have diminished to a point of immeasurable significance to 

the watershed. Age of the activity is an important factor when analyzing cumulative effects. 

2888 3085 

Response: Age of activity was considered when analyzing cumulative effects (Chapter 3.11; 

Cumulative Watershed Effects—Motorized Travel Management report, found in the project 

record). The effects of habitat alteration from construction of the routes have diminished to an 

immeasurable level. However, routes that impact streams and meadows because of poor 

placement or poor design can still be impacting aquatic species and the prey species of the great 

gray owl. The impacts from disturbance are on-going, no matter how old the route. 

404. Comment: The agency’s findings of adverse effects for any of the action alternatives are conjecture, 

based on a false implication that the actual miles of use will be increased. The true mileage of use will 

be decreased by at least 400 miles. 

2889 3086 

Response: The analysis (Chapter 3.11) compared the effects of the different alternatives. An 

alternative with fewer routes would have less of an effect on species of concern than an 

alternative with more routes. Alternative 2, the No Action alternative, would have the greatest 

effect because the number and miles of routes would be greatest and cross country travel would 

643 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

be allowed. (The wording in 3.11 of the EIS more clearly reflects the miles of routes under 

Alternative 2.) As the commenter points out, the route miles would be less under any of the 

action alternatives. Therefore, the impact would be less under the action alternatives. However, 

there would still be impacts under all the action alternatives. 

405. Comment: This analysis must display the threshold of routes and the effects of removing crosscountry travel for all terrestrial and aquatic species on the Stanislaus. 

2890 3087 

Response: As stated in Chapter 3.11 and the project BA/BE for all species, “Although 

thresholds for these indicators have not been established, they provide general measures by 

which the effects of the project alternatives may be compared.” 

406. Comment: The analysis must take into account the existing footprint of the trail, its existing impacts, 

vehicle type, and frequency of use. It must display the incremental effects of increasing or decreasing 

access miles by volume of traffic, traffic type, and use rates. The assumption is made that all vehicle 

classes result in the same amount of disturbance effects to wildlife. All vehicle types cannot produce 

the same amount of disturbance. The frequency of use is vital to determine the true effects. An 

example would be to compare a logging truck traveling 30 mph on a 2-lane aggregate road with an 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 25 to a motorcycle or four-wheel drive (4WD) traveling less 

than 10 mph on a trail that has a footprint of 8 feet and ADT of less than 1. Disturbance levels must 

take into consideration road and trail widths, frequency of use, and speeds. 

2890 2891 2892 2894 3087 3088 3089 

3091 

Response: The analysis takes into account the existing footprint of the trails and the existing 

impacts by analyzing the impacts of Alternative 2 (the No Action alternative). The EIS 

acknowledges that effects can vary based on vehicle type and frequency of use (for example, 

Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). However, as stated in Chapter 3.11, without local information 

enabling a separate analysis by vehicle type or frequency of use, it is assumed for the purposes 

of the analysis that there is no variation. The indicators provide general measures by which the 

effects of the project alternatives may be compared. 

407. Comment: The assumption is made that all vehicle classes result in the same amount of disturbance 

effects to wildlife. A designed road will have removed vegetation, including canopy cover, whereas 

single and two-track trails will meander around vegetation without requiring vegetation removal. 

Each trail will have varying degrees of disturbance based on location, vegetation type, trail width, and 

frequency of use. 

2893 3090 

Response: The assumption is also made that habitat is already impacted in the short-term 

(Chapter 3.11, Assumptions Specific to Terrestrial and Aquatic Species), except Alternative 2. 

Under that alternative, because route proliferation would continue, habitat might be lost 

(Chapter 3.11, Direct and Indirect Effects, Alternative 2 for each species; BA/BE; Management 

Indicator Species [MIS] Report). The habitats for great gray owl prey and aquatic species may 

be affected through sedimentation into streams and/or through effects on meadows. These 

effects are discussed in Chapter 3.11 (Great Gray Owl; Aquatic Biota); BA/BE; MIS Report. 

As stated in Chapter 3.11, without local information enabling a separate analysis by trail 

location or frequency of use, it is assumed for the purposes of the analysis that there is no 

variation. 

408. Comment: The agency has stated many times that the majority of literature, review, and studies used 

to describe and analyze the interactions of wildlife are focused on roads and highways, and not on 

644 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

wildlife interactions with trails. The agency has no sound science or literature to analyze the effects of 

trails on terrestrial and aquatic species. The agency must provide sound local science to determine 

true effects. 

2891 3088 

Response: Chapter 3.11 cites studies that do focus on wildlife interactions with trails, as well 

as those that focus on such interactions with roads. 

409. Comment: The Forest Service claims in the DEIS that road kill hazards will not increase as a result 

of the proposed actions because the proposed routes and changes are located on native surfaces. The 

claim does not take into account that most vehicles traveling on native-surface roads in the forest are 

equipped with technology such as 4WD and enhanced suspension systems which allow them to travel 

over rugged, native surfaces at higher speeds than other vehicles. Also, it does not take into account 

the fact that a high rate of speed is not required for colliding with small animals. 

3813 3821 

Response: The routes being added or converted from a closed to open status are unauthorized, 

created through cross-country travel. They are currently open, as is most of the Forest, to 

motorized use under cross-country travel. Any of the action alternatives would reduce the risk 

of vehicle collisions with animals from the existing situation. 

Chapter 3.11 and the project BA/BE state, “Routes proposed for designation within the project 

alternatives are native surfaced routes, that allow much slower rates of travel.” While the 

vehicles equipped with the technology referenced in the comment can travel more quickly than 

other vehicles on native surfaced roads, their rates of speed would still be much lower than 

vehicles traveling along well-maintained roadways. The effects of mortality due to vehicle 

collisions was considered in the effects analysis for each species (Chapter 3.11; BA/BE). The 

effects were considered to be insignificant, but never-the-less present. 

410. Comment: The necessary data is lacking in terms of population surveys for American marten, 

Pacific fisher, other carnivores, and herpetofauna in order for the Forest Service to make truly 

qualified decisions regarding route additions and changes. These activities may have significant 

adverse effects on carnivore and herpetofauna individuals and populations. 

3815 3816 3817 

Response: The presence of all species is commonly assumed if there is suitable habitat present. 

This assumption has been added to the list of assumptions in Chapter 3.11. The effects analysis 

for these species is documented in Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE. Based on that analysis, the 

effects on the species from this project are not considered significant. 

411. Comment: Major gaps of critical data are missing and essential information to inform the public and 

the decision maker is needed before the EIS can be adequate for the topic of the impact of motorized 

use on mule deer. From the information provided, it is not possible for the public to know how this 

project affects each specific mule deer habitat (critical winter range, fawning habitat, staging and 

migratory corridors) or affects the likelihood of reproductive success. The DEIS does not provide any 

specific data on historic or current deer numbers in areas proposed for intensive OHV use. The DEIS 

provides no data on doe:fawn ratios to show recent trends in the Deer Creek/Rose Creek area, the 

Hull Creek area, the Jawbone area, or areas on the Groveland District that are especially important for 

winter deer use. The EIS should explicitly disclose the status of the mule deer herds on the Stanislaus 

Forest, and not ask the public to accept generalized statements devoid of factual data. 

2671 2672 2673 

645 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: The mule deer fawn to doe ratios for the Stanislaus herd (which uses the Deer 

Creek/Rose Creek and Hull Creek areas) and the Tuolumne herd (which uses the Groveland 

District) for 1994 to 2006 have been added to the mule deer Affected Environment as examples 

supporting the statement that was in the DEIS: “More recently, mule deer populations 

(estimated by buck harvest and winter range counts) within the project area have been stable to 

slightly decreasing and below management objectives (Maddox 1980, King 1981, Maddox 

1984).” 

The EIS uses generally accepted indicators (e.g., route density in each of four primary deer use 

areas) to compare alternatives. As Chapter 3.11 states, “Although thresholds for these indicators 

[the indicators specific to each species] have not been established, they provide general 

measures by which the effects of the project alternatives may be compared.” 

412. Comment: There is only limited discussion of the type of environment that provides fawning habitat 

(i.e., meadows) or the condition of that habitat on the Forest. 

2677 

Response: The existing condition of meadows is discussed in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer, 

Cumulative Effects. The condition of meadow habitat was recognized when the mitigation 

measures were proposed. Chapter 3.10 Water, states that the existing amount of sedimentation 

will be reduced on routes added to the NFTS by implementation of site-specific and area-wide 

maintenance and mitigation measures. In addition, hardening or boardwalks will be installed in 

other wet areas (i.e., seeps and springs) to protect them from damage. A summary of this 

information in relation to mule deer habitat, as well as a statement as to the importance to mule 

deer of meadow habitat, has been added to Chapter 3.11. 

413. Comment: The Cumulative Effects Analysis is inadequate. The DEIS should disclose the condition 

of the most essential deer use habitat types, their availability and value to deer, and limiting factors. 

Combined with the grazing impacts, impacts of fuels projects, and road mortality impacts on mule 

deer, the cumulative impacts of OHV motorized use is an additive adverse impact on mule deer that 

the Forest has the ability to control. 

2681 

Response: Chapter 3.11 discusses the condition of the essential deer habitat types. The adverse 

cumulative effects are recognized: “the direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives . . . 

combined with the cumulative effects would likely result in impacts to some individuals . . .” 

(Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer, Cumulative Effects). 

414. Comment: The DEIS failed to adequately consider and apply current scientific research by Greg 

Gurstenburg of the California Department of Fish and Game that showed radio telemetered deer are 

being displaced from foraging areas by OHVs in the Deer and Rose Creek area. 

3573 

Response: Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer cites other studies in which deer were shown to be 

displaced from habitat use areas in response to vehicle traffic. The results of these studies were 

considered in the effects analysis for this species. 

415. Comment: When potential impacts to wintering, transitory, and summering deer are combined with 

the direct impacts of vehicle-deer collisions, a significant cumulative impact to migratory deer could 

result. Additionally, the combined effect of similar travel management planning efforts on other 

Sierra Nevada National Forests may constitute a significant threat to migratory deer, which is an MIS. 

3594 3602 4801 

646 
 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: The described effects on mule deer were considered in the analysis. In the 

Environmental Consequences section for this species (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer), both positive 

and negative effects on deer from all the actions (prohibiting cross-country travel off of the 

NFTS, adding facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of use on NFTS routes, changing the 

season of use on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation measures) of all the alternatives are 

described. Based on this analysis, the effects on the species from this project are not considered 

significant. 

416. Comment: The discussion and conclusions regarding impacts to mule deer are incomplete and not 

based on the best available information. Examples follow. 

a. The assumption that all deer herds coexist and interbreed is incorrect. 

b. The analysis doesn’t consider deer herds that migrate east of the Sierra crest. 

c. Impacts are assumed to be insignificant using inappropriate significance thresholds, such as 

deer starvation. 

d. All potential project-related impacts are not considered, such as road mortality due to slow 

speed. Mortality from high-speed access to drop-off points does occur. 

e. The proposed mitigation does not appear to be directly tied to impacts, and therefore does 

not adequately offset those impacts. 

f. The DEIS states that the reason for up to 50% of fawn mortalities are unknown. Against 

this uncertain environmental baseline, it seems speculative to make conclusions regarding 

the effects of the preferred alternative on deer populations. 

3591 3592 

Response: In response to the specific examples: 

a.	 Resident deer and migratory deer coexist on their winter range. As Chapter 3.11 states, “it is 

generally recognized and assumed that individuals expressing either strategy [non-migrating 

and migrating] regularly coexist and interbreed on the winter range and during the rut” 

(3.11 Mule Deer). For example, Browning et al. (1973) stated that, “it is known . . . that 

some of the deer [from the Rail Road Flat herd, which is one of the herds on the Stanislaus] 

migrate west of the Rail Road Flat and Sheep Ranch roads to winter with the resident blacktailed deer.” This information has been added to the EIS. 

b.	 The analysis considers deer herds that migrate east of the Sierras by considering impacts on 

those deer on their winter range. 

c.	 The factors considered in the analysis include the following: human-caused mortality from 

motor vehicle collisions; changes in behavior or habitat use that can affect the fitness of 

individuals, fawn production, and fawn survival; and starvation (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). 

In the Environmental Consequences section for this species, both positive and negative 

effects on deer from all the actions (prohibiting cross-country travel off of the NFTS, 

adding facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of use on NFTS routes, changing the 

season of use on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation measures) of all the alternatives are 

described. Based on this analysis, the effects on the species from this project are not 

considered significant. 

d.	 Mortality from vehicle collisions was considered. As Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer states, the 

routes considered in the analysis “result in far fewer collisions than highways or paved 

routes and would likely have an insignificant impact on mule deer mortality within the 

project area”. 

647 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

e.	 The proposed mitigations address, in part, the problems certain routes pose to meadows and 

riparian areas, key components of mule deer habitat. Chapter 3.10 Water states that the 

existing amount of sedimentation will be reduced on routes added to the NFTS by 

implementation of those site-specific and area-wide maintenance and mitigation measures. 

In addition, hardening or boardwalks will be installed in other wet areas (i.e., seeps and 

springs) to protect them from damage. A summary of this information in relation to mule 

deer habitat has been added to Chapter 3.11. 

f.	 While the cause of 50% of fawn mortality is unknown, the analysis is sufficient for the 

Decision Maker to make a reasoned choice among alternatives. 

The complete effects analysis for this species is documented in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

417. Comment: Most seriously, the DEIS fails to identify OHV-related disturbance of deer as a 

significant impact. Disturbance of deer, particularly wintering and fawning deer, acts through many 

pathways to reduce survival and fecundity. Deer disturbed by the presence and noise associated with 

humans and motor vehicles are compelled to flee in lieu of resting, sheltering in thermal cover, or 

foraging. This results in energetic stress and ultimately poor body condition. Salwasser et al. (1979) 

found that low fawn survival was attributable to poor nutrition in does during the last trimester. Deer 

in poor condition are also more vulnerable to contracting disease and more susceptible to morbidity 

and mortality resulting from disease. Disturbed deer flushed from cover (particularly young fawns) 

may be more vulnerable to predators. 

3592 

Response: The described effects on mule deer were considered in the analysis. The effects 

analysis for this species is documented in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. Based on that analysis, the 

effects on the species from this project are not considered significant. 

418. Comment: The Forest Service cited a study which indicated that 50% of early fawn losses are 

attributed to bear predation. This finding is not accurate in terms of the Stanislaus National Forest and 

there is absolutely no evidence to support this. If, as the Forest Service states, the causes for losses are 

numerous and largely unknown, then it follows that the Forest Service has a lack of data and cannot 

make qualified decisions regarding whether or not the proposed actions will have significant adverse 

effects on deer populations. 

3822 

Response: The study was conducted on the Stanislaus deer herd, which uses the central portion 

of the Stanislaus National Forest. The effects analysis for this species is documented in Chapter 

3.11, Mule Deer. Based on that analysis, the effects on the species from this project are not 

considered significant. 

419. Comment: The Forest Service states that, because marten have their young in the spring, seasonal 

closures would reduce disturbances to denning and foraging activities and reproductive viability. 

Marten actually begin to carry fertilized eggs in the fall and these eggs would be aborted if the female 

carrying them is not healthy enough. OHV traffic in the area covered by the Tamarack, Liberty Hill, 

Calaveras Dime and Spicer Reservoir USGS quads increases significantly in the late summer and 

early fall due to hunting season. This would mean the disturbance level would be higher at the time 

when marten are carrying fertilized eggs, and that their reproductive success could be adversely 

affected. 

3815 

Response: Additional information has been added to the marten discussion of the effects of the 

seasonal closures to describe the part of the life history the commenter has noted. The seasonal 

closures would reduce disturbances to denning and foraging marten in the winter and early 

648 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

spring and to pregnant females in the last half or so of the gestation period from that existing 

now (without seasonal closures). The effects analysis for this species, including that of seasonal 

closures, is documented in Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE. Chapter 3.11 states that the direct and 

indirect effects of the Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5, combined with the cumulative effects are not 

likely to result in a loss of species viability. 

420. Comment: The claim that seasonal road closures would reduce disturbance to carnivores is 

inaccurate. 

3813 

Response: The statement for marten has been changed to “The proposed closures would reduce 

disturbance to denning and foraging martens, and to pregnant females in the last half or so of 

the gestation period.” (Chapter 3.11, American Marten). Based on the timing of their 

reproductive activities (they have their young in the spring), they would be denning during the 

period of the seasonal closure. Therefore, the statement that the closures would reduce 

disturbance to denning marten is accurate. It is also accurate that disturbance to foraging marten 

would be reduced during the period of the seasonal closure. As the gestation period starts in the 

summer and extends to March or April, disturbance to pregnant females would be reduced in 

the last half or so of the gestation period. In the case of fisher, the statement is made that these 

closures would reduce disturbance to foraging fisher over the long-term (Chapter 3.11, Pacific 

Fisher). That, too, is an accurate statement. The effects analysis for this species, including that 

of seasonal closures, is documented in Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE. 

421. Comment: The DEIS provides minimal site-specific comparison of suitable fisher habitat and any 

consideration of the disturbance that would come from motorized use in that habitat. There is no 

comparison of known suitable habitat or historic fisher habitat with the specific location of the 

individual proposed additions of unauthorized OHV routes to the motorized system. There is no 

comparison of known suitable or historic habitat for the fisher with the specific locations where 

“closed” roads would be opened in Alternative 1 or Alternative 4. There is no specific information 

focusing on how specific routes pose risk to wildlife dependent upon late successional old forest 

habitat. 

2688 2689 2690 

Response: Disturbance that could come from motorized use in preferred fisher habitat was 

considered. Based on the available literature, the following indicators for habitat and 

disturbance effects on fisher were chosen: 

- Miles of routes added to the NFTS within preferred fisher habitat 

- Miles of ML 1 roads converted to trails within preferred fisher habitat 

- Existing density (mi/mi2) of NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat. 

- Density (mi/mi2) of NFTS routes within preferred fisher habitat with proposed designated 

routes (Chapter 3.11, Pacific Fisher). 

To make the effects of the alternatives clearer, two additional indicators are now included in the 

Cumulative Effects section of the EIS for the fisher: 

- Total miles of routes within preferred fisher habitat 

- Density (mi/mi2) of all routes within preferred fisher habitat 

Similar indicators were chosen for other species dependent on late-successional old forest 

habitat (for example, American marten, California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, great gray 

owl). 

649 
 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

A route-by-route assessment (in the project record) was conducted for the unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS to see in which habitat type the route lay and if the route met 

law, regulation, and policy (including those laws, regulations, and policy pertaining to species 

dependent on late-successional old forest habitat). The risk from a specific route to the species 

analyzed, other than impacts to the habitat, can not be ascertained. An individual route in 

preferred habitat can contribute to disturbance to individuals of the species using that habitat. 

However, one route, by itself, might not have an effect. And, if there is an effect from a route, it 

may be immeasurable. Furthermore, the disturbance effects can be greater than the sum of the 

effects from each individual route. In order to accurately analyze disturbance effects, the routes 

in an area must be viewed as a whole. 

422. Comment: The DEIS makes several statements discounting the potential effects to fisher because 

fisher are not currently known to be present on the Forest. However, Spencer et al. (2007) found that 

natural dispersal and reoccupation of the Forest is highly probable. Additionally, Green et al. 

(Submitted) identified fragmentation of habitat resulting from roads as a key threat to the southern 

Sierra population of fisher. Such fragmentation can prevent dispersal of fisher into unoccupied range 

and prevent fisher from accessing mates. It is recommended that a focused analysis be conducted as 

to how changing patterns of vehicle use and the addition of routes to the NFTS would impact 

conservation and recovery of the Pacific fisher. 

3605 

Response: Chapter 3.11, Pacific Fisher states, “Although there are currently no known 

populations of fisher within the project area, over the long-term they may become naturally reestablished from known populations located south of the project area”. The document strives to 

make clear that, while fisher are not currently known to occur on the Forest, if the fisher is reestablished on the Forest, there could be effects on individuals. No new routes are being 

constructed. Only existing unauthorized routes, created through cross-country travel, are being 

considered for inclusion into the system. The loss of vegetation (habitat) on these routes has 

already occurred. They are currently open, as is most of the forest, to motorized use under 

cross-country travel. This EIS documents the environmental analysis for these routes. Any of 

the action alternatives, by prohibiting cross-country travel, would decrease the amount of 

habitat subject to disturbance by motorized vehicles. There would be no increase in habitat 

fragmentation over the existing situation under any of the alternatives (Chapter 3.11, 

Assumptions Specific to Terrestrial and Aquatic Species) except Alternative 2. Under that 

alternative, because route proliferation would continue, habitat might be lost (Chapter 3.11, 

Pacific Fisher, Direct and Indirect Effects, Alternative 2; BA/BE). The route density, including 

routes not part of the NFTS, in fisher habitat under the other alternatives ranges from 2.30 

(Alternative 3) to 2.49 (Alternative 4) miles per square mile (Chapter 3.11, Fisher; BA/BE). The 

existing density, including unauthorized routes, in fisher habitat is 3.13 miles/square miles. This 

information has been added to the EIS to make the effects clearer. 

The reference from Spencer et al. which the commenter cites and information from a fisher 

study in the Tule River Basin have also been added to the discussion in the fisher Cumulative 

Effects section on the ability or likelihood of fisher re-occupying suitable habitat on the 

Stanislaus. 

The effects analysis for this species is sufficient for the Forest Supervisor to make a reasoned 

decision on this project. The analysis is documented in Chapter 3.11, Pacific Fisher. 

423. Comment: The assumptions made regarding the distance from disturbance at which nesting raptors 

will flush from the nest (60 meters) should be checked against Richardson and Miller’s (1997) review 

of available literature. They found that forest raptors reacted to disturbances at distances on the order 

of 400 to 600 meters. 

650 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

3603 

Response: Richardson and Miller (1997) present a summary of recommendations for spatial 

and temporal buffer zones for nesting raptors, along with the source of the recommendations 

(Table 1). Table 2 of their review shows the results of research studying flushing distances for 

raptors in response to disturbance by pedestrians and vehicles. The flushing distances found 

ranged from 9 meters (approximately 30 feet) to 990 meters (approximately 0.6 mile), 

depending on the species studied. The time of year of the studies (breeding vs. non-breeding 

season) is not indicated. Richardson and Miller state, “. . . except for anecdotal and incidental 

reports, few studies have experimentally documented disturbance distances for use in bufferzone recommendations.” The assumption in Chapter 3.11 is based on literature cited in that 

document. Delaney et al. (1999) and Swarthout and Steidl (2001) stated that the likelihood of 

owls flushing from a nest is greater when disturbance occurs within 60 meters. Chapter 3.11 

also cites preliminary study results on a northern spotted owl study, which indicated that spotted 

owls did not flush from nest or roost sites when motorcycles were greater than 105 meters away 

during the post-fledgling period (Delaney and Grubb 2001). Because that study is ongoing and 

the impacts of motorcycle noise on spotted owls is not conclusive at this point, and because the 

project analysis considers vehicles more and less disturbing than motorcycles, in addition to 

motorcycles, the more conservative figure of 60 meters was used. 

424. Comment: The DEIS tries to justify some of the disturbance to California spotted owl (CASPO) and 

northern goshawk (NGO) Protected Activity Centers (PACs) by claiming that seasonal closures will 

benefit the raptors during the nesting period. However, seasonal closures (if enforced) end April 1st 

for Zone 2, where most CASPO PACs occur, and motorized vehicles will be present when eggs and 

nestlings are most susceptible to disturbance that would cause the parent to flush from the nest. 

NOGO nestlings are even more vulnerable to nest disturbance. Forest biologists aren’t allowed in nest 

stands until June 1. 

4557 3663 

Response: Chapter 3.11, California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk, discusses the 

breeding and nesting timing for the spotted owl and the goshawk. For both species, the closures 

would reduce disturbance to individuals during the early nesting period. Discussion of the 

effects on these two species, including those of the seasons of use, is found in Chapter 3.11 and 

the BA/BE. 

425. Comment: The DEIS fails to analyze the existing road and motorized route densities within CASPO 

and NOGO PACs. This is not discussed within each of the alternatives, nor is it discussed within the 

cumulative effects analysis. The raptors will not be solely affected by the route and road additions, but 

rather they will be affected by these additions as well as the already extensive existing road systems in 

the PACs. It is critical that the EIS discuss what the total road density will be in CASPO and NOGO 

PACs for each alternative in order to comply with NEPA. The current DEIS does not give the public 

or the decision maker sufficient information to make an informed choice. 

4559 3663 

Response: Route density thresholds have not been established for California spotted owls or 

northern goshawks. The mileage of routes within PACs can be used as a comparison of effects 

of the different alternatives. The total mileage of routes in PACs under each alternative has 

been added to the EIS to more clearly display the effects on these species. 

426. Comment: There is no spatially specific information as to which unauthorized OHV routes or which 

“closed” roads to be opened would have routes go through goshawk PACs or territories. The only 

clear information is that 12% of the goshawk PACs in the project area would have some level of 

disturbance by Alternative 1. 

651 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

2694 

Response: The Motorized Travel Management (17305) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CD included a map labeled “Wildlife Habitat” in .pdf format. The map shows the location of 

goshawk PACs on the Forest. It also shows the routes under the Proposed Action (Alternative 

1). The CD was available upon request, and was distributed to several individuals, agencies, and 

organizations. The links on the Forest web site displayed the contents of the CD, including the 

Wildlife Habitat map. In addition, documentation of a PAC-by-PAC analysis for the goshawk 

has been added to the BA/BE and summarized in the EIS. 

427. Comment: The wildlife section of the DEIS repeatedly finds that there will be negative effects from 

motorized use, but that the impacts will always be “minor,” despite, for example, that 10% of the 

goshawk PACs occur within a close distance to unauthorized OHV routes proposed to be added to 

the system or roads proposed to be turned into OHV trails.. 

2695 2895 3092 

Response: The effects analysis for species of concern is documented in Chapter 3.11 and the 

BA/BE. In addition, documentation of a PAC-by-PAC analysis for the goshawk and the spotted 

owl has been added to the BA/BE and summarized in the EIS. Based on these analyses, the 

effects on the species from this project are considered minor. In the given example for 

goshawks, Chapter 3.11 documents the following: (1) the change in number of snags removed 

for safety purposes would not be high; (2) there would be very little habitat fragmentation 

(NOTE: because the routes already exist, the EIS wording has been changed to reflect that there 

would be no habitat fragmentation, except under Alternative 2 under which route proliferation, 

and so fragmentation, would continue); (3) 10% (under Alternative 1) of the acreage in 

goshawk PACs occur within 400 meters (1/4 mile) of routes being added to the NFTS or roads 

converted to trails, (4) although the action alternatives may result in cumulative impacts, they 

are fairly minor in comparison to existing road densities and other potentially significant 

impacts (fire, fuels/vegetation treatments). 

428. Comment: Impacts to the California endangered great gray owl are assumed to only occur in 

meadows. Impacts to nesting, roosting, and fledging stands are not thoroughly analyzed. Potential 

impacts to these equally critical habitats should be examined at all known breeding locations. 

3604 

Response: The effects on great gray owl were analyzed in relation to PACs (defined by the 

USDA Forest Service [2004] as “at least 50 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat available 

in the forested area surrounding nests and the meadow or meadow complex that support a prey 

base for the nesting owls”—see Chapter 3.11, Great Gray Owl Affected Environment), within 

400 meters of activity centers, and in emphasis habitat (defined for the analysis as meadows 

greater than 15 acres that are within 5 miles of existing PACs and a 200 meter buffer around 

those meadows—see Chapter 3.11, Great Gray Owl Affected Environment). The analysis cites 

a radio telemetry study (Winter 1982) in and around Yosemite National Park that found that 

over 80% of the owl relocations were within 200 meters of meadows. Additional discussion of 

the effects on nesting, roosting, and fledging stands has been added to the Environmental 

Consequences section of the EIS for this species. 

429. Comment: Impacts to aquatic species are not appropriately or fairly analyzed and considered for 

necessary mitigation. The conclusions for the impacts on aquatic species are weak and inadequate. 

Following are examples: 

a.	 Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 would add routes with stream crossings and incursions into 

Riparian Conservation Areas within suitable threatened California red-legged frog (CRLF) 

habitat. These additions would not comply with “Route Designation: Project Design 

652 
Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Criteria for ‘No Effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations for 

TE Species – October 2006 Version 1.” 

b.	 A total of 22 routes are inconsistent with the Forest Plan for the CRLF. 

c.	 The impacts of inconsistency of the Forest Plan with regards to the western pond turtle is 

dismissed in the DEIS through the assurance that Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 would 

provide hardened stream crossings. Hardened stream crossings would do nothing to assure 

that turtles would not be struck and killed by OHV use on those routes. 

d.	 A discussion of Alternative 1 shows that approval of the proposed action would result in the 

addition of one route with one stream crossing within occupied foothill yellow-legged frog 

habitat and several routes with 61 stream crossings within suitable habitat. That obviously is 

a significant risk to the extremely rare foothill yellow-legged frog. The DEIS dismisses 

those impacts as minor because the actions would likely impact only some individuals, but 

“would not likely result in impacts to populations within the project area over the short or 

long term.” When there are a relatively low number of total individuals of this species 

remaining on the entire Forest, an alternative that would likely impact some individuals is 

an impact that must be considered significant. 

e.	 Even when an alternative such as Alternative 3 would benefit the foothill yellow-legged 

frog, the DEIS fails to emphasize that benefit. 

f.	 The conclusion for the foothill yellow-legged frog is weak and inadequate: "With the 

exception of Alternative 3, which would have beneficial impacts to the foothill yellowlegged frog, the direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 4 and 5) 

combined with the cumulative effects are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal 

listing or a loss of viability for this species." 

g.	 The DEIS acknowledges that many populations of the mountain yellow-legged frog have 

become extirpated within the region, and systematic surveys of all aquatic habitat areas 

within the project boundaries have not been implemented. While the DEIS is accurate in 

noting that the vast majority of unauthorized OHV routes proposed to be added to the 

motorized system in Alternatives 1 and 4 are not located in suitable mountain yellow-legged 

frog habitat, the DEIS fails to identify the specific locations where those routes do overlap. 

h.	 The information given for the miles of routes in occupied vs. suitable habitat is limited 

because systematic surveys for the project were not conducted for pond turtles in all 

suitable habitats. 

i.	 The DEIS states that the addition of routes and conversion of roads to trails within 400 

meters of occupied and suitable western pond turtle aquatic habitat may result in direct 

effects to adults (females) moving overland to find suitable nesting locations and in indirect 

effects to both aquatic and terrestrial habitat over the short and long term. The DEIS notes 

that the western pond turtle was identified as a Sensitive Species on the Stanislaus. Despite 

this, the DEIS discounts the environmental impacts of approving at least 60 stream 

crossings by unauthorized OHV routes in suitable or occupied turtle habitat. 

2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 4569 

4570 4571 4572 4573 4574 4575 3663 

Response: In response to the specific examples: 

a.	 Only existing routes are being considered for inclusion into the system. Thus, there would 

be a decrease in stream crossings and a decrease of route miles in suitable CRLF habitat 

from the existing condition. Additional information has been added to the EIS (3.11 

California Red-legged Frog) to make the effects clearer. Discussion of the effects on the 

653 
Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

CRLF, including the effects of including routes in the NFTS which do not comply with the 

PDC, is found in Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged Frog and the BA/BE. 

b.	 Discussion of the effects on the CRLF, including the effects of amending the Forest Plan, is 

found in Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged Frog and the BA/BE. 

c.	 The positive effects of the mitigation measures, including stream hardening, were described 

in Chapter 3.11, Western Pond Turtle in the section on mitigation measures. In the 

Environmental Consequences for the pond turtle, both positive and negative effects on the 

turtle from all the actions (prohibiting cross-country travel off of the NFTS, adding facilities 

to the NFTS, changing the type of use on NFTS routes, changing the season of use on 

NFTS routes, implementing mitigation measures) of all the alternatives are described. The 

effects of human-caused mortality, including those from vehicle collisions and amending 

the Forest plan, were considered in the effects analysis (Chapter 3.11, Aquatic Biota, 

Effects Common to All Aquatic Wildlife; Chapter 3.11, Western Pond Turtle). Additional 

discussion as to effects on the western pond turtle of the proposed Forest Plan amendment 

has been added to the EIS and the BA/BE. 

d.	 Only existing unauthorized routes, created through cross-country travel, are being 

considered for inclusion into the system. The stream crossings are already in existence. 

There would be a decrease in stream crossings by all routes in suitable foothill yellowlegged frog habitat from the existing condition of 347 crossings. Additional information has 

been added to the EIS (3.11 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog) to make the effects clearer. In the 

Environmental Consequences section for this frog (Chapter 3.11, Foothill Yellow-legged 

Frog), both positive and negative effects on the turtle from all the actions (prohibiting crosscountry travel off of the NFTS, adding facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of use on 

NFTS routes, changing the season of use on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation 

measures) of all the alternatives are described. Based on the analysis, the effects on the 

species from this project are not considered significant. 

e.	 The description of the direct and indirect effects from Alternative 3 on the foothill yellowlegged frog reflects that the alternative’s effects are more beneficial to the frog than those of 

the other alternatives. Table 2.05-8 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects also 

displays this. In Table 3.11-39 Ranking of Alternative Indicators (Foothill Yellow-legged 

Frog), Alternative 3 is shown as the best for the frog relative to all the indicators used in the 

analysis. 

f.	 On Forest Service projects, a journey-level biologist is required to make a determination on 

whether the project is likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability 

for a species designated as Sensitive. In the Environmental Consequences section for this 

species (Chapter 3.11, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog), both positive and negative effects on 

the frog from all the actions (prohibiting cross-country travel off of the NFTS, adding 

facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of use on NFTS routes, changing the season of use 

on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation measures) of all the alternatives are described. 

Based on the analysis, the determination for the foothill yellow-legged frog, found in the 

Summary of Effects section in the EIS, was that the project was not likely to result in either 

a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species. 

g.	 Chapter 3.11 defines suitable habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog as “all perennial 

streams, lakes, and ponds above 5,500 feet in elevation” (Chapter 3.11, Mountain Yellowlegged Frog). These features are easily identified on the maps for the different alternatives. 

An individual could use a map showing contours to draw a general boundary for the 

elevation, and transfer that boundary to the alternative maps, in order to identify the specific 

654 
 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

routes within suitable habitat. This would take some effort on the part of the individual. The 

specific routes within suitable habitat are also part of the project record. 

h.	 The presence of all species is commonly assumed if there is suitable habitat present. This 

assumption has been added to the list of assumptions in Chapter 3.11. While the displayed 

information separated occupied from suitable habitat, the overall analysis is based on the 

effects on both types of habitat. 

i.	 In the Environmental Consequences section for this species (Chapter 3.11, Western Pond 

Turtle), both positive and negative effects on the turtle from all the actions (prohibiting 

cross-country travel off of the NFTS, adding facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of 

use on NFTS routes, changing the season of use on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation 

measures) under all the alternatives are described. Additional discussion as to effects on the 

western pond turtle of the proposed Forest Plan amendment has been added to the EIS and 

the BA/BE. Based on this analysis, the effects on the species from this project are not 

considered significant. The determination was that, in considering the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the project alternatives (1, 2, 4 and 5) combined with the cumulative 

effects, the project was not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of 

viability for this species. 

The complete effects analysis for the aquatic species is documented in Chapter 3.11, Aquatic 

Biota). The effects analysis for this species is sufficient for the Forest Supervisor to make a 

reasoned decision on this project. 

430. Comment: The CRLF historically occurred from the California coast, throughout the Central Valley 

and into the Sierra Nevada foothills. There are no recent (<40 years) occurrences on the Stanislaus 

(USFWS 2002). Despite significant survey efforts, there have been no recent observations of the 

CRLF within the project area. The CRLF is not known to occur in the project area. Therefore, the 

Forest Service should not assume that CRLF will be located in suitable habitat. 

4200 4201 

Response: Chapter 3.11 also states that herptofauna surveys, including those for the red-legged 

frog, “have used a generalized visual encounter method (Fellers and Freel 1995) and have not 

been conducted according to the most recent CRLF protocol (USFWS 2005) nor have they 

covered all aquatic habitat within the project area” (Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged Frog). 

The presence of all species is commonly assumed if there is suitable habitat present. This 

assumption has been added to the list of assumptions in the EIS. The EIS now states, “This 

analysis takes a conservative approach in assuming that there is a low possibility that suitable 

habitat is occupied” by the CRLF. 

431. Comment: Open roads provide easier access for cattle in suitable and occupied mountain yellowlegged frog and Yosemite toad habitat. Additional human, motor vehicle, and livestock activity in the 

area of the Tamarack, Liberty Hill, Spicer Reservoir, and Calaveras Dome quads will cause further 

displacement, habitat fragmentation, and adverse effects on behavior and health (such as increasing 

stress hormones). Damage from these sources already occurs regularly in suitable and occupied 

habitat. The Chytid fungus is widespread on the Forest. It has the potential to affect every Yosemite 

toad population on the Stanislaus. Additional routes and changes in occupied habitat will increase 

adverse effects on the mountain yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad. 

3819 3820 

Response: The effects of the described factors were considered for all species as part of the 

cumulative effects analysis (Chapter 3.11, Cumulative Effects for each species). For the 

Yosemite toad, the cumulative effects analysis also included the following: ultraviolet radiation; 

bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens including the chytrid fungus; acidification from 

655 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

atmospheric deposition; agrochemical deposition (pesticides, fertilizers); recreational activities; 

vegetation management; and drought. The cumulative effects analysis for the mountain yellowlegged frog looked at these, as well as the introduction of salmonid fishes during the last 

century. As the commenter and the EIS state, the direct and indirect effects of the project 

alternatives would likely contribute to cumulative effects for these species. However, although 

the action alternatives may result in additional cumulative impacts, those effects are very minor 

in comparison to other factors affecting these species (Chapter 3.11, Mountain Yellow-legged 

Frog, Cumulative Effects; Yosemite toad, Cumulative Effects). 

432. Comment: The EIS should include data that demonstrate that adverse effects to the western pond 

turtle would be minimized, and that support a decision of “no effect” on the western pond turtle if the 

Forest Plan amendment for western pond turtle is incorporated. 

2181 

Response: The effects of the project, including the effects of amending the Forest Plan with 

regards to this species were analyzed (Chapter 3.11, Western Pond Turtle and the BA/BE). 

Additional discussion as to effects on the western pond turtle of the proposed Forest Plan 

amendment has been added to the EIS and the BA/BE. Based on the effects analysis, the 

determination was that the project “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species for the 

western pond turtle” (BA/BE). The determination was summarized as “the direct and indirect 

effects of the project alternatives, combined with the cumulative effects, are not likely to result 

in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.” 

433. Comment: Surveys for the American Pika may also need to be done. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has recently announced that this species will be considered for federal protection. Portions of 

the Tamarack and Spicer Meadow Reservoir quads contain many rocky slopes in proximity to 

meadows which could be suitable or even occupied habitat for the American Pika. 

2181 

Response: On May 7, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a status review of the 

American pika to determine if listing of the species is warranted. The Forest Service is not 

required to survey for this species unless it is proposed for listing by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which has not been done. The species is found usually at elevations of 8,000 to 13,500 

feet. Approximately 0.25 mile of routes in the project area occur at 8,000 feet or above. 

8.52 Law, Regulation and Policy 

434. Comment: The Forest should consult with the USFWS if any alternative besides Alternative 3 is 

chosen. The DEIS identifies impacts to several listed species from continued OHV use on the Forest, 

and so consultation with the FWS is necessary to avoid extinction of species or adverse modification 

of critical habitat. This cannot be avoided simply because a chosen alternative may have fewer 

impacts than the status quo. 

2706 

Response: The Forest Service has consulted with the USFWS. The USFWS agreed that, by 

using the Project Design Criteria (PDC) the Forest Service and the USFWS developed for each 

of the Threatened and Endangered species and Critical Habitat, route designation would meet 

“No effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determinations. The USFWS 

would concur with these determinations on a programmatic basis. Forest consultation can tier to 

this programmatic consultation with no further consultation. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 follow 

the PDC for all listed species, except in the case of Alternatives 1 and 4 for the CRLF. Chapter 

2.03 of the DEIS states: “The following requirements apply to the action alternatives: 2. RLF 

656 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

USFWS Consultation: Forest Service consultation with the USFWS to comply with Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act.” No further consultation is required for other listed species. 

Documentation of the consultation is provided in the project BA/BE. 

435. Comment: The route additions under Alternatives 1 and 4 that do not comply with the USFWS PDC 

for red-legged frog would require further consultation with the FWS. The selected alternative should 

be in full compliance with those PDC. 

2180 2703 

Response: Chapter 2.03) states: “The following requirements apply to the action alternatives: 

2. RLF USFWS Consultation: Forest Service consultation with the USFWS to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.” Discussion of the effects on the CRLF, including the 

effects of including routes in the NFTS which do not comply with the PDC, is found in Chapter 

3.11, California Red-legged Frog and the BA/BE. The Forest Supervisor will consider the 

effects analysis, along with all other effects analyses and mandated requirements (including the 

results of further consultation with the USFWS if those routes would be included in the system) 

before making a decision. 

436. Comment: The Forest Service is required by its regulations and management plans to monitor the 

populations of Management Indicator Species (MIS) and other wildlife. 36 CFR Sec. 219.9 requires 

that the population trends of MIS be monitored. These regulations require that “the Forest Service 

identify MIS, monitor their population trends, and evaluate each project alternative in terms of the 

impact on both MIS habitat and MIS populations.” The Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738 (9th 

Cir. 2004). Because the Stanislaus Land Management Plan (LMP) was adopted and amended 

pursuant to these regulations, the regulations continue to govern management and apply to the Travel 

Management project. Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Tippin at 15.v. The Forest Plan as 

amended includes monitoring requirements, including the requirement that population trends of 

certain MIS be monitored annually. The Plan includes the monitoring originally specified in the 1991 

LMP, as well as the additional monitoring for Forest Sensitive Species, MIS, and species at risk 

(SAR) identified in Appendix E of the 2001 Sierra Nevada forest Plan Amendment. The Forest 

Service has failed to comply with these requirements. 

3580 3581 

Response: 36CFR Sec. 219.14 states, “For units with plans developed, amended, or revised 

using the provisions of the planning rule in effect prior to November 9, 2000, the Responsible 

Official may comply with any obligations relating to management indicator species by 

considering data and analysis relating to habitat unless the plan specifically requires population 

monitoring or population surveys for the species. Site-specific monitoring or surveying of a 

proposed project or activity area is not required, but may be conducted at the discretion of the 

Responsible Official.” As stated in the Motorized Travel Management MIS Report, the MIS are 

identified in the Forest LMP (USDA 1991), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS 

Amendment (MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The 

bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the Stanislaus National Forest’s MIS is found in that 

ROD. Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is identified for all twelve of the terrestrial MIS. In 

addition, bioregional scale population monitoring, in the form of distribution population 

monitoring, is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. (The 

greater sage grouse is not a MIS for the Stanislaus.) For aquatic macroinvertebrates, the 

bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat. The current 

bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the MIS is discussed in the 

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). The MIS report for the Stanislaus’ Motorized Travel 

Management project analyzes the effects of the project on the habitats for the MIS, discusses 

657 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for the MIS which could be affected by the 

project, and relates project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at 

the bioregional scale for these MIS. 

There is no legal requirement to monitor SAR. The 2007 MIS Amendment stated that SAR are 

not part of any monitoring plan. Under the 2007 MIS Amendment and Appendix E of the 2001 

Framework, there are no specific monitoring or analysis requirements for SAR. 

437. Comment: The Forest Service proposal to allow trail construction and increased motorized vehicle 

use in areas heavily utilized by rare wildlife and identified as important for those species does not 

meet goals and objectives set by the Forest Plan. 

3569 

Response: The Forest is not proposing to construct trails or increase motorized use. It is 

proposing to prohibit cross country travel, add some unauthorized routes (which already exist) 

to the NFTS system, change the type of use on some NFTS routes, change the season of use on 

NFTS routes, and implement mitigation measures. The Forest goals (documented in the Forest 

Plan Direction) relevant to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife are as follows: 

- Maintain or increase diversity of plants and animals, with a balance of vegetation types 

currently represented on the Forest which best provide for meeting the resource goals and 

objectives of the Forest Plan. 

- Provide habitat for viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish and 

plants. Maintain and improve habitat for Threatened and Endangered species and give 

special attention to sensitive species to see that they do not become federally listed as 

Threatened or Endangered. 

The management goals are derived from the Forest goals. Objectives in the Forest Plan are 

planned, measurable results that respond to the general goals of the Plan. The Forest objectives 

for fish and wildlife include such things as number of bald eagle pairs, number of peregrine 

pairs, acres of direct habitat improvement for deer, and acres of direct habitat improvement for 

all other wildlife. They don’t pertain to the project. The action alternatives for this project don’t 

affect the diversity of plants or animals. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the action 

alternatives may affect individuals of many rare species, but they are not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for any of those species (Chapter 3.11). Thus, 

the project is in line with the Forest goals. 

438. Comment: The Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan direction of 2004 states that the Forest 

Service is to “place a higher priority on road closure and decommissioning in the habitat of the 

species most sensitive to open roads. The highest priority areas should generally be Spotted Owl 

Protected Activity Centers, Forest Carnivore Territories, and Critical Deer winter Range,” and that 

“open road decisions should be reduced in Designated Forest Carnivore Territories to meet current 

FLRMP Standards and Guidelines.” It also states that completion of unclassified road inventory will 

identify road management opportunities to improve wildlife protection. How do the proposed 

changes which would open roads fulfill these directives? 

3812 3813 

Response: Where it was not superseded by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 

the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan direction of 2004 was incorporated into the current 

Forest Plan. The quoted statements are not from the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan 

direction of 2004 or the current Forest Plan. The Forest Plan requires the Forest to “Provide 

special measures to protect nests [active nests of spotted owl, fisher, marten, goshawk, great 

gray owl, and western pond turtle] discovered close to motorized trails or 4WD routes where 

658 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

needed for nesting success” and, within Fisher/Marten reproductive areas identified in the 

Forest Plan, to “Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized 

vehicles only where compatible with the road/trail density standards below, and where approved 

in the fisher/marten area management plan.” The Forest Plan does not give explicit route 

density standards for fisher or marten reproductive areas. The Forest Plan does not address road 

closure or decommissioning in deer winter range. Chapter 3.11 shows that the total miles of 

routes is reduced under the action alternatives in spotted owl, goshawk, and great gray owl 

PACs, and in fisher, marten, and western pond turtle habitat. Additional information has been 

added to the EIS to make the effects clearer. The reduction in mileage, in conjunction with 

seasonal closures, would provide a level of protection to nests of these species. 

439. Comment: The current plan and DEIS have a legal and management obligation to err on the side of 

at-risk species, such as the fisher, western pond turtle, CA red-legged frog, and foothill yellow-legged 

frog, when it comes to considering trade-offs with OHV recreation, increased motorized use on roads, 

or other social benefits for a small percentage of forest visitors. 

4552 3663 

Response: The Forest Service is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to 

“utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the 

natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision 

making which may have an impact on man's environment.” The Decision Maker is legally 

required to consider all alternatives. The effects analyses for wildlife, recreation resources, and 

society, culture, and economy are documented in Chapters 3.04, 3.06 and 3.11). 

440. Comment: The proposed action fails to follow the 1991 LMP limiting route density in deer winter 

range. 

3573 

Response: Where it was not superseded by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 

the 1991 LMP direction was incorporated into the current Forest Plan. The 1991 LMP did not 

address route density specifically in deer winter range. Neither does the amended Forest Plan. 

441. Comment: Regulations designed to protect the fisher and associated late-successional forests on 

public lands in the Sierra Nevada consists of “furbearer networks” designated on some of the Sierra 

Nevada National Forests, and consideration for fishers under Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

that were adopted in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The Forest Service is not 

following this direction to limit road and trail density in the project area. 

3569 

Response: Within Fisher/Marten reproductive areas identified in the Forest Plan, the Plan 

directs the Forest to “Construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized 

vehicles only where compatible with the road/trail density standards below, and where approved 

in the fisher/marten area management plan.” However, no explicit road/trail density standards 

are given in the Plan. 

The action alternatives reduce total route densities in suitable habitat for fisher and marten 

(Chapter 3.11, American Marten and Pacific Fisher). Additional information has been added to 

the EIS to make the effects clearer. 

442. Comment: The Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan Direction of 2004 states, “The 

overall road density of 3.3 miles of open roads per square mile is considered high from a wildlife 

perspective because of road-associated factors such as mortality, disturbance, habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, reduction of habitat components and negative edge effects.” The proposed additions 

and changes (especially under Alternative 1) don’t comply with this Forest Plan directive. Big Prather 

659 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Meadow and surrounding areas are part of a designated forest carnivore territory. According to the 

Forest Roads Analysis of 2003, existing road densities exceeded Land Management Plan Standards in 

40% of designated forest carnivore territories across the Forest. The proposed action and some of the 

alternatives would not bring the forest into compliance with this standard. The Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines of the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan states, “Construct new roads or trails 

or use existing off-road routes for motorized vehicles only where compatible with the road/trail 

density standards below, and where approved in the fisher/marten area management plan.” The 

proposed action does not comply with the plan, nor have we seen evidence that these specific areas 

(Near Natural and Wildlife Management areas on the Tamarack and Liberty Hill quads) have been 

approved under the Fisher/Marten Area Management Plan. 

3806 3807 3808 3809 

Response: Where it was not superseded by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 

the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan direction of 2004 was incorporated into the current 

Forest Plan. The first quoted statement (the one beginning, “the overall road density”) is not 

from the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan direction of 2004 or the current Forest Plan. 

There is no route density given in the Forest Plan for fisher or marten reproductive areas. All 

action alternatives reduce the number of miles of open routes on the ground. The resulting route 

density under those alternatives is less than the existing density, including unauthorized routes, 

in fisher habitat (3.13 miles/square miles—this information has been added to the EIS). 

443. Comment: The Forest is urged to reduce the number of miles of additions in CASPO and NOGO 

PACs in order to comply with Forest Plan Direction and to mitigate for disturbance to CASPO nest 

sites. 

4558 3663 

Response: No Forest Plan Direction calls for reducing the number of miles of additions in 

CASPO or NOGO PACs. The agency is directed to mitigate impacts where there is documented 

evidence of disturbance to a nest site of either species from existing road or motorized trail use 

(Chapter 3.11, California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk; BA/BE). Under all alternatives 

except Alternative 2 the miles of all routes would be reduced in CASPO and NOGO PACs from 

the existing mileage of 345.72 in CASPO PACs and 79.45 in NOGO PACs. Additional 

information, including documentation of a PAC-by-PAC analysis for the spotted owl and 

goshawk, has been added to Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE to make the effects clearer. The 

disturbance effects on these species are documented in Chapter 3.11, California Spotted Owl 

and Northern Goshawk and the BA/BE. 

444. Comment: The DEIS notes that motorcycle noise impacts on spotted owls is not conclusive at this 

point, but the assumption is made that spotted owls that experience significant disturbance at their 

nest site would likely move to another suitable nest site within the PAC. The DEIS concludes it is in 

compliance with Forest Plan Direction which mandates that the Forest mitigate for impacts where 

there is evidence of disturbance to the CASPO and NOGO nest sites from off highway vehicle route, 

trail, and road uses, because the Forest does not monitor for disturbance to nest sites. Rather, the 

DEIS should assume that there is disturbance to nest sites due to motorized recreation, as clearly 

shown in the literature cited within the DEIS. 

2691 2692 4558 3663 

Response: Chapter 3.11 states that there could be disturbance to nest sites (Chapter 3.11, 

California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk). Documentation of a PAC-by-PAC analysis for 

the spotted owl and goshawk has been added to the EIS and BA/BE and more clearly presents 

contribution each action alternative could make to the level of disturbance within PACs. The 

660 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Forest Plan mandates mitigation when there is documented evidence of disturbance. It does not 

mandate mitigation when disturbance to nest sites is assumed. 

445. Comment: The DEIS incorrectly concludes that this plan is in compliance with Forest Plan 

Direction because it does not disturb den sites. The Forest does not survey for den sites, yet marten 

populations persist in the Stanislaus National Forest. Therefore, there clearly are den sites scattered 

throughout the suitable habitat acres of the Forest. This DEIS should assume that there are den sites 

that are being disturbed, especially within designated furbearer territories and where marten have 

been detected through furbearer surveys. 

4553 3663 

Response: Chapter 3.11, American Marten and the project BA/BE assume that den sites do 

occur within the project area. The determination from the effects analysis is that the additions of 

the routes would not likely result in disturbance to den sites. The routes already exist on the 

ground, den sites are specifically selected by the species, and, as verified by field review for this 

and other projects, there are many suitable denning locations throughout the project area. So 

the species can select and perhaps already has selected den sites that are not disturbed by motor 

vehicle travel. 

8.53 Species Protection 

446. Comment: Wildlife are killed by moving vehicles, including high-speed travel on forest roads, and 

especially on state and county roads. Motorized travel should be limited to animal-friendly speeds by 

policy. Motorized vehicle travel, except when intersecting state and county roads and highways, 

should be kept at least one thousand (1,000) feet away from state highways and maintained county 

roads. This should give frightened animals a chance to exit the area without having to cross highspeed routes. 

2383 

Response: The effects of motorized vehicle use in the Forest as a whole on species of concern, 

including that of human-caused mortality, is documented in Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE. 

447. Comment: The Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan Direction of 2004 lists the level of 

environmental risk for routes. There are specific significant concerns for at least three routes located 

in the Tamarack and Liberty Hill quads. The environmental risk for 5N02 is stated as “high.” The 

significant concerns are stated as “Primary route 52 up to 5N14: Do not encourage traffic beyond 

5N14.” The environmental risk for 5N14 is stated as “high.” The significant concerns are “watershed 

concern: unpaved or hydrologically connected road segments, insloped road with ditch gullies, ERFO 

flood damage site, in State Game Refuge; road kill risk and winter disturbance risk increase with 

traffic and speed. In Designated Carnivore Territory or known locality.” The environmental risk for 

6N08 is stated as “high.” The significant concerns given are “Watershed concern: unpaved 

hydrologically connected road segments; wildlife concern: this road is in an area useful for forest 

carnivore migration. Emphasize control of minor roads nearby for protection from disturbance and 

poaching.” The environmental risk for 7N01 is stated as “high.” The significant concerns are stated as 

“In Designated Forest Carnivore Territory or known locality.” How do the proposed changes to these 

routes and on routes connected with these routes support the Forest Service’s own concerns? 

3810 3811 3812 3813 

Response: Where it was not superseded by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 

the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan direction of 2004 was incorporated into the current 

Forest Plan. The quoted statements aren’t from the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan 

direction of 2004 or the current Forest Plan. The miles of routes are being reduced under all the 

action alternatives, including in areas key to forest carnivores and mule deer. Mitigations have 

661 
 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

been proposed for routes being added to the NFTS that have been identified as having 

watershed and soils concerns. Additional information has been added to the EIS (3.11) to make 

the effects clearer. 

448. Comment: Seasonal closures should be based with a view to the weather, as well as openings of 

fishing and hunting seasons, rather than on pre-determined dates. These should be listed on-line as 

timely as feasible to help people plan their activities. 

3562 

Response: As stated in Chapter 2.04 (item e), seasonal closures are used to reduce wildlife 

disturbance, reduce soil compaction during wet weather, and provide for public safety by 

closing routes during wet winter weather conditions when general motorized travel is 

considered unsafe. Some wildlife activities are triggered by day length rather than weather, so 

using weather as the determinant might cause individual animals to be exposed to disturbance 

when they are still sensitive. A set date can provide better protection. The dates of seasonal 

closures were proposed with consideration of fishing and hunting seasons, while still attempting 

to meet the reasons for which the closures were proposed. 

449. Comment: Having trails routed through Protected Activity Centers, placing trails with disregard for 

winter deer range, and having multiple stream crossing are deleterious to wildlife and their habitats. 

3663 

Response: No new routes are being constructed. Only unauthorized existing routes, created 

through cross-country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. The loss of 

habitat from these routes has already occurred. This EIS documents the environmental analysis 

for these routes. There would be no additional changes to the amount of habitat under any of 

the alternatives (Chapter 3.11, Assumptions Specific to Terrestrial and Aquatic Species) except 

Alternative 2. Under that alternative, because route proliferation would continue, habitat might 

be lost (Chapter 3.11, Direct and Indirect Effects, Alternative 2 for each species; BA/BE, MIS 

Report). The habitats for great gray owl prey and aquatic species may be affected through 

sedimentation into streams and/or through effects on meadows. The proposed mitigation 

measures would reduce these effects (Chapter 3.10). The effects of the mitigation measures in 

relation to wildlife habitat are discussed in Chapter 3.11,Great Gray Owl; Aquatic Biota, the 

BA/BE, and the MIS Report. The effects of disturbance on species of concern are documented 

in Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE. Additional information has been added to the EIS to make the 

effects clearer. 

450. Comment: Priority for motorized recreation should not be given over resource protection for at-risk 

wildlife species. Negative impacts to sensitive species such as spotted owl, goshawk, great gray owl, 

fisher, mule deer, and marten are not adequately mitigated or avoided. Routes should not be 

designated in California spotted owl or goshawk activity centers. These species would benefit from 

the effort to maintain and develop old forest emphasis areas. Many other forest bird species, 

especially migratory songbirds, are sensitive to habitat fragmentation and human intrusion. They are 

negatively affected by roads and trails that fragment old forest habitat, decrease the amount of interior 

forest habitat, and increase edge effect. 

2696 3569 

Response: No new routes are being constructed. Only unauthorized existing routes, created 

through cross-country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. The loss of 

habitat from these routes has already occurred. This EIS documents the environmental analysis 

for these routes. There would be no additional loss of habitat, no increase in habitat 

fragmentation, and no increase in edge effect under any of the alternatives (Chapter 3.11, 

Assumptions Specific to Terrestrial and Aquatic Species) except Alternative 2. Under that 

662 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

alternative, because route proliferation would continue, habitat might be lost (DEIS, Direct and 

Indirect Effects, Alternative 2 for each species; BA/BE, MIS Report). The effects of disturbance 

on species of concern are documented in Chapter 3.11 and the BA/BE. Additional information 

has been added to the EIS to make the effects clearer. 

451. Comment: In reference to the critical winter range, the Forest Service stated that seasonal closures 

are either ineffective or not in place. If the Forest Service feels that seasonal closures are ineffective in 

one of the highest priority wildlife areas, will the closures be effective in other high priority and 

general areas? 

3814 

Response: The current method of seasonal closure is by gates or some other block of individual 

routes. Often users find a way around the block. By closing an elevation zone, enforcement 

would be more efficient. 

452. Comment: The mule deer in the area covered by the Spicer Meadow, Calaveras Dome, Liberty Hill, 

and Tamarack quads depend on access to certain water sources. Adding or opening routes in the area 

will further fragment their habitat and prevent them from accessing some of these water sources, 

especially in the late summer and fall. 

3821 

Response: No new routes are being constructed. Only unauthorized existing routes, created 

through cross-country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. The loss of 

habitat from these routes has already occurred. This EIS documents the environmental analysis 

for these routes. There would be no increase in habitat fragmentation over the existing 

situation. Habitat overall and access to water sources would be improved by decreasing the 

miles of existing routes (223.7 miles in summer concentration areas and 20.85 in critical 

summer range), and by closing some NFTS routes that are currently open. Under the alternative 

with the most miles added to the NFTS (Alternative 4), the total mileage would be 189.37 miles 

in summer concentration areas and 15.56 in critical summer range (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). 

Additional information has been added to the EIS to make the effects clearer. Opening routes 

could decrease access to water sources. However, as cited in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer, Boroski 

and Mossman (1998) found that human disturbance did not impede mule deer use of water 

sources. The effects on deer from opening routes, as well as the other proposed activities, in 

summer concentration areas and critical summer range were analyzed in Chapter 3.11. 

453. Comment: As stated in the DEIS, changes in habitat may reduce the fitness of individuals within a 

deer herd. The DEIS also states that low fawn recruitment throughout the Sierra Nevada has 

continued to be a factor in their population decline. There is evidence which suggests or shows that a 

number of individual mule deer occupying the area covered by the Spicer Meadow, Calaveras Dome, 

Liberty Hill, and Tamarack quads may already have compromised health. 

3821 

Response: Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer) discusses the effects of changes in habitat use, not 

changes in habitat, on fitness. No new routes are being constructed. Only unauthorized existing 

routes, created through cross-country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. 

The loss of habitat from these routes has already occurred. This EIS documents the 

environmental analysis for these routes. There would be no additional changes in habitat under 

any of the action alternatives, except for a minor increase in habitat from the discontinued use 

of those unauthorized routes which would not be added to the NFTS. The effects of the 

alternatives on the fitness of deer were analyzed and documented in Chapter 3.11. 

663 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

454. Comment: The Forest Plan Direction clearly states that critical winter deer range may be closed 

from 11/15 to 4/15. While the Forest comes close to this recommendation, it proposes a seasonal 

closure from only 11/30 to 4/1. In light of the declining deer populations on this Forest, the Forest 

should adopt the seasonal closures recommended in Alternative 5 to provide greater deer protection. 

4560 3663 

Response: The Forest Plan does not require that critical winter range be closed from 11/15 to 

4/15. The Plan does allow a closure of that length. 

The effects on deer of the different proposed seasonal closures are analyzed in Chapter 3.11. 

455. Comment: For Alternative 1 and Mule Deer, the DEIS states, "Actions proposed in this alternative 

would not likely result in measurable increases in human-caused mortality, but would likely increase 

disturbance to some mule deer within the project area. Increases in road densities and percentages of 

habitat influenced by motorized vehicles on summer and winter range would likely result in increased 

disturbance to some individuals." Table 3.11-20 shows that Alternative 1 would not create major 

increases in effects indicators for Mule Deer, but there would still be increased disturbance by 

increasing use within summer concentration areas, within summer critical range, within winter 

concentration areas, and within critical winter range. All four of these important habitat areas would 

end up with increased disturbance if the Proposed Action Alternative 1 is approved. Disturbance 

levels would be even higher for all four of the concentration areas or critical range areas under 

Alternative 4, while both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would "reduce potential disturbance to mule 

deer.” It is clear that increased motorized use, especially in the winter concentration areas, would 

result in increased disturbance to mule deer within the Stanislaus Forest. 

4562 4563 3663 

Response: All the action alternatives reduce the existing total route density across the Forest, 

including in summer and winter range. It would be reduced from the existing level of 2.85 in 

critical winter range, 3.48 in winter concentration areas, 0.84 in critical summer range, and 1.19 

in summer concentration areas (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). The action alternatives would reduce 

the percentage of habitat influenced by motorized vehicles in these ranges. Additional 

information has been added to the EIS to make the effects clearer. Based on the indicators used 

in the analysis, disturbance to deer would be decreased under any of the action alternatives. The 

effects analysis for this species is documented in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

456. Comment: Perry and Overly (1977) found that even native surface roads significantly reduced deer 

use of adjacent meadow habitats to one-half mile away, indicating that motorized routes through 

meadow habitats of the Stanislaus are likely to reduce the suitability of these important habitats for 

deer. Maddox stated, “Unfortunately, deer herd composition counts, kill data, and summer range 

observations all point to extremely poor fawn survival within the Stanislaus deer herd. There has been 

a general, long-term downward trend in fawn recruitment and deer numbers within this herd since at 

least the 1970s . . . Changes we may need to adopt might include modification to our . . . summer 

recreational use patterns . . .” 

2678 2679 4564 3663 

Response: Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer, recognizes the population trend of mule deer: “Mule deer 

populations throughout the western United States, including the Sierra Nevada of California, 

reached their peak in the middle of the 20th century and have since declined (Beck 1999, 

Salwasser et al. 1978). More recently, mule deer populations (estimated by buck harvest and 

winter range counts) within the project area have been stable to slightly decreasing and below 

management objectives (CDFG 1980, CDFG 1984).” The total route density in critical winter 

range, winter concentration areas, critical summer range, and summer concentration areas is 

reduced under all alternatives from the existing level of 2.85 in critical winter range, 3.48 in 

664 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

winter concentration areas, 0.84 in critical summer range, and 1.19 in summer concentration 

areas. The effects of motorized use in deer winter concentration areas, critical deer winter range, 

deer summer concentration areas, and critical deer summer range, including meadow habitats, 

were analyzed in Chapter 3.11. 

457. Comment: Because of the cumulative impacts on deer, the selected alternative should clearly reduce 

motorized impacts on deer, rather than add incrementally to motorized use in critically important 

habitat areas. 

2682 

Response: No new routes are being constructed. Only unauthorized existing routes, created 

through cross-country travel, are being considered for inclusion into the system. Disturbance 

from these routes is on-going. This EIS documents the environmental analysis for these routes. 

All of the action alternatives decrease motorized use under the existing situation. The total route 

density in critical winter range, winter concentration areas, critical summer range, and summer 

concentration areas is reduced under all alternatives from the existing level of 2.85 in critical 

winter range, 3.48 in winter concentration areas, 0.84 in critical summer range, and 1.19 in 

summer concentration areas. As described in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer, deer benefit under the 

action alternatives because of the prohibition on cross country travel, reducing mileage of 

routes, and instituting area-wide seasonal closures (as opposed to the current situation of some 

routes within an area being closed seasonally). 

458. Comment: OHV use of high-elevation areas (greater than 5,000 feet) has the potential to disturb 

does and young fawns during the fawning period (approximately June 1 through July 31). Prefawning does, later does, and young are extremely vulnerable to nutritional stress and to a seasonal 

peak in predation from bears. Disturbance from OHV use compounds these risks by flushing deer 

from cover, springs, and forage, and potentially exposes them to predators. To protect critical fawning 

areas, key areas should be identified and seasonal OHV restrictions, from June 1 through July 31, 

should be instituted, in conjunction with seasonal gate closures. A programmatic approach should be 

taken which can adapt shifting locations of critical habitat. Individual routes which pass near to key 

springs and fawning areas should be re-routed away from those features. 

3599 3600 

Response: The total route density in critical summer range and summer concentration areas is 

reduced under all alternatives from the existing level of 0.84 in critical summer range and 1.19 

in summer concentration areas. 

Rerouting of routes would require new construction. New route construction is outside the 

scope of the purpose and need for this project to make limited changes to the existing NFTS and 

to identify existing routes for addition to the NFTS (Chapters 1.03 and 2.04). If the need arises, 

additional routes can be closed with a decision by a line officer, based on the appropriate 

environmental analysis. The importance of summer range to deer and the effects of OHV use on 

deer on their summer range are discussed in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

459. Comment: Habitat quality on winter range (most of it located in Zone 1) can be expected to decline 

with more concentrated OHV use resulting from seasonal closures in Zones 2 and 3. Direct 

destruction of forage occurs where OHVs travel and trails can lead to erosion and changes in drainage 

patterns, resulting in further forage and soil loss. 

3593 

Response: Seasonal closures would affect approximately 73% of winter concentration areas 

and 73% of critical winter range (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). No new routes are being 

constructed. Only unauthorized existing routes, created through cross-country travel, are being 

665 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

considered for inclusion into the system. The loss of habitat from these routes has already 

occurred. This EIS documents the environmental analysis for these routes. There would be no 

additional changes in habitat under any of the action alternatives. There would be no 

destruction of forage on OHV routes, other than that which occurred when the routes were 

formed. Chapter 3.10 states that the existing amount of sedimentation would be reduced on 

routes added to the NFTS by implementation of site-specific and area-wide maintenance and 

mitigation measures. A summary of this information in relation to wildlife habitat has been 

added to Chapter 3.11. OHV route conditions are monitored periodically, and will continue to 

be so (see GYR Route Condition Monitoring in the project record). 

460. Comment: Adoption of the preferred alternative will clearly result in an increase in OHV use in the 

Lower Elevation Zone (Zone 1) when the Middle and Upper Zone (Zones 2 and 3) seasonal closures 

are in effect (i.e., from December 1 to May 15). The Lower Elevation Zone is also the location of 

critical deer winter range. Migratory deer are concentrated in this zone during the winter period 

(October to mid-May). Cold weather, migration, breeding, and early pregnancy all stress the 

condition of wintering deer. The additional stress of OHVs would presumably exacerbate these 

inherent stresses and contribute to poor condition in late-term does and ultimately lead to increased 

mortality and poor fecundity. 

3593 3595 3596 

Response: A seasonal closure for Zone 1 was considered, but not proposed. Zone 1 consists of 

the lowest elevations on the Forest. Most of the roads in that zone access private land. Almost 

all the routes are Highway Legal Only. Seasonal closures would affect approximately 73% of 

winter concentration areas and 73% of critical winter range (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). Chapter 

3.11, Mule Deer covers the importance of critical winter range to deer and the effects of OHV 

use on deer on their winter range. The effects of motorized use in deer winter concentration 

areas and critical deer winter range were analyzed in the same section. 

461. Comment: It is recommended that OHV use in areas of identified critical winter range be restricted 

from December 1 to May 15. In addition, roads leading to sensitive winter range areas should be 

closed for street-legal vehicles by seasonal gate closures. A system to address gate closures and OHV 

closures that can adapt to changing conditions (fire, timber harvest, succession, etc.) should be 

incorporated into the planning process. 

3597 3603 

Response: Subpart B of the final travel management regulations (36 CFR 212) requires 

designation of time of year when each individual route can be used. Rather than having specific 

designations for each route, so requiring specific closure methods (such as gates) and specific 

signing, the interdisciplinary team for this project recommended closures by area. By using area 

closures, all routes within a zone can be closed. This approach is more efficient and less 

expensive than closing individual routes. There would be no need to respond to the changing 

conditions such as described by the commenter because an area would have the same seasonal 

closure whatever the conditions. Seasonal closures would affect approximately 73% of winter 

concentration areas and 73% of critical winter range (Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer). The season of 

use varies between alternatives. The effects of motorized use, including that of seasons of use, 

in deer winter concentration areas and critical deer winter range were analyzed in Chapter 3.11. 

462. Comment: The Deer Creek area has been proposed as an OHV area despite the significant deer herd 

in that area. Too many OHVs in that area will negatively impact them and other sensitive species, and 

also increase the opportunity for conflict with property owners who live in that area. 

2324 

666 
 

 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Response: No new areas are being proposed for OHV use. No new routes are being 

constructed. Only unauthorized existing routes, including those in the Deer Creek area, are 

being considered for inclusion into the system. Disturbance from these routes is on-going. This 

EIS documents the environmental analysis for these routes. All of the action alternatives 

decrease motorized use under the existing situation. 

The Deer Creek area is partly in critical winter range and partly in winter concentration areas. 

The total route density in critical winter range and winter concentration areas is reduced under 

all alternatives from the existing level of 2.85 in critical winter range and 3.48 in winter 

concentration areas. Additional information has been added to the EIS (3.11 Mule Deer) to 

make the effects clearer. The effects of motorized vehicle use in the Forest as a whole on 

species of concern is documented in Chapter 3.11, the BA/BE and the MIS Report. The effects 

on private property owners are discussed in Chapters 3.04, 3.06, and 3.08. 

463. Comment: Removing all OHV use from the Deer Creek, Rose Creek, and Eagle Creek areas of the 

Mi-Wok District would be best for deer and other at-risk wildlife species. 

4818 3663 

Response: The effects of motorized vehicle use in the Forest as a whole on species of concern 

is documented in Chapter 3.11, the BA/BE and the MIS Report. 

464. Comment: It may well be that the Forest needs to identify a special winter closure period for Deer 

Creek that is NOT the exact same Season of Use closure that would apply uniformly across the rest of 

the Elevation 2 zone. That would be easy to post, sign, and note on the MVUM map. 

4566 3663 

Response: The proposed seasons of use were developed considering several impacts, including 

disturbance to wildlife species. The effects on deer of the seasonal closures are documented in 

Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

465. Comment: The DEIS notes, “Yarmoloy et al. (1988) found significant reductions in fawn 

production from does which were intentionally harassed by ATVs [all-terrain vehicles) . . . Low fawn 

recruitment is the factor that likely caused declines in the latter part of the 20th century throughout the 

Sierra Nevada and the factor that is currently attributed to limiting herd growth within the project area 

(Salwasser et al. 1978, Maddox 1984).” The DEIS shows that there would be increased disturbance 

by increasing use within summer concentration areas, within summer critical range, within winter 

concentration areas, and within critical winter range. Any benefit to the small percentage of Forest 

visitors who favor OHV use must be considered in balance with the negative impact that such use 

would create for mule deer in the Forest. It would be ideal for OHV use to be excluded from the Deer 

Creek and Rose Creek basins, especially during the winter use season. 

2674 2675 2676 

Response: As Chapter 3.11 notes, in the referenced study the does with significant reductions 

in fawn production were intentionally harassed by ATVs (emphasis added). In that study 

Yarmoloy et al. (1988) found that “all deer habituated to the ATV traveling along a predictable 

route. Even when the ATV departed from the predictable route of travel, the habituated deer 

continued to ignore it . . . This implies that deer will habituate to and ignore motorized traffic 

provided the deer are not pursued.” Thus, an increase in disturbance does not necessarily lead to 

a decrease in fawn recruitment. It depends on the disturbance level to which the deer are 

subjected. The total route density in critical winter range, winter concentration areas, critical 

summer range, and summer concentration areas is reduced under all alternatives from the 

existing level of 2.85 in critical winter range, 3.48 in winter concentration areas, 0.84 in critical 

summer range, and 1.19 in summer concentration areas; so, motorized use would not increase in 

667 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

deer areas (Chapter 3.11). Additional information has been added to the EIS to make the effects 

clearer. The Deer Creek and Rose Creek basins are partly in critical winter range and partly in 

winter concentration areas. The Deer Creek area is within Elevation Zone 2. Under Alternatives 

1, 4, and 5 the area would be closed during most, if not all, of the deer winter use season. 

Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer, compares the amount of disturbance between alternatives using 

indicators based on route mileage. 

466. Comment: The DEIS failed to consider the Central Sierra Watershed Analysis (CSWA) specifically 

in terms of the concerns of the Stanislaus National Forest regarding OHV use and deer winter range 

disturbance on the Mi-Wok Ranger District in Rose Creek and Deer Creek. According to Appendix H 

of the CSWA, combined road/trail densities above 2 miles per square mile are at the upper level of 

desired conditions from critical winter deer range. The DEIS shows the average density of routes in 

critical winter deer range currently at 2.33 miles/square mile. The proposed route additions would 

increase with the route density to 2.61 miles/square mile. While these numbers alone conflict with the 

CSWA recommendations, the DEIS fails to disclose individual road and route densities for different 

areas of critical winter deer range. The relatively lower densities of some polygons drive down the 

average, but one critical winter deer range in Deer Creek sees incredibly high road densities. Using 

GIS, it was calculated that implementation of the proposed action will bring the road and route 

density in Deer Creek to over 6 miles per square mile. This is over three times the recommended 

density in the CSWA document, and such a road density will very likely drive this deer population 

further into decline. Only by reducing the proposed route additions in the Deer Creek critical winter 

deer range and increasing the seasonal closure to the dates suggested in Alternative 5 can the Forest 

reasonably mitigate for potentially significant effects on our local deer herd. The Central Sierra 

Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) urges the Forest to take those protective actions. 

4561 4562 3663 3573 3309 

Response: The existing route density shown in Chapter 3.11 is the density of NFTS routes. All 

the action alternatives reduce the total route density across the Forest, including in the Deer 

Creek area. The total route density in critical winter range and winter concentration areas is 

reduced under all alternatives from the existing level of 2.85 in critical winter range and 3.48 in 

winter concentration areas. Additional information has been added to the EIS (3.11 Mule Deer) 

to make the effects clearer. The Deer Creek and Rose Creek basins are partly in critical winter 

range and partly in winter concentration areas. If there are future declines in the deer 

population, the declines can not be attributed to an increase in route density from this project 

since route density would not increase under any of the action alternatives. The effects analysis 

for this species, including the effects of different route densities and the effects of different 

seasonal closures, is documented in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

467. Comment: In a 2007 comment letter responding to the Forest’s motorized travel management 

planning process, Jim Maddox recommended curtailing motorized vehicle use, except for that 

necessary for area administration, within the area west of Crandall Peak and east of 2N63 (the South 

Fork Road). This area includes the area that comprises the upper Deer Creek, Rose Creek and Knight 

Creek watersheds, as well as the area east of Forest Road 4N01 to Schaeffer Meadow. 

2679 4564 3663 

Response: The total route density in critical winter range and winter concentration areas is 

reduced under all alternatives from the existing level of 2.85 in critical winter range and 3.48 in 

winter concentration areas. The area described is partly in critical winter range and partly in 

winter concentration areas. Thus, the motor vehicle use would either remain the same or be 

reduced in that area. Additional information has been added to the EIS to make the effects 

clearer. The effects on deer of motorized vehicle use are documented in Chapter 3.11 Mule 

Deer. 

668 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

468. Comment: In the area west of Crandall Peak and east of 2N63 (the same area as described in the 

previous comment), Maddox recommended that the season of use should be April 15 to November 

15. Only Alternative 5 provides the recommended season of use. Under Alternative 1 the season of 

use would be April 1 to November 30, and under Alternative 4 it would be April 1 to December 31, 

neither of which meets Maddox’s recommendation. It is essential that the Forest comply with the 

recommendation unless there is scientific evidence or such a compelling need to open a particular 

motorized route that the impacts to deer and its declining population does not rank as a higher priority. 

2679 2680 4564 4565 3663 

Response: The proposed seasons of use were developed considering several impacts, including 

disturbance to wildlife species. The effects on deer of the seasonal closures are documented in 

Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

469. Comment: It is essential that the Forest take action to minimize OHV disturbance to the declining 

deer population. CSERC's recommended alternative would benefit that objective by pulling OHV use 

out of a major portion of the Deer Creek basin, pulling some amount of OHV trail use out of the 

Knight Creek and Eagle Creek areas, and by returning to the Forest's own recommended Highway 

Legal Only management direction for the Bourland - Bell -Reynolds area of the Mi-Wok District. 

4566 3663 

Response: The total route density in critical winter range and winter concentration areas is 

reduced under all alternatives from the existing level of 2.85 in critical winter range and 3.48 in 

winter concentration areas. Additional information has been added to the EIS (3.11 Mule Deer) 

to make the effects clearer. The effects on deer of the different mileage of routes proposed 

under the alternatives are documented in Chapter 3.11, Mule Deer. 

470. Comment: The eastern block of the Mi-Wok District has high value for furbearers, for summer and 

fall deer range, for migratory songbirds, and for non-motorized quiet recreation. It contains the 

Bourland Meadow-Critchfield Research Natural Area, and it provides the best current opportunity for 

fisher to re-occupy habitat on the Mi-Wok District. The high value furbearer habitat in the Reynolds 

Creek basin, Bourland Creek basin, Rock Creek basin, and on Bell Mountain, all contained in that 

eastern block, are where the 2007 OHV Route Designation plan set aside a zone for Highway Legal 

Only motorized use to assure (in part) that furbearer habitat would not be unduly disturbed by OHV 

noise and disturbance. The low density of roads and trails in the block is part of the reason it offers a 

quiet yet accessible place for non-motorized recreation and part of the reason why it has a high habitat 

value for rare old forest associated species that have been shown to be sensitive to road density, such 

as fisher, marten, and deer. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 would both allow “All Motorized” vehicle 

use on the extensive road system that lies to the east of 3N01 across that broad block of the Mi-Wok 

District. New motorized trail use would be authorized on previously unauthorized routes on the 

crown of Bell Mountain. That broad zone (stretching from Bell Mountain down through the Reynolds 

Creek drainage) should be put back into “no OHV use” designation category in the EIS and the Final 

Decision. There should not be any “All Motorized” use allowed in that broad area in order to benefit 

at-risk furbearer and raptor species and to also provide for non-motorized recreational use. This area 

should remain free of OHV trails. With the broad western portion of the Mi-Wok District south of 

Highway 108 mostly shown as open to OHV use, and the area around Cherry Lake also planned for 

intensive OHV use, it is both fair and ecologically valuable to keep the eastern block of the Mi-Wok 

District Highway Legal Only. While a small number of deer hunters in the fall may desire to use 

ATVs in this belt of forest, there are other deer hunters who strongly desire to hunt in an area off 

limits to OHVs during hunting season. Keeping this area Highway Legal Only provides for both 

opportunities, with the majority of the Mi-Wok District open to OHV use. OVH users can now 

legally ride on 1,735 miles of gravel and dirt roads and an additional 95 miles of trails. 

4556 3663 3569 3570 3728 3729 

669 
 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: With a few differences, Alternative 5 follows the concept discussed in the comment. 

Only existing routes, including those in the Bourland and Rock Creek areas are being 

considered for inclusion into the system. Thus, the density of routes across the Forest would go 

down under any of the alternatives, and not increase anywhere on the forest. Additional 

information has been added to the EIS (3.11) to make the effects clearer. The low density of 

roads and trails in the block described in the comment would either remain the same or be 

reduced. The effects of motorized vehicle use on species of concern, including that in the block 

described in the comment, is documented in Chapter 3.11, the BA/BE and the MIS Report. The 

effects of the alternatives on non-motorized use are documented in Chapter 3.04. 

471. Comment: The Forest should not add any unauthorized routes or open any closed roads within 

Forest designated furbearer territories so as to best protect habitat and to prevent further disturbance to 

American marten, Pacific fisher, wolverine, and Sierra Nevada red fox. There is literature not 

summarized in the DEIS showing that wolverine, fisher, and marten alike are correlated with road 

densities less than 1 mile per square mile, and populations may begin to decline in road densities 

greater than 2.7 miles per square mile. 

4554 3663 

Response: The total route density in marten habitat under the alternatives ranges from 2.64 

(Alternative 5) to 2.86 (Alternative 4) miles per square mile (Chapter 3.11, American Marten; 

BA/BE). This is less than the existing density, including unauthorized routes, in marten habitat 

(3.82 miles/square miles—this information has been added to the EIS). The total route density 

in fisher habitat under the action alternatives ranges from 2.28 (Alternative 5) to 2.49 

(Alternative 4) miles per square mile (Chapter 3.11, Fisher; BA/BE). This is less than the 

existing density, including unauthorized routes, in fisher habitat (3.13 miles/square miles—this 

information ahs been added to the EIS). The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on marten 

and fisher of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS, opening closed routes, and closing open 

routes (including unauthorized routes) are discussed in Chapter 3.11, American Marten and 

Pacific Fisher and BA/BE. 

472. Comment: Route additions and changes may have significant adverse effects on carnivore 

individuals and populations. 

3815 3816 

Response: In the Environmental Consequences section for marten and fisher species (Chapter 

3.11, American Marten, Pacific Fisher and in the BA/BE, both positive and negative effects on 

these rare carnivores from all the actions (prohibiting cross-country travel off of the NFTS, 

adding facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of use on NFTS routes, changing the season of 

use on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation measures) of all the alternatives are described. 

Based on this analysis, the effects on the species from this project are not considered significant. 

473. Comment: While individual sightings of fisher have been reported to Forest biologists over the past 

decade, no current proof of fisher presence has been clearly established. Thus, any additional threat to 

the fisher must be given even greater consideration. Adequate protective measures and mitigation 

requirements in the EIS must be prioritized in order to prioritize benefits for the enhancement of 

fisher habitat values and the quiet setting that would best ensure vigorous re-establishment of fisher 

populations in the Stanislaus National Forest. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) fails to provide 

sustainable management direction that would adequately protect furbearer populations in general and 

the Pacific fisher in particular. The fisher is moving through the Endangered Species Act listing 

process, and has high potential to drive management direction in suitable habitat across large areas of 

the region. The Groveland and Mi-Wok Districts of the Stanislaus National Forest have been 

discussed by Regional fisher researchers as important areas for re-establishing fisher populations 

north and west of Yosemite National Park. In particular, the belt of forest on the Groveland and Mi670 
 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

Wok districts that lies close to Yosemite Park and extends along the eastern portion of those two 

districts is vitally important as suitable fisher and American marten habitat. 

2247 2248 4555 3663 2688 

Response: Total route density in marten habitat and fisher habitat, and thus disturbance on 

marten populations and potential re-established fisher populations, would decrease under all the 

action alternatives (Chapter 3.11, American Marten and Pacific Fisher). The route density, 

including routes not part of the NFTS (for example, private roads, county roads), in marten 

habitat under the action alternatives ranges from 2.64 (Alternative 5) to 2.86 (Alternative 4) 

miles per square mile (Chapter 3.11, American Marten; BA/BE). The existing density, including 

unauthorized routes, in marten habitat is 3.82 miles/square miles. The route density, including 

routes not part of the NFTS, in fisher habitat under the action alternatives ranges from 2.28 

(Alternative 5) to 2.49 (Alternative 4) miles per square mile miles per square mile (Chapter 

3.11, Fisher; BA/BE). The existing density, including unauthorized routes, in fisher habitat is 

3.40 miles/square miles. This information has been added to the EIS to make the effects clearer. 

More discussion on the effects of the alternatives on possible re-establishment of fisher on the 

Forest has also been added. The effects analysis for these species is documented in Chapter 

3.11, American Marten and Pacific Fisher. 

474. Comment: Only Alternative 3 is considered to provide beneficial impacts to the California spotted 

owl. Given that the owl has been elevated to a level of high concern by the Pacific Southwest Region 

of the Forest Service, there is even greater importance for the Stanislaus Forest to select a final 

alternative that poses the least risk of disturbance to PACs utilized by the California spotted owl. 

2693 

Response: The effects on spotted owls are documented in Chapter 3.11, California Spotted 

Owl. 

475. Comment: The DEIS states that the likelihood of owls flushing from a nest due to noise or 

disturbance is greater when disturbance occurs within 60 meters (Delaney et al. 1999, Swarthout and 

Steidl 2001). Disturbance to the CA spotted owl while the birds are on their nest within the PAC is 

clearly a negative impact that the Forest has the ability to control when it comes to where to approve 

or to reject approval for unauthorized OHV routes. 20.34 miles of routes in Alternative 1 are proposed 

as additions to the NFTS within PACs. Another 4.23 miles of motorized OHV trails would be added 

within PACs. Fifty–three PACs (24% of the PACs in the project area) would be intersected by routes 

added to the NFTS or by roads converted to OHV trails. Sixteen percent of spotted owl PACs occurs 

within a 400-meter “zone of influence” of routes added to the NFTS or ML1 roads converted to 

motorized trails. This adds up to a tremendous amount of negative disturbance within protected 

activity centers that are specifically identified as critical habitat areas for the California spotted owl. In 

Northern Goshawk (NOGO) PACs, the Forest also proposes to add routes and open closed roads 

within the boundaries of 12% of the Forest’s NOGO PACs. 

2691 2692 2693 4557 3663 

Response: The route mileage in spotted owl PACs is reduced under all action alternatives from 

the existing level of 345.72 miles. Currently 188, or 86%, of PACs are intersected by routes, 

both those in the system and unauthorized routes. Under Alternative 1, the number of PACs 

intersected by NFTS routes would be 185 or 85%. Seventy-nine percent of spotted owl PAC 

acreage currently occurs within a 400-meter “zone of influence” of all routes. Under Alternative 

1, it would be reduced to 69%. Additional information has been added to the EIS (3.11 

California Spotted Owl) to make the effects clearer. Currently 89% of Northern Goshawk 

(NOGO) PACs have routes in them. Under Alternative 1 that would be reduced to 80%. 

Additional information has been added to the Northern Goshawk section in to make the effects 

671 
 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

clearer. Documentation of a PAC-by-PAC analysis for the spotted owl and goshawk has also 

been added to the EIS and BA/BE. As shown in Chapter 3.11, California Spotted Owl, the 

percentage of all activity centers occurring within 60 meters of routes added to the NFTS or 

routes converted from ML1 to trails is 1% or less under each of the action alternatives. 

Although disturbance from motorized use of routes would impact individuals and some 

reproducing spotted owl pairs over the short-term, they would not result in impacts to 

populations within the project area over the short or long-term because there is the potential to 

affect reproduction in only 1% of the PACs (Chapter 3.11, California Spotted Owl). For the 

goshawk, since only 7% of the PACs would have routes added or converted from closed to open 

within 400 meters of the activity center and since it is believed that disturbance within 400 

meters of the activity center would be likely to affect goshawk reproduction in a limited number 

of PACs, it is concluded that the alternative would not result in impacts to populations within 

the project area over the short or long term. The effects on the two species are documented in 

Chapter 3.11 California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk. 

476. Comment: Route closures and/or relocation of routes that are located in great gray owl nesting, 

roosting, and fledging stands should be implemented during the breeding and fledging period for the 

great gray owl (approximately March 1 through September 30). Any impacts to this extremely rare 

species resulting in mortality or reduced reproduction are significant. 

3604 

Response: The miles of route in Great Gray Owl PACs is reduced under all action alternatives 

from the existing level of 9.85. Additional information has been added to the EIS (Chapter 3.11, 

Great Gray Owl) to make the effects clearer. The proposed seasonal closures would protect 90% 

of the Great Gray Owl PACs during the beginning of the breeding season (Chapter 3.11, Great 

Gray Owl; BA/BE). In the Environmental Consequences section for this species (Chapter 3.11, 

Great Gray Owl), both positive and negative effects on the owl from all the actions (prohibiting 

cross-country travel off of the NFTS, adding facilities to the NFTS, changing the type of use on 

NFTS routes, changing the season of use on NFTS routes, implementing mitigation measures) 

for all the alternatives are described. Based on the analysis, the effects on the species from this 

project are not considered significant. 

477. Comment: The DEIS assumes that raptors will shift their nest sites away from locations subject to 

vehicle disturbance over time and therefore there would be no impacts to the great gray owl. 

Implementation of the preferred alternative with this assumption forming the impact assessment 

would result in a substantial loss of available nesting habitat and may be significant in the context of 

Forest-wide habitat availability. 

3603 3604 2691 2692 

Response: The assumption is based on the fact that many raptors, including great gray owls, 

shift nest sites within suitable habitat (BA/BE). Chapter 3.11, Great Gray Owl and the BA/BE 

document effects to the great gray owl. As stated, “The project alternatives could result in direct 

and indirect effects to the great gray owl.” Based on the analysis, the effects on the species from 

this project are not considered significant. 

478. Comment: Alternative 1 should be rejected because of the number of PACs subjected to some level 

of disturbance from routes going through PACs. 

2692 

Response: The route mileage in all PACs is reduced under all action alternatives. Additional 

information has been added to the EIS (3.11 California Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk, Great 

Gray Owl) to make the effects clearer. The effects analysis for species for which PACs have 

672 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

been established is documented in Chapter 3.11, California Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk, 

Great Gray Owl. 

479. Comment: OHV use can result in habitat degradation to meadows, meadow edges, springs, and 

streams. OHV use around OHV-user camp sites can degrade relatively large areas of vegetation and 

soil. 

3599 

Response: Chapter 3.10 Water states that the existing amount of sedimentation will be reduced 

on routes added to the NFTS by implementation of site-specific and area-wide maintenance and 

mitigation measures. In addition, hardening or boardwalks will be installed in other wet areas 

(i.e., seeps and springs) to protect them from damage. A summary of this information in relation 

to wildlife habitat has been added to the EIS, Chapter 3.11. 

480. Comment: The DEIS fails to provide balanced consideration for the impacts to aquatic species. A 

failure to err on the side of protecting at-risk aquatic species is a critical deficiency of the DEIS and 

Alternative 1. Examples follow: 

- The risk to individual frogs or western pond turtles is repeatedly deemed to be acceptable 

because the overall population would not clearly be reduced to a level where listing is 

required. Yet the trade-off for the harm to aquatic species is to please a small percentage of 

motorized recreational users who have ignored their harm to riparian habitat and aquatic 

species through many years of user-created trail construction that cuts right across suitable 

habitat for at-risk aquatic species. 

- Alternatives 1 and 4 would require an amendment to the Forest Plan, that would except 8.93 

(Alternative 1) or 9.32 (Alternative 4) miles of route (40 and 41 route segments, 

respectively) from the Standard and Guideline allowing construction or use of routes only if 

at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied western pond turtle habitat or where approved by a Wildlife 

Biologist. This weakening of the Forest Plan’s protection for at-risk wildlife species in 

order to expand motorized routes is neither consistent with public sentiment nor consistent 

with the goal of protecting Sensitive Species. 

- No unauthorized routes should be added to the motorized system if those routes do not fully 

comply with Standards and Guidelines protective language now in place for wildlife within 

the Stanislaus’ Forest Plan. 

2697 2702 2703 4571 4575 4576 3663 

Response: Discussion of the effects on the aquatic species, including the effects of amending 

the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines pertaining to the CRLF and the western pond turtle, is 

found in Chapter 3.11, Aquatic Species and the BA/BE. 

481. Comment: With specific exceptions listed in CSERC’s comments (and justifications for those 

exceptions), any approval of OHV use on the routes identified in Table 3.11-5312 (routes inconsistent 

with the Stanislaus Forest Plan for the CA red-legged frog and Table 3.11-5413 (routes inconsistent 

with the Stanislaus Forest Plan for the western pond turtle) is opposed. Approval of any Forest Plan 

amendments to either open up OHV use on unauthorized routes or to open any road now closed to 

public motorized use if it will potentially weaken protection for turtles or CA red-legged frogs is 

opposed. No unauthorized routes should be added to the motorized system if those routes do not 

comply with S&G protective language now in place for wildlife within the Stanislaus Forest LMP. 

4577 4578 3663 

673 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

Response: Discussion of the effects on the CRLF and the western pond turtle, including the 

effects of amending the Forest Plan, is found in Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged Frog and 

Western Pond Turtle and the BA/BE. 

482. Comment: The mountain yellow-legged frog moves overland at times to get to other ponds or 

aquatic habitats. Therefore, they would be at risk for collisions with motor vehicles. Many or most of 

the proposed additions and changes in the Tamarack, Liberty Hill, Spicer Reservoir, and Calaveras 

Dome quads are located directly adjacent to aquatic habitat suitable for this species. The Forest 

Service should not add and open routes within occupied habitat, especially since the species is 

currently a candidate for Federal listing. 

3817 3818 

Response: Under the action alternatives, there would be a decrease in mileage of all routes in 

occupied mountain yellow-legged frog habitat from the existing level of 1 mile, and of 33.04 

miles in suitable habitat not known to be occupied. Additional information has been added to 

the EIS (3.11 Mountain Yellow-legged Frog) to make the effects clearer. Under none of the 

alternatives would routes be converted from Maintenance Level 1 (closed) to an OHV trail 

within 30 meters (100 feet) of occupied habitat. There would be limited mileage of routes being 

converted from Maintenance Level 1 to an OHV trail within 30 meters of suitable habitat (0.63 

mile under Alternative 4, which has the greatest mileage of opening routes). Less than 1% of 

occupied or suitable habitat would be directly impacted by routes under any of the alternatives. 

A more detailed discussion of the seasonal movements of mountain yellow-legged frogs, and of 

the effects of the alternatives on the frog in relation to vehicle collisions when they might be 

moving overland, has also been added to the EIS. The effects analysis on the mountain yellowlegged frog, including the effects of vehicle collisions, is found in Chapter 3.11, Mountain 

Yellow-legged Frog and the BA/BE. 

483. Comment: No mitigation measures were proposed in routes associated with occupied mountain 

yellow-legged frog habitat 

3819 

Response: Chapter 3.10 Water states that the existing amount of sedimentation would be 

reduced on routes added to the NFTS by implementation of site-specific and area-wide 

maintenance and mitigation measures. In addition, hardening or boardwalks would be installed 

in other wet areas (i.e., seeps and springs) to protect them from damage. These measures would 

mitigate effects to mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. A summary of this information in 

relation to mountain yellow-legged frog habitat has been added to Chapter 3.11. Direct and 

indirect effects to the species would be reduced through adoption of any of the alternatives other 

than Alternative 2 (No Action) because miles of routes open to vehicles would be reduced and 

cross-country travel would be prohibited under Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. 

484. Comment: In the DEIS, the project's risk to individual frogs or western pond turtles is deemed to be 

acceptable because the overall population would not be reduced to a level where listing is required. 

That statement is unsupported; when the Forest has shared information that no known CRLFs are 

known to exist on the Forest. It would seem that ANY remnant population of the CRLF would be 

extremely important to protect. 

4570 3663 

Response: The effects analysis on the CRLF is found in Chapter 3.11, California Red-legged 

Frog and the BA/BE. 

485. Comment: The DEIS proposes Forest Plan amendments to allow OHV routes in western pond turtle 

habitat, inconsistent with the Forest Plan. Most of these Forest Plan amendments benefit a small 

674 
 

 

 

 

Motorized Travel Management Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments 

percentage of the Forest’s recreational users at the expense of wildlife, clean and clear water, and 

quiet recreation. With limited exceptions where the risk to turtles from recreational use is low enough 

to justify motorized use, the Forest Plan amendments to allow OHV routes in pond turtle habitat is 

unjustified. No routes should be approved that have high potential to affect habitat for this species. 

Following that criterion would eliminate the need for the majority of the proposed Forest Plan 

amendments connected to turtle habitat. 

4567 4568 3663 

Response: Discussion of the effects on the aquatic species, including the effects of amending 

the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines pertaining to the western pond turtle, is found in 

Chapter 3.11,Western Pond Turtle and the BA/BE. Additional discussion as to effects on the 

western pond turtle of the proposed Forest Plan amendment has been added to the EIS and the 

BA/BE. 

9.00 ENFORCEMENT 

486. Comment: Individuals, organizations, and adjacent land owners hope to have an active role in 

assisting the Forest Service in route evaluation, monitoring, and operation and maintenance of routes, 

increasing successful partnerships between the Forest Service and the communities it serves. 

1782 3273 4001 

Response: A Travel Management Law Enforcement Plan will be completed that includes an 

enhanced volunteer and partnership program assisting the Forest Service in the management and 

operations and maintenance of the Forest NFTS. This plan will supplement the final EIS. 

487. Comment: Enforcement and management of a larger designated OHV trail system is a major issue 

that is inadequately addressed. The DEIS fails to demonstrate how enforcement on the NFTS will be 

accomplished. Past experiences demonstrate that without intense enforcement violations will continue 

causing adverse impacts to surrounding areas and resources. 

1858 1959 2182 2183 2362 2443 2501 

2776 2785 2795 3571 3668 3669 3672 

3682 3835 3907 4072 4296 4341 4579 

3670 4584 

Response: Completion of the EIS will provide necessary regulations, currently unavailable, 

enabling the enforcement of off route use and cross country travel prohibitions. A Travel 

Management Law Enforcement Plan will be completed that addresses enforcement needs and 

procedures. This plan will supplement the final EIS. 

488. Comment: The Stanislaus currently has existing cross country travel prohibitions, route restrictions, 

seasonal route closures, and extensive authority under Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

part 261.9, 261.15, and 261.56, to regulate motor vehicles use violations. If the Stanislaus is having a 

problem enforcing current rules and regulations, the creation of additional regulations is not going to 

solve any issues. Forest users, in general, are not causing major problems as most damage is the 

physical damage that occurs when vehicles are allowed to be driven off-road, particularly during 

periods of inclement weather. That is an issue that can and should be resolved by elevated 

enforcement effort, not by prohibition of other uses. 

3208 3216 3231 3300 3314 3671 

4276 4278 4580 4581 

Response: The 1991 Forest Plan and 1998 Motor Vehicle Travel Management Plan identify 

vehicle restrictions but lack necessary Forest Orders and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for 

675 
 

Appendix J Stanislaus 

Response to Comments National Forest
 

the enforcement of such restrictions. The EIS considers routes by season of use and vehicle type 

and will prohibit cross country travel Forest wide in all alternatives but 2 (see Table 2.05-6). 

The final decision will enable the Forest to use 36 CFR 261.13 for enforcement. 

489. Comment: A much smaller system of routes in concentrated use areas is the only viable solution to a 

manageable system of OHV routes. Considering the precedent of ongoing resource impacts and 

inability to successfully administer the OHV program, there is no substantiation that the Forest 

Service can have a maintained and enforced system as dispersed and as large as alternative 1 

proposes. 

2610 4298 4299 

Response: The EIS does not add any newly constructed routes to the NFTS. Only existing and 

currently used routes are proposed for designation. Under the various alternatives, areas and 

routes currently available to OHV use will decrease (see Table 2.05-6). 

676